Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-22 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
George L. Miller, Chapter 11 
Trustee, Reading Broadcasting, Inc.
Assignor
and
WRNN-TV Associates Limited
Partnership
Assignee
Application for Assignment of License of 
Television Station WTVE(TV),
Reading, Pennsylvania
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BALCT-20080125ACD
Facility ID No. 55305
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 17, 2009 Released:  March 18, 2009
By the Commission:
I.    INTRODUCTION
1. The Commission has before it for consideration an application for review filed by 
Philadelphia Television Network (“PTN”) of the letter decision by the Chief, Video Division, Media 
Bureau,1 granting the application to assign the license of WTVE(TV), Reading, Pennsylvania from 
George L. Miller, Chapter 11 Trustee for Reading Broadcasting, Inc. (“Trustee”) to WRNN-TV 
Associates Limited Partnership (“WRNN-TV”). For the reasons stated below, we deny the application for 
review and affirm the Letter Decision.
II.   BACKGROUND
2. On October 7, 2005, Reading Broadcasting, Inc., (“RBI”) sought protection from its 
creditors in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania (the “Bankruptcy Court”).  PTN was a creditor of RBI and a participant in the bankruptcy 
proceeding.  PTN and the Trustee filed competing plans with the Bankruptcy Court for resolving the 
claims against RBI.  The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Trustee’s Plan of Liquidation, which included 
the sale of the station to WRNN, and rejected PTN’s competing plan.  In its order, the Bankruptcy Court 
found that the Trustee’s plan was fair and equitable and met the “best interests of the creditors” test; that 
WRNN was financially capable of completing the purchase; and that it was likely that WRNN would 
fulfill its station asset purchase agreement, thereby rendering the Trustee’s plan feasible. 2 In rejecting 
  
1 Letter from Barbara A. Kreisman to George L. Miller, et al., re: WTVE(TV), Reading, Pennsylvania, 23 FCC Rcd 
7740 (2008) (“Letter Decision”).
2 Reading Broadcasting, Inc., __ B.R.__ (Bankr. E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2008).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-22 
2
PTN’s plan, the Bankruptcy Court found that PTN would not receive sufficient funding to effectuate its 
plan and that PTN’s plan proposal was not feasible and could not be confirmed.  PTN subsequently filed a 
motion asking the Bankruptcy Court to reconsider its order.  The motion for reconsideration was denied 
by the Bankruptcy Court on March 12, 2008.3 PTN appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and that appeal was dismissed on 
August 8, 2008.4 In a Supplement to its Application for Review, PTN stated that it intended to file an 
appeal of that decision.5
III.   DISCUSSION
3. In its Application for Review, PTN alleges that: (1) the Letter Decision was premature 
because the bankruptcy litigation had not been finally resolved at the time it was issued; and (2) WRNN 
has failed to demonstrate that it was financially qualified.
4. PTN’s contention that the Letter Decision was premature is based on two arguments.  
First, PTN contends that the Commission should not have acted on WRNN’s application until there was a 
“final resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding.”6 In support of its position, PTN cites several cases which 
it argues compel the Commission to adopt a “wait and see” attitude in respect to proceedings in a 
bankruptcy court or other court before entering its own decision.  In fact, each of the cases cited by PTN 
applies the well-established precedent that the Commission should avoid creating conflicts over matters 
within a federal or state court’s jurisdiction.7 In this case, the Letter Decision relied on an order of the 
Bankruptcy Court, which: (1) confirmed the Trustee’s Plan of Liquidation; (2) found WRNN financially 
qualified to proceed with the transaction; and (3) dismissed PTN’s competing plan.  This was a final order 
by the Bankruptcy Court, not an interlocutory decision.  The Video Division was not required to wait 
until PTN exhausted every conceivable interlocutory motion and possible route of appeal before granting 
the application.8  
5. PTN also contends that Letter Decision was premature because the application was in 
some way contingent on potential actions by the courts. Had the application been filed prior to the 
issuance of the order by the Bankruptcy Court, the application would have been contingent on the Court’s 
action.  Had the Court stayed its own order prior to the filing of the application, an argument could be 
made about the contingent status of the application.  Neither of those situations applied at the time the 
application was filed, apply now, or applied at the time of the Letter Decision.  Therefore, we find that the 
Letter Decision was not premature.
  
3 Reading Broadcasting, Inc., __ B.R.__ (Bankr. E.D. Pa, March 12, 2008).
4 Reading Broadcasting, Inc., Slip Opinion, No. 5:08-1775 (E.D. PA Aug. 8, 2008).
5 PTN Supplement at 2.
6 Application for Review at 6.
7 See Kralowec Children’s Family Trust, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19690 (Med. Bur. 1997) 
(Commission will not revisit issues previously considered and resolved by a bankruptcy court); LaRose v. FCC, 494 
F.2d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (Commission is obligated to protect innocent creditors as long as the transaction in 
question does not unduly interfere with objectives of the Communications Act); Listeners Guild v. FCC, 813 F.2d 
465 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Commission has long-standing policy to not become involved in private contractual disputes); 
Hanover Radio, Inc., 52 F.C.C. 2d 849 (Rev. Bd. 1982) (ALJ’s order was inconsistent with Commission policy 
“which seeks to avoid federal/state conflicts and recognizes valid local contract law.”).
8 WRNN reports that PTN’s motion for stay pending appeal was denied on March 21, 2008 and its motion for 
reconsideration of the order confirming the Trustee’s Plan of Liquidation was denied on March 12, 2008.  As noted 
above, PTN’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania was dismissed on August 8, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-22 
3
6. PTN’s second allegation is that WRNN failed to demonstrate that it was financially 
qualified.  As the Letter Decision correctly noted, an applicant is not required to provide documentation 
supporting its financial certification unless it is specifically requested to do so.9 In this particular case, the 
Bankruptcy Court, prior to the filing of the assignment application, had held that WRNN had 
demonstrated, under oath and following cross-examination, that it was financially capable of completing 
the purchase.10 Also, WRNN, in addition to indicating that it could fulfill its obligations without 
additional financing, produced a letter from Goldman Sachs which the Letter Decision found provided 
reasonable assurance of committed funding because any loan would be implemented by amending a 
preexisting crediting agreement between Goldman Sachs and WRNN and because the parties were fully 
aware of the terms of the loan. To determine whether there is reasonable assurance of financing, the 
Commission considers whether the borrower’s qualifications have been preliminarily reviewed by the 
bank, whether adequate collateral has been demonstrated, and whether the tentative terms are identified 
and acceptable to the borrower and the lender. 11 In this case, the financing at issue was an amendment to 
a preexisting credit arrangement between the two parties, which the Division reasonably found met the 
standard for supporting financial certification.  Furthermore, according to WRNN, Goldman Sachs did in 
fact provide the financing for the closing which took place on June 12, 2008.  Based on the foregoing, we 
find that PTN has failed to show that the Video Division failed to act inconsistently with statute, 
regulation, case precedent, or Commission policy, and, thus, we deny the Application for Review.
IV.   CONCLUSION
7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED That the application for review filed by 
Philadelphia Television Network  IS DENIED and the letter decision by the Chief, Video Division, Media 
Bureau, granting the application to assign the license of WTVE(TV), Reading, Pennsylvania from George 
L. Miller, Chapter 11 Trustee for Reading Broadcasting, Inc. to WRNN-TV Associates Limited 
Partnership, File No. BALCT-20080125ACD, IS AFFIRMED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
9 See Instructions for FCC Form 314 at 8.
10 Reading Broadcasting, Inc., __ B.R.__ (Bankr. E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2008).
11 See Liberty Productions, L.P., 7 FCC Rcd 7581 (1992)