*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 3630.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  337 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 COMSAT  Corporation 
 Maritime  Telecommunications  Network,  Inc., 
 and  Williams  L.  Whitely  Petitions 
 For  Reconsideration 
 Pan  AmSat  Corporation  Application 
 For  Review 
 Comsat  Corporation  Notification  of 
 Corporate  Reorganization 
 Comsat  Corporation  Notification  of 
 Corporate  Reorganization 


 WILLIAM  L.  WHITELY 
 Request  for  Declaratory  Ruling 


 WILLIAM  J.  HALLENBECK 
 Request  for  Declaratory  Ruling 


 COMMITTEE  TO  RESTRUCTURE 
 THE  INTERNATIONAL  SATELLITE 
 ORGANIZATIONS 
 Petition  to  Enjoin  Comsat  Payment  of 
 Dividends  from  Retained  Earnings,  as  amended 
 Emergency  Petition  to  Enjoin  Comsat 
 From  Using  Legal  Process,  as  amended 


 BELCOM  MINORITY  SHAREHOLDERS 
 AND  CLAIMANTS  COMMITTEE 
 Petition  for  Investigation  and  Issuance  of  a 
 Declaratory  Ruling 


 PANAMSAT  CORPORATION 
 Petition  to  Reopen  Changes  in  the  Corporate 
 Structure  and  Operations  of  the 
 Communications  Satellite  Corporation 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 1-  SAT-  ISP-  96 
 99-  SAT-  ISP-  96 
 31-  SAT-  ISP-  97 
 196-  SAT-  ISP-  97 


 117-  SAT-  DR-  96 
 118-  SAT-  DR-  96 


 64-  SAT-  DR-  97 
 65-  SAT-  DR-  97 


 73-  SAT-  DR-  97 
 CC  Dkt.  No.  80-  634 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  337 
 2 
 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  September  7,  2000  Released:  September  13,  2000 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  a  “Request  for  Issuance  of  a  Corrected  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order”  and  a  “Petition  for  Investigation,  Sanctions  and/  or  Correct  Measures,”  both  filed  by 
 William  H.  Hallenbeck  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  to  Restructure  the  International  Satellite  Organizations 
 (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  Petitioner).  1  The  petitions  are  in  the  nature  of  requests  for  reconsideration  of 
 our  1998  Consolidated  Order  in  the  above-  styled  proceeding.  2  Comsat  Corporation  (Comsat)  filed 
 separate  oppositions  to  each  petition.  3  The  Petitioner  also  filed  untimely  a  “Response  to  Reply  of  Comsat 
 Corporation  and  Petition  for  Directed  Ruling  Based  on  Admission  Against  Interest  by  Comsat 
 Corporation.”  4  Comsat  filed  a  Motion  to  Strike  and  an  Opposition  to  this  pleading.  The  Petitioner  filed  a 
 Response  to  Comsat’s  Opposition  and  a  Supplement  to  its  Response.  For  the  reasons  stated  below,  we 
 deny  Petitioners  requests  for  reconsideration. 


 A.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  In  the  Consolidated  Order,  the  Commission  denied  various  petitions  previously  filed  by 
 the  Petitioner  alleging  violations  of  the  Communications  Satellite  Act  of  1962  and  Commission  policy  by 
 Comsat.  For  reasons  discussed  below,  we  deny  reconsideration  of  the  Consolidated  Order  and  other  relief 
 requested  by  the  Petitioner. 


 3.  The  Petitioner  reasserts  claims  it  made  in  past  petitions  that  Comsat  has  violated:  (1)  the 
 1962  Satellite  Act  by  not  obtaining  prior  Commission  authorization  to  acquire  control  of  Belcom,  Inc.,  a 
 Comsat  subsidiary  that  provides  telecommunications  services  in  other  countries;  and  (2)  Commission 
 structural  separation  requirements  through  misallocation  of  expenses  it  occurred  on  behalf  of  Belcom.  The 
 Petitioner  also  requests  us  to  “correct”  various  findings  and  statements  in  the  Consolidated  Order  that  it 
 maintains  are  in  error.  The  alleged  errors  include  mischaracterization  of:  (1)  FCC  oversight  responsibilities; 


 1  The  Petitioner  (also  known  as  Litigation  Trust  Recovery  (LTR)),  has  had  a  long-  standing  disagreement  with 
 Comsat  over  operation  of  Belcom,  Inc.,  which  is  controlled  by  Comsat.  Petitioner  represents  former  shareholders 
 in  Belcom.  Comsat  had  successfully  brought  legal  action  against  one  of  the  shareholders  in  Delaware  Chancery 
 Court,  for  breaching  his  fiduciary  duty  to  Belcom.  Belcom,  Inc.  v.  Scott  Robb,  Del-  ,  Civil  Action  No.  14663 
 (April  28,  1998).  The  Petitioner  states  that  it  is  appealing  that  decision. 


 2  In  re  Comsat  Corporation,  13  FCC  Rcd  2714  (1998)  (Consolidated  Order). 


 3  Comsat  also  filed  with  each  Opposition  a  “Motion  for  Acceptance”  of  its  pleading  because  the  petitioners’ 
 filings  are  not  specifically  contemplated  by  the  Commission’s  Rules. 
 4  The  response  filed  by  Litigation  Trust  Recovery,  William  J.  Hallenbeck  and  William  Whitely  was  filed  on  June 


 29,  2000  –  over  two  years  after  Comsat  filed  the  pleadings  to  which  it  responds.  Under  Section  1.46  of  the  Rules, 
 the  Petitioner  must  seek  permission  to  file  late  filed  pleadings  demonstrating  an  emergency  situation.  It  has 
 made  no  attempt  at  any  such  showing.  Moreover,  the  Petitioners  filings  appear  to  have  been  mailed  directly  to  a 
 Commission  staff  member  rather  than  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  the  FCC  pursuant  to  Section  1.106(  i)  of  the 
 Commission’s  Rules.  We  will  therefore  dismiss  the  filings  as  untimely. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  337 
 3 
 (2)  certain  proceedings  before  the  FCC;  and  (3)  the  nature  Comsat  divisions  and  subsidiaries  under  the 
 Commission’s  structural  separations  policy.  In  addition,  the  Petitioner  asks  us  to  consider  new  information 
 that  according  to  petitioner,  shows  that  Comsat  has  misallocated  legal  fees  that  should  have  been  borne  by 
 Belcom  under  Commission  structural  separation  requirements. 


 4.  In  opposition  to  the  Petitioners  “Request  for  Issuance  of  a  Corrected  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order,”  Comsat  points  out  that  the  Commission  does  not  make  editorial  corrections  to  its 
 orders;  that  the  “corrections”  requested  by  the  Petitioner  lack  decisional  significance;  and  that  Comsat  has 
 not  been  in  violation  of  the  Commission’s  structural  separation  requirements.  In  opposition  to  the 
 Petitioners  “Petition  for  Investigation,  Sanctions  and/  or  Corrective  Measures,”  Comsat  maintains  that  the 
 information  presented  by  the  Petitioner  demonstrates  that  it  has  complied  with,  rather  than  violated, 
 Commission’s  structural  separation  requirements,  and  requests  that  the  petition  be  denied. 


 B.  DISCUSSION 
 5.  The  Petitioner  fails  to  demonstrate  under  our  rules  that  we  should  entertain  reconsideration 
 of  our  Consolidated  Order  based  on  the  petitions  that  have  been  filed.  Section  1.106  of  our  Rules  provides 
 that  petitions  for  reconsideration,  which  rely  on  facts  not  previously  presented  to  the  Commission,  may  be 
 granted  only  if  consideration  of  the  facts  is  required  in  the  public  interest,  or  that  the  facts:  (1)  “relate  to 
 events  which  have  occurred  or  circumstances  which  have  changed  since  the  last  opportunity  to  present  such 
 matters,”  or  (2)  were  “unknown  to  the  petitioner  until  after  his  last  opportunity  to  present  such  matters 
 which  could  not,  through  the  exercise  of  due  diligence,  have  been  learned  prior  to  the  opportunity.”  5 


 6.  Nothing  in  the  Petitioner’s  “Request  for  Issuance  of  Corrected  Memorandum  Opinion  and 
 Order”  persuades  us  that  we  should  reconsider  the  Consolidated  Order.  Petitioner’s  allegations  of  error 
 either  are  without  merit  or  of  no  decisional  significance.  In  addition,  the  information  submitted  in  the 
 “Petition  for  Investigation,  Sanctions  and/  or  Corrective  Measures”  is  undated  and  apparently  excerpted 
 from  an  unidentified  document  from  the  records  of  Delaware  Chancery  Court  proceedings.  The  Petitioner 
 provides  no  explanation,  upon  which  we  could  reasonably  base  a  conclusion  that  the  information  was 
 unavailable  to  it  prior  to  the  last  opportunity  to  present  such  matters,  or  that  the  Petitioner  otherwise  could 
 have  become  aware  of  it  through  exercise  of  due  diligence.  Further,  there  is  no  public  interest  reason  to 
 grant  reconsideration  based  on  the  information.  The  information  consists  of  billing  records  apparently  for 
 work  performed  by  Comsat  attorneys  in  connection  with  proceedings  between  Comsat  and  Petitioners  in  the 
 Delaware  Chancery  Court.  Because  the  information  standing  alone  does  not  demonstrate  that  the 
 information  offer  falls  within  any  of  the  limited  circumstances  provided  for  in  Section  1.106  of  our  Rules, 
 the  Petitioner  may  not  rely  on  its  submission  as  a  basis  to  seek  reconsideration  of  our  Consolidated  Order. 


 7.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  “Request  for  Issuance  of  a  Corrected 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order”  filed  by  William  H.  Hallenbeck  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  to 
 Restructure  the  International  Satellite  Organizations  IS  DENIED. 


 8.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  “Petition  for  Investigation,  Sanctions  and/  or 
 Corrective  Measures”  filed  by  the  William  H.  Hallenbeck  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  to  Restructure  the 
 International  Satellite  Organizations  IS  DENIED. 


 9.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Comsat’s  Motion  for  Acceptance  of  Oppositions  to  the 
 Petitioners  filings  IS  GRANTED. 


 5  47  CFR  §  1.106(  b)(  2)  and  (c). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  337 
 4 
 10.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Comsat  Corporation’s  Motion  to  Strike  the  “Response 
 to  Reply  to  Comsat  Corporation  and  Petition  for  Directed  Ruling  Based  on  Admission  Against  Interest  by 
 Comsat  Corporation”  filed  by  Litigation  Trust  Recovery,  William  J.  Hallenbeck,  and  William  L.  Whitely 
 IS  GRANTED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 
4