URL's Vegas

URL 22: Czarra’s Maneuver 3—The “Access to the Transmission Site” Caper

URL 22: Czarra’s Maneuver 3—The “Access to the Transmission Site” Caper (In Chapter 32, page 155) (415 words) (cum words 14,635 words)

1. There is for consideration a Petition for Leave to Amend filed by Las Vegas Broadcasting Company (the challenger) on September 4, 1973, together with a Supplement filed by Valley on September 27, 1973, and response thereto. Valley seeks to show that it will have available $100,000 in stockholder loans to meet the cost of acquiring access to its proposed transmitter site.

2. In determining whether Valley should be permitted to amend, consideration must be given to the history of this proceeding. Valley’s financial qualifications were first placed in issue by an order of the Review Board released on March 9, 1973. Among the issues added by that order was one “to determine the cost, terms, and conditions which must be met by Valley to obtain access to is proposed transmitter site and their effect on its financial qualifications.”

3. Valley proposes a site which can be reached only over a road owned by a corporation in which Western Communications, Inc., has a 50 percent interest. Due to an understandable reluctance to facilitate the application of its competitor, Western did not seek to expedite talks on the sharing of the access road. Hence, it was not until a hearing session on July 25, 1973, that Valley was advised of the terms that it would be required to meet if it were to obtain the right to use the access road. Those terms included a cash payment “in the neighborhood of” $100,000.

4. Ordinarily in determining whether Valley has proceeded with due diligence in submitting the subject amendment, the time would be calculated from March 9, 1973, the date on which Valley knew it had to meet an issue as to transmitter site access. However, the situation presented here is out of the ordinary. For over four months after the issue was designated, Western’s refusal to authorize negotiations blocked Valley from moving to meet the issue. Under such circumstances, it would be wholly inequitable to now hear Western’s contention that Valley has not been diligent. In fact, only six weeks elapsed from the date on which Valley first learned of the terms it would have to meet and the date on which it sought to amend to show an ability to meet those terms. In short, what is involved is merely an amendment to meet a newly designated basic qualifications issue, and the applicant has proceeded with reasonable diligence.

Accordingly, it is decreed, that the subject petition is granted, and the amendment tendered therewith is accepted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *