Dear WG Members,
Re: private resolution of contention sets, I just wanted to mention again (as I did in chat on the last call) that apparently 90% of string contention sets were resolved before auction of last resort in the 2012
round. (My source for this is the CCWG Auction Proceeds group so let me know if you disagree on this statistic.) This means private resolution is by far “the rule” in resolving string contention.
It seems to me that promoting “joint ventures” of 2 or more applicants for the string will very easily result in “buy-outs” and “horse trading”. An applicant who really wants to win will need only to structure
a revised “change request” application in which (a) the other party becomes a “silent partner” or (b) is named a “key person” whose expertise is desirable and who serves on the Board or the Advisory Board at a certain consulting fee. The “silent partner”
and/or Advisory Board member agrees in exchange to withdraw the competing application. We should be thinking of ways to address this. I had suggested the possibility of the “losing” applicant being required to pay a fee into an Applicant Support fund upon
withdrawal of its application if it (or one of its principals) participates in the so-called “joint venture” revised application.
Separately, loose references to the organizational structure known as Joint Venture are probably ill-advised. That form of corporate structure is rarely pursued in this day owing to the high degree of risk of
liability taken on by each joint venturer for the acts or omissions of the other joint venturer(s). Whatever we recommend as a matter of policy, it might be better to adopt some sort of neutral terminology such as “ revised business combination applicant”
terminology.
Anne
|
Of Counsel |
|
520.629.4428 office |
|
520.879.4725 fax |
|
_____________________________ |
|
|
|
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP |
|
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 |
|
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 |
|
|
|
Because what matters |
|
to you, matters to us.™ |
