United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 15, 2001 Decided June 22, 2001

No. 00-1402

NextWave Personal Communications Inc. and

NextWave Power Partners Inc.,

Petitioners

v\.

Federal Communications Commission and

United States of America,

Respondents

BellSouth Corporation, et al.,

Intervenors

Consolidated with

00-1403

On Petition for Review and Notice of Appeal of

Orders of the Federal Communications Commission

Theodore B. Olson argued the cause for petitioners/appellants. With him
on the briefs were Thomas G. Hungar, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Ian Heath
Gershengorn and Lara M. Flint. Miguel A. Estrada entered an appearance.

William H. Crispin, Emanuel Grillo, David Friedman and Kenneth N. Klee
were on the brief for amici curiae Senator Robert G. Torricelli, et al.
in support of petitioners/appellants.

Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications
Commission, argued the cause for respondents/appellee. With him on the
brief were Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel, Joel Marcus and
Stanley R. Scheiner, Counsel, Jacob M. Lewis and H. Thomas Byron III,
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice. Stewart A. Block, Counsel,
Federal Communications Commission, entered an appearance.

Richard G. Taranto argued the cause for intervenors Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association, et al. With him on the brief
were Michael F. Altschul, L. Andrew Tollin, Robert G. Kirk, Craig E.
Gilmore, Douglas I. Brandon, Howard J. Symons, Sara F. Leibman, Louis
Gurman, Christa M. Parker, John T. Scott III, Mark L. Evans, Lawrence J.
Movshin, Michael Deuel Sullivan and H. Richard Juhnke. Matthew R.
Sutherland entered an appearance.

Before: Sentelle, Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Tatel.

Tatel, Circuit Judge: This case concerns the extent to which the
Bankruptcy Code limits a federal agency\--here, the Federal
Communications Commission\--acting to implement the provisions of its
own statute. Seeking to comply with its statutory duty to ensure small
business participation in auctions of broadband PCS licenses, the
Commission allowed winning bidders to pay for their licenses in
installments. As part of this scheme, the Commission took and perfected
security interests in the licenses, and provided for license
cancellation should a bidder fail to make timely payments. When
appellants, winning bidders on several licenses, declared bankruptcy and
ceased making payments, the Commission canceled their licenses. Applying
the fundamental principle that federal agencies must obey all federal
laws, not just those they administer, we conclude that the Commission
violated the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits
governmental entities from revoking debtors\' licenses solely for
failure to pay debts dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Commission, having
chosen to create standard debt obligations as part of its licensing
scheme, is bound by the usual rules governing the treatment of such
obligations in bankruptcy.

I

In 1993, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to authorize
the Federal Communications Commission to award spectrum licenses
\"through a system of competitive bidding.\" 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1). In
\"identifying classes of licenses and permits to be issued by
competitive bidding,\" and in \"designing the methodologies\" for such
bidding, Congress directed the Commission to promote several objectives,
including \"the development and rapid deployment of new technologies,
products and services,\" the \"recovery for the public of a portion of
the value of the public spectrum resource made available for commercial
use,\" and the \"efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic
spectrum.\" Id. § 309(j)(3). Congress also directed the Commission to
\"promot\[e\] economic opportunity and competition and ensur\[e\] that
new and innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American
people by \... disseminating licenses among a wide variety of
applicants, including small businesses \[and\] rural telephone
companies.\" Id. § 309(j)(3)(B). To further this last goal, Congress
directed the Commission to \"consider alternative payment schedules and
methods of calculation, including lump sums or guaranteed installment
payments \... or other schedules or methods.\" Id. § 309(j)(4)(A).

Acting pursuant to this statute, the Commission adopted rules to auction
licenses for \"broadband PCS\"\--\"personal communications services in
the 2 GHz band.\" In re Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 p 1 (1994). The Commission expected
broadband PCS to \"provide new mobile communications capabilities\"
through \"a new generation of communications devices\" including
\"small, lightweight, multi-function portable phones, portable facsimile
and other imaging devices, new types of multi-channel cordless phones,
and advanced paging devices with two-way data capabilities.\" Id. p 3.
The Commission \"determined that the use of competitive bidding to award
broadband PCS licenses, as compared with other licensing methods, would
speed the development and deployment of new services to the public and
would encourage efficient use of the spectrum,\" as required by statute,
since \"auctions would generally award licenses quickly to those parties
who value them most highly and who are therefore most likely to
introduce service rapidly to the public.\" Id. p 5. The Commission
expected the PCS license auction to \"constitute the largest auction of
public assets in American history,\" recovering \"billions of dollars
for the United States Treasury,\" and thus fulfilling another statutory
mandate. Id. p 1.

As directed by Congress, the Commission adopted a variety of measures to
promote small business ownership of PCS licenses, including setting
aside two blocks of licenses, the \"C\" and \"F\" Blocks, for bidding by
entities with annual gross revenues and total assets below specified
amounts. Id. p 12. Especially relevant to this case, the Commission
allowed \"most successful bidders within the \[C and F Blocks\] to pay
for their licenses in installments.\" Id. p 16. Observing that \"the
primary impediment to participation \[in license auctions\] by
designated \[small business\] entities is lack of access to capital,\"
id. p 10, the Commission concluded that \"installment payments are an
effective means to address the inability of small businesses to obtain
financing and will enable these entities to compete more effectively for
the auctioned spectrum.\" Id. p 135. \"By allowing payment in
installments,\" the Commission stated, \"the government is in effect
extending credit to licensees, thus reducing the amount of private
financing needed prior to and after the auction.\" Id. p 136. The
Commission also announced that \"\[t\]imely payment of all installments
will be a condition of the license\[ \] grant and failure to make such
timely payment will be grounds for revocation of the license.\" Id. p
138.

In 1995, a group of former telecommunications executives founded
NextWave Personal Communications Inc. and NextWave Power Partners Inc.
(collectively \"NextWave\"), appellants in this case, for the purpose of
bidding on PCS licenses and operating a personal communications service.
NextWave\'s founders hoped the company would become a \"carrier\'s
carrier,\" selling wireless services and airtime wholesale. Appellants\'
Opening Br. at 5. At C Block auctions in May and July, 1996, NextWave
bid \$4.74 billion in total, winning sixty-three licenses. The company
made a \$474 million down payment. Several months later, the Commission
granted NextWave its licenses, took a security interest in each, and
filed UCC financing statements to perfect its claims. The security
agreements gave the Commission \"a first lien on and continuing security
interest in all of the Debtor\'s rights and interest in \[each\]
License.\" Security Agreement between NextWave and FCC p 1 (January 3,
1997). The licenses included the following language: \"This
authorization is conditioned upon the full and timely payment of all
monies due pursuant to \... the terms of the Commission\'s installment
plan as set forth in the Note and Security Agreement executed by the
licensee. Failure to comply with this condition will result in the
automatic cancellation of this authorization.\" FCC, Radio Station
Authorization for Broadband PCS 2 (issued to NextWave January 3, 1997).

After the Commission awarded the C Block licenses, several successful
bidders, including NextWave, experienced difficulty obtaining financing,
having agreed to pay on average almost three times what winning bidders
in the prior A and B Block auctions had paid, and several times what
winning bidders in subsequent D, E, and F block auctions paid. In
response, the Commission suspended installment payment obligations for C
Block licensees, and then issued two Restructuring Orders, offering a
variety of revised financing options that allowed C Block licensees to
surrender some or all of their licenses for full or partial forgiveness
of their outstanding debt. See In re Amendment of the Comm\'n\'s Rules
Regarding Installment Payment Fin. for Pers. Communications Servs.
Licensees, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 12 FCC Rcd 16436 p p 6, 32-69 (1997); In re Amendment of the
Comm\'n\'s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Fin. for Pers.
Communications Servs. Licensees, Order on Recons. of the Second Report
and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 8345 p p 11-15 (1998); see also In re Amendment of
the Comm\'n\'s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Fin. for Pers.
Communications Servs. Licensees, Second Order on Recons. of the Second
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 6571 (1999). None of the restructuring
options allowed licensees to keep any of their licenses for less than
the full bid price. See In re Amendment of the Comm\'n\'s Rules, Order
on Recons., 13 FCC Rcd 8345 p 8. According to the Commission, these
options balanced the goals of introducing new spectrum services rapidly
and promoting small business participation in PCS auctions against the
need to maintain auction integrity and treat unsuccessful bidders
fairly. See In re Amendment of the Comm\'n\'s Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 16436 p
p 1-5; see also U.S. Airwaves, Inc. v. FCC, 232 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir.
2000) (upholding restructuring scheme). The Commission gave licensees
until June 8, 1998 to elect a restructuring option, and until July 31,
1998 to resume installment payments. Public Notice, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Announces June 8, 1998 Election Date, 13 FCC
Rcd 7413 (1998). It set October 29, 1998 as the last date it would
accept late installment payments. Id.

On June 8, 1998, after failing to obtain stays of the election deadline
from the Commission and this court, NextWave filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in New York. See NextWave Pers. Communications,
Inc. v. FCC (In re NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc.), 235 B.R. 263,
267 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (\"NextWave I\"). Because the Bankruptcy Code
is central to this case, we pause to summarize certain relevant
provisions. Section 362, the \"automatic stay\" provision, provides that
petitions filed under Chapter 11 \"operate\[ \] as a stay, applicable to
all entities\" of a variety of acts to collect on or enforce debts. 11
U.S.C. § 362(a). Subsection 362(a)(3) stays \"any act to obtain
possession of property of \[an\] estate \... or to exercise control over
property of the estate,\" id. § 362(a)(3), but subsection 362(b)(4)
provides an exception to 362(a)(3) for \"governmental unit\[s\]\" acting
to \"enforce\" their \"regulatory power.\" Id. § 362(b)(4). Subsections
362(a)(4) and (5) stay \"any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien
against property of the estate\" or of the debtor. Id. § 362(a)(4), (5).
The regulatory power exception does not apply to these subsections. See
id. § 362(b)(4). In general, an automatic stay lasts only until a
bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed, or until the bankruptcy court
grants or denies a discharge. See id. § 362(c)(2). Other provisions of
the Code, however, offer more permanent relief. Section 525 prohibits
\"governmental unit\[s\]\" from \"revok\[ing\]\" a bankrupt\'s or
debtor\'s license \"solely because such bankrupt or debtor \... has not
paid a debt that is dischargeable \... under this title.\" Id. § 525(a).
Finally, under section 1123, 11 U.S.C. § 1123, bankrupts (subject to
court approval) have the power to \"cure\" their defaults\--that is, to
\"tak\[e\] care of the triggering event and return\[ \] to pre-default
conditions.\" Di Pierro v. Taddeo (In re Taddeo), 685 F.2d 24, 26-27 (2d
Cir. 1982).

After declaring bankruptcy, and in line with the \"normal deferment of
the payment of preorganization claims until their disposition can be
made part of a plan of reorganization,\" In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.,
467 F.2d 100, 102 n.1 (3d Cir. 1972), NextWave made no further payments
on its licenses. Nor did it seek permission to make installment payments
under the \"necessity of payment\" doctrine, which some courts have
invoked to authorize payment of prepetition claims \"if such payment
\[is\] essential to the continued operation of the debtor.\" In re Just
For Feet, Inc., 242 B.R. 821, 825 (Bankr. D. Del. 1999). NextWave sought
no such authorization, it explains, because \"the Code\'s automatic stay
provision generally prevents even government creditors from enforcing
payment obligations or seizing assets of the estate,\" and thus it had
\"no reason to believe it would be required to make the October 1998
installment payment while in bankruptcy.\" Appellants\' Opening Br. at
10 & n.8.

Instead, NextWave alleged in the bankruptcy court that its \$4.74
billion license fee obligation was avoidable under section 544 of the
Bankruptcy Code as a \"fraudulent conveyance\" since the company had not
received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for incurring the
obligation: by the time the Commission actually conveyed the licenses to
NextWave, the company claimed, their value had declined to less than \$1
billion. NextWave I, 235 B.R. at 269; see also NextWave Pers.
Communications, Inc. v. FCC (In re NextWave Pers. Communications), 235
B.R. 277, 290 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"NextWave III\"). Ruling on this
claim, the bankruptcy court began by addressing its jurisdiction. It
acknowledged that under 47 U.S.C. § 402, it lacked jurisdiction to
\"enjoin\[ \], review\[ \], assess\[ \] damages for or otherwise
adjudicat\[e\] the consequences of the conduct of \[a\] Federal agency
acting within the scope of its Congressional mandate.\" NextWave I, 235
B.R. at 268. It nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over the case
because, in its view, NextWave\'s claim against the Commission did not
involve \"any regulatory conduct on the part of the FCC,\" but rather
concerned solely the debtor-creditor relationship between the FCC and
NextWave. Id. at 269; see also NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc. v.
FCC (In re NextWave Pers. Communications), 235 B.R. 305, 314 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"NextWave IV\"). Nothing in the Communications Act, the
court said, suggests that a bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to
implement the provisions of the Code \"which affect \[the Commission\]
as a creditor.\" NextWave I, 235 B.R. at 269-70. Turning to the merits,
the court found that NextWave\'s winning bid exceeded the fair market
value of its licenses at the time they were conveyed, NextWave III, 235
B.R. at 304, and avoided \$3.72 billion of NextWave\'s \$4.74 billion
license fee obligation, ruling in effect that the company could keep its
licenses for the reduced price of \$1.02 billion. See NextWave IV, 235
B.R. 305, aff\'d NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc. v. FCC (In re
NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc.), 241 B.R. 311, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1999);
see also In re NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc., 235 B.R. 314, 316
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"NextWave V\").

The Second Circuit reversed, making four key points. First, it
emphasized that the Commission\'s action, contrary to the bankruptcy
court\'s finding, was regulatory: the Commission explicitly \"made
\'full and timely payment of the winning bid\' a regulatory condition
for obtaining and retaining a spectrum license,\" and this condition had
a purpose \"related directly to the FCC\'s implementation of the
spectrum auctions.\" FCC v. NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc. (In re
NextWave Personal Communications), 200 F.3d 43, 52 (2d Cir. 1999)
(quoting 47 C.F.R. § 24.708). The Second Circuit explained the
Commission\'s regulatory purpose as follows:

> \[The FCC\] decided that it would be \'critically important to the
> success of our system of competitive bidding \... \[to\] provide
> strong incentives for potential bidders to make certain of their
> qualifications and financial capabilities before the auction so as to
> avoid delays in the deployment of new services to the public that
> would result from litigation, disqualification and re-auction.\' \...
> \[Since\] \'designated entities\' such as NextWave \... were allowed
> to pay in installments\[,\] \[i\]t was important for the functioning
> of the auction \... that the FCC\'s default rules and penalties be
> enforceable, because the FCC relied upon them as a substitute for
> conducting the \'detailed credit checks\' and other forms of due
> diligence that otherwise would be necessary to ensure \... that the
> licenses would be awarded to the appropriate entities.

Id. at 52-53 (quoting In re Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act\--Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC
Rcd 2348 p p 197, 194, 198 (1994)).

Second, the court held that the bankruptcy court had interfered with
this regulatory purpose by avoiding a substantial portion of NextWave\'s
bid price, thus allowing the company to keep the licenses for a reduced
price. Id. at 55. This, the Second Circuit held, the bankruptcy court
had no jurisdiction to do: \"Because jurisdiction over claims brought
against the FCC in its regulatory capacity lies exclusively in the
federal courts of appeals, see \... 47 U.S.C. § 402, the bankruptcy and
district courts lacked jurisdiction to decide the question of whether
NextWave had satisfied the regulatory conditions placed by the FCC upon
its retention of the Licenses.\" In re NextWave, 200 F.3d at 54.

Third, the Second Circuit found that besides interfering with the
Commission\'s licensing function through a collateral proceeding, the
bankruptcy court had in effect attempted to exercise that function
itself\--again exceeding its jurisdiction:

> By holding that for a price of \$1.023 billion NextWave would retain
> licenses for which it had bid \$4.74 billion, the bankruptcy \...
> court\[ \] impaired the FCC\'s method for selecting licensees by
> effectively awarding the Licenses to an entity that the FCC determined
> was not entitled to them. In so doing \[it\] exercised the FCC\'s
> radio-licensing function\.... \[E\]ven if the bankruptcy \... court\[
> \] \[was\] right in concluding that granting the Licenses at a small
> fraction of NextWave\'s original successful bid price best effectuated
> the \[Federal Communication Act\'s\] goals, \[it was\] utterly without
> the power to order that NextWave be allowed to retain them for that
> reason or on that basis.

Id. at 55 (internal citations omitted).

Finally, notwithstanding its conclusion that the bankruptcy court lacked
jurisdiction to change the conditions under which NextWave could retain
its licenses, the Second Circuit acknowledged that the bankruptcy court
might well have jurisdiction over NextWave\'s underlying debts
themselves: \"To the extent that the financial transactions between
\[the FCC and NextWave\] do not touch upon the FCC\'s regulatory
authority, they are indeed like the obligations between ordinary debtors
and creditors.\" Id. Pointing out that NextWave \"remain\[ed\] a debtor
in bankruptcy,\" and that \"\[i\]f the Licenses \[were\] returned to the
FCC, the bankruptcy court \[might\] resolve resulting financial claims
that the FCC has against NextWave,\" id. at 56, the Second Circuit
reviewed the merits of the bankruptcy court\'s avoidance decision and
concluded that NextWave should not be allowed to avoid \$3.72 billion of
its debt under the Bankruptcy Code. Id. at 46, 62.

Immediately following the Second Circuit reversal, NextWave prepared a
new plan of reorganization that provided for a single lump sum payment
to satisfy its entire \$4.3 billion outstanding obligation to the
Commission, including interest and late fees. The Commission objected to
the plan, alleging that NextWave\'s licenses had automatically canceled
when the company missed its first payment deadline in October 1998. See
In re Pub. Notice DA 00-49, Auction of C and F Block Broadband PCS
Licenses, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-335 p 7 (Sept. 6, 2000).
Simultaneously, the Commission issued a public notice announcing
re-auction of NextWave\'s licenses. The notice stated that the licenses
were \"available for auction under the automatic cancellation
provisions\" of the Commission\'s regulations. Public Notice, Auction of
C and F Block Broadband PCS Licenses, DA 00-49, 15 FCC Rcd 693 (2000).

The dispute then returned to the bankruptcy court, which declared the
Commission\'s cancellation of NextWave\'s licenses \"null and void\" as
a violation of various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, including the
automatic stay provisions of section 362(a). In re NextWave Pers.
Communications, Inc., 244 B.R. 253, 257-58, 267-68 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2000) (\"NextWave VI\"). In reaching this conclusion, the bankruptcy
court acknowledged that under the Second Circuit\'s ruling, it lacked
jurisdiction to interfere with the Commission\'s regulatory acts. Id. at
260-61. It also acknowledged that it was bound by the Second Circuit\'s
decision that \"a regulatory purpose was implicit in the \'full payment
requirement\' in the FCC regulations.\" Id. at 270. As the bankruptcy
court saw it, however, the \"regulatory objective\" behind the full
payment requirement had been \"fulfilled in the debtors\' modified Plan
. . . . to pay the entire \$4.3 billion outstanding \... in a lump sum
upon confirmation.\" Id. The cancellation of NextWave\'s licenses, in
contrast, was a response to the company\'s failure to make a timely
payment, and this requirement, the court reasoned, was \"purely
economic,\" having to do with \"the time value of money.\" Id. \"\[T\]he
economic consequence of delay,\" it stated, \"will be fully cured by
payment in full of all applicable interest, penalties and late
fees\....\" Id. Further explaining its view that the timely payment
requirement lacked a regulatory purpose, the bankruptcy court discussed
at length its reasons for believing that canceling licenses for failure
to make a timely payment \"conflict\[ed\] with the spirit and the letter
of the agency\'s governing statute\"\--namely, section 309(j) of the
Communications Act. Id. at 281; see also id. at 282-83, 271. Concluding
that the Commission \"has not and cannot articulate any regulatory
interest entailed in the \'timely payment\' requirement,\" id. at 270,
the court ruled that the Second Circuit\'s prior decision did not
preclude it from declaring the cancellation void. Id. at 283.

Again, the Second Circuit reversed. In re FCC, 217 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.
2000). Granting a mandamus petition filed by the Commission, the court
held that \"\[t\]here can be little doubt that if full payment is a
regulatory condition, so too is timeliness.\" Id. at 136. In the
court\'s view, \"the regulatory purpose for requiring payment in
full\--the identification of the candidates having the best prospects
for prompt and efficient exploitation of the spectrum\--is quite
obviously served in the same way by requiring payment on time.\" Id. at
135. The conclusion that the Commission\'s decision \"was in fact
regulatory,\" the court went on, was \"reinforced\" by the fact that the
bankruptcy court, in deciding that the license cancellation lacked a
regulatory purpose, had explained at length that the cancellation and
re-auction were contrary to the purposes of section 309(j) of the
Communications Act. Id. at 136. But according to the Second Circuit,
these discussions, rather than explaining why the re-auction decision
was not regulatory, explained why, under the Communications Act, it was
arbitrary, and such a determination, the Second Circuit pointed out, was
\"outside the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.\" Id. \"\[A\]
regulatory condition is a regulatory condition even if it is arbitrary.
It is for the FCC to state its conditions of licensure, and for a court
with power to review the FCC\'s decisions to say if they are arbitrary
or valid.\" Id. at 137.

As a consequence, the Second Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court
had both violated the appellate court\'s earlier mandate and exceeded
the bankruptcy court\'s own jurisdiction. Id. \"The bankruptcy court,\"
the Second Circuit stated, \"construes our mandate to mean no more than
that the bankruptcy court may not abrogate the full-payment requirement
on the basis of a fraudulent conveyance holding.\" Id. at 139. But this
understanding \"under-reads our previous opinion.\" Id. That opinion
\"clearly instruct\[ed\] the bankruptcy court to refrain from
interfering with the licensing decisions of the FCC,\" id., and as the
Second Circuit saw it, this is exactly what the bankruptcy court did in
declaring the license cancellation null and void. In addition, because
\"\[e\]xclusive jurisdiction to review the FCC\'s regulatory action lies
in the courts of appeals\" under 47 U.S.C. § 402, In re FCC, 217 F.3d at
139, the Second Circuit found that the bankruptcy court\'s license
cancellation holding exceeded that court\'s jurisdiction. Id. at 141.
The court also noted that \"NextWave remains free to pursue its
challenge to the FCC\'s regulatory acts\" in another forum, pointing out
that the company had already filed \"protective notices of appeal\" in
this court. Id. at 140-41.

After losing in the Second Circuit, NextWave filed a petition with the
Commission, requesting reconsideration of the license cancellation.
Denying the petition, the Commission noted first that the public notice
of reauction \"was not an order or action of the Commission \...
canceling NextWave\'s licenses.\" Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-335 p
10. Rather, \"\[p\]ursuant to \[Commission\] rules, the licenses
canceled automatically\" after NextWave failed to make its first
installment payment. Id. The Commission thus concluded that NextWave\'s
petition was \"late\" and its challenge to the reauction notice
\"procedurally defective.\" Id. \"Nevertheless, because of the
importance of the issues raised in NextWave\'s petition,\" id., the
Commission went on to address the company\'s challenge to the automatic
cancellation. The Commission rejected NextWave\'s arguments that the
cancellation was arbitrary and capricious and barred by estoppel and
waiver, id. p p 11-33, and found that the company\'s Bankruptcy Code
arguments, having been \"summarily rejected by the Second Circuit,\"
were \"precluded under the doctrine of res judicata.\" Id. p 26.

NextWave now challenges the Commission\'s decision on two basic grounds.
First, it claims that the license cancellation is \"patently unlawful,\"
Appellants\' Opening Br. at 16, under the provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code described ear-ier: the anti-discrimination provision (section 525),
the automatic stay provision (section 362), and the provision of the
Code allowing debtors to \"cure\" their defaults (section 1123). Second,
citing our decision in Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. v. FCC, 211
F.3d 618, 631 (D.C. Cir. 2000), where we held that an agency may not
\"sanction a company for its failure to comply with regulatory
requirements\" without first providing \"fair notice\" of those
requirements, NextWave argues that even if the license cancellation is
not barred by the Bankruptcy Code, it is invalid because the Commission
failed to provide adequate notice that the timely payment regulations
apply to Chapter 11 debtors. The Commission, supported by Intervenors
(the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and several
telecommunications companies) defends its decision.

II

We begin with three threshold issues. Does our jurisdiction in this case
arise from 47 U.S.C. § 402(a) or 402(b)? Was NextWave\'s challenge to
its license cancellation timely? And are NextWave\'s Bankruptcy Code
arguments barred by res judicata? We consider each question in turn.

Jurisdiction

NextWave has filed both a petition for review under section 402(a) and a
notice of appeal under section 402(b) of the Communications Act. Section
402(a) provides that \"\[a\]ny proceeding to enjoin, set aside, annul,
or suspend any order of the Commission under this chapter (except those
appealable under subsection (b) of this section) shall be brought\" in a
court of appeals. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(a) (cross-referencing 28 U.S.C. §
2342(1)). Section 402(b), in contrast, provides:

> Appeals may be taken from decisions and orders of the Commission to
> the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia \...
> \[b\]y the holder of any construction permit or station license which
> has been modified or revoked by the Commission.

Id. § 402(b). Acknowledging that we have previously found these two
provisions mutually exclusive, see Friedman v. FCC, 263 F.2d 493, 494
(D.C. Cir. 1959), NextWave asks us to \"dismiss the filing that relies
on the incorrect jurisdictional provision.\" Appellants\' Opening Br. at
1.

In Mobile Communications Corp. of America v. FCC, we decided that the
term \"station license\" in section 402(b) encompasses PCS licenses. See
77 F.3d 1399, 1403 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also 47 U.S.C. § 153(42)
(defining \"station license\" as \"that instrument of authorization
required \... for the use or operation of apparatus for transmission of
energy, or communications, or signals by radio\"); id. § 153(33)
(defining \"communication by radio\" as \"the transmission by radio of
writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds\"). Given
this, we think section 402(b)\'s plain language, permitting appeal by
\"the holder of any \... station license which has been \... revoked by
the Commission,\" covers this case. Cf. Cook, Inc. v. United States, 394
F.2d 84, 86 n.4 (7th Cir. 1968) (\" \'The language of \[subsection
402(b)\], when considered in relation to that of subsection (a) \...
would make clear that judicial review of all cases involving the
exercise of the Commission\'s radio-licensing power is limited to \[the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\].\'
\") (quoting S. Rep. No. 82-44, at 11 (1951)); In re FCC, 217 F.3d at
140-41. Even if the Commission did not formally \"revoke\" NextWave\'s
licenses, that is certainly the effect of the license cancellation: the
licenses once assigned to NextWave are now being re-auctioned to other
bidders. Cf. In re FCC, 217 F.3d at 140 n.10. We therefore dismiss the
section 402(a) petition and proceed with the section 402(b) appeal.

Timeliness

Section 402(c) of the Communications Act requires appeals under section
402(b) to be filed \"within thirty days from the date upon which public
notice is given of the decision or order complained of.\" 47 U.S.C. §
402(c). The \"decision\" NextWave seeks to challenge is the
Commission\'s cancellation of its licenses, but the formal Commission
action it actually appeals is the public notice of re-auction, which
itself cancels no licenses, but rather announces in passing that the
company\'s licenses canceled automatically at an earlier date. Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 00-355 p 10.

The Commission acknowledges that \"in some instances, it may be proper
for a party to challenge the Commission\'s public notices that establish
or deny rights.\" Id. Joined by Intervenors, however, it argues that
NextWave\'s challenge to the license cancellation policy is untimely.
Intervenors claim that NextWave should have challenged the policy when
its licenses were issued, since the licenses themselves stated
explicitly that they were conditioned on timely payment, and as we have
held, \"\[a\]cceptance of a license constitutes accession to all
\[license\] conditions.\" P&R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918, 928 (D.C.
Cir. 1984). Alternatively, both Intervenors and the Commission suggest
that NextWave should have challenged the automatic cancellation rule
during the Restructuring Order proceedings because during those
proceedings, the Commission considered objections to its original
installment payment plan (including some objections based on the
Bankruptcy Code), revised the plan, and ultimately reaffirmed the timely
payment requirement. Intervenors\' Br. at 3; see also, e.g., Order on
Recons. of the Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 8345 p 24. Having
failed to challenge the automatic cancellation rule at one of these
earlier dates, they argue, NextWave cannot do so now because orders
denying reconsideration do not re-open matters that should have been
challenged previously. See ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng\'rs, 482 U.S.
270, 279-80, 285-86 (1987).

As NextWave points out, however, we have held that \"a party against
whom a rule is applied may, at the time of application, pursue
substantive objections to the rule \... even where the petitioner had
notice and opportunity to bring a direct challenge within statutory time
limits\" but failed to do so. Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of
Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 195 F.3d 28, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Thus even if NextWave could have challenged the automatic cancellation
policy at an earlier date\--either when its licenses issued or during
the Restructuring Order proceedings\--the company remained free to do so
\"within thirty days from the date upon which public notice \[was\]
given\" that the policy had been applied to it. 47 U.S.C. § 402(c).

According to NextWave, the thirty-day period was triggered by the public
notice of re-auction because, prior to the re-auction notice, \"the FCC
had done nothing whatsoever to announce the cancellation of NextWave\'s
licenses.\" Appellants\' Reply Br. at 6. Because it filed a
precautionary appeal with this court 30 days after the notice of
re-auction, NextWave claims, its appeal was timely. Disagreeing,
Intervenors argue that NextWave already had notice in October 1998 that
its licenses would cancel automatically if and when it failed to make an
installment payment. Thus, they argue, no further Commission statement
was required to trigger the period for seeking judicial review.

Intervenors\' argument assumes that notice of a future event\'s
automatic effect (here, the explicit warning that the licenses would
cancel for failure to make a timely payment) is by itself sufficient
notice to mean that the occurrence of the future event (failing to make
a timely payment) will trigger the period for seeking judicial review
under section 402(c). To resolve the timeliness issue in this case,
however, we need not decide whether that assumption is correct, for we
think it was unclear prior to the notice of re-auction that the
automatic cancellation policy would apply to licensees who had filed for
bankruptcy. To begin with, the Bankruptcy Code gave NextWave reason to
doubt that the automatic cancellation would actually occur when the
company missed its first payment in October 1998: the automatic stay
triggered by a Chapter 11 filing generally blocks most efforts by
creditors to exercise control over or repossess property of a debtor.
See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); cf. NextWave VI, 244 B.R. at 266-68 (finding
that the automatic stay applied to NextWave\'s license fee obligations).
Neither the Commission nor Intervenors point to any instance prior to
the re-auction notice in which the Commission actually announced that
NextWave\'s licenses had canceled despite the stay. Moreover, the
Commission\'s own conduct suggests that it was at best unsure whether
the automatic stay blocked cancellation of the company\'s licenses.
After the bankruptcy court\'s fraudulent conveyance holding, and several
months after NextWave missed the October payment deadline, the
Commission moved the bankruptcy court to lift the stay \"so that the
\... automatic cancellation provisions may take effect.\" Mot. to Lift
Automatic Stay at 2, NextWave V, 235 B.R. 314 (No. 98 B 21529). And in
the bankruptcy court, Commission counsel suggested that the automatic
stay blocked cancellation of NextWave\'s licenses, stating for example
that although \"\[t\]he regulations provide that upon failure to make
the payments the license is automatically canceled\[,\] \... \[t\]hat
hasn\'t \[happened\] in this case due to the automatic stay.\" See
Hearing Tr. at 30, In re NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc., No. 98 B
21529 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 1998); NextWave VI, 244 B.R. at 277
(noting that transcript erroneously attributes this quotation to the
Court).

These circumstances suggest that the Commission believed NextWave\'s
licenses had not canceled prior to the notice of re-auction. At the very
least, they created doubt about the matter, and as we have held, \"when
an agency leaves room for genuine and reasonable doubt as to the
applicability of its orders or regulations, the statutory period for
filing a petition for review is tolled until that doubt is eliminated.\"
Recreation Vehicle Indus. Ass\'n v. EPA, 653 F.2d 562, 569 (D.C. Cir.
1981). Because the \"genuine and reasonable doubt\" about the status of
NextWave\'s licenses continued until the Commission issued the notice of
re-auction, we conclude that NextWave\'s petition is timely.

Res Judicata

This brings us to the final and most difficult threshold issue: whether
NextWave\'s Bankruptcy Code arguments are barred by res judicata. \"The
doctrine of res judicata prevents repetitious litigation involving the
same causes of action or the same issues.\" I.A.M. Nat\'l Pension Fund
v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1983). According
to the Commission, because NextWave litigated and lost its Bankruptcy
Code arguments in the Second Circuit mandamus proceedings, it may not
relitigate them here. Asserting a right to make these arguments here,
NextWave argues that the Second Circuit\'s decision was
jurisdictional\--a decision about \"where NextWave\'s bankruptcy
challenges should be decided, not how they should be resolved.\"
Appellants\' Opening Br. at 26 (emphasis added). As a result, the
company argues, res judicata does not bar it from presenting its
Bankruptcy Code arguments in this court.

The doctrine of res judicata \"usually is parsed into claim preclusion
and issue preclusion.\" I.A.M. Nat\'l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 946.
Because the Commission raises arguments based on both theories, and
because the two theories differ in subtle but significant respects, we
consider each separately. \"Under the claim preclusion aspect of res
judicata, a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the
same parties or their privies bars subsequent suits based on the same
cause of action.\" Id. at 946-47. Claim preclusion prevents parties from
relitigating issues they raised or could have raised in a prior action
on the same claim. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).
\"\[D\]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction,\" however, \"are not
decisions on the merits and therefore have no \[claim preclusive\]
effect on subsequent attempts to bring suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction.\" Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d
1243, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1999); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b) (\"a
dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in
this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction \... operates
as an adjudication upon the merits\").

No one disputes that the Second Circuit thought the bankruptcy court
lacked authority to declare the notice of re-auction invalid. In re FCC,
217 F.3d at 141. The question dividing the parties is why the Second
Circuit thought this. According to NextWave, the Second Circuit reversed
the bankruptcy court because under section 402 of the Communications
Act, \"the FCC\'s licensing decisions are subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeals.\" Id. at 129. In other
words, the company claims, the Second Circuit held that any arguments
directly or collaterally challenging the Commission\'s regulatory
actions\--including arguments based on the Bankruptcy Code\--must be
brought in a court of appeals. Cf. In re NextWave, 200 F.3d at 55. The
Commission has a different view of the Second Circuit\'s decision. It
argues that the Second Circuit decided not that the bankruptcy court
lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the license cancellation
violated the Bankruptcy Code, but rather that \"the \[Bankruptcy Code\]
provisions on which NextWave relies do not reach regulatory actions such
as those at issue here.\" Appellee\'s Br. at 15. In other words, the
Commission claims that the Second Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy
court\'s Bankruptcy Code conclusions on the merits and found that
because the Commission\'s actions were regulatory, the automatic stay,
right to cure, and anti-discrimination provisions of the Code did not
reach those actions.

We agree with NextWave\'s interpretation of the Second Circuit\'s
decision. As we read that decision, the court principally held that the
Commission\'s license cancellation was a regulatory act reviewable only
by a court of appeals under section 402 of the Communications Act, and
thus that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to apply the Code to
these acts. With one exception (which we shall explain later), we do not
understand the Second Circuit to have decided as a substantive matter
that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prevents the Commission from
canceling NextWave\'s licenses.

To begin with, and most obviously, the Second Circuit repeatedly stated
that it was making a \"jurisdictional\" decision based on section 402.
Here are just three examples: \"We recognized that pursuant to \... 47
U.S.C. § 402, review of the FCC\'s regulatory decisions and orders is
entrusted solely to the federal courts of appeals and is therefore
outside the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy and district courts,\" In re
FCC, 217 F.3d at 131 (describing initial opinion); \" \'\[b\]ecause
jurisdiction over claims brought against the FCC in its regulatory
capacity lies exclusively in the federal courts of appeals, see \... 47
U.S.C. § 402, the bankruptcy and district courts lacked jurisdiction to
decide the question of whether NextWave had satisfied the regulatory
conditions placed by the FCC upon its retention of the Licenses,\' \"
id. at 137 (quoting initial opinion); \"\[e\]xclusive jurisdiction to
review the FCC\'s regulatory action lies in the courts of appeals,\" id.
at 139 (citing cases discussing section 402). Reinforcing the
jurisdictional nature of its opinion, the Second Circuit also disavowed
any intent to rule on the merits of NextWave\'s challenges to the
Commission\'s acts, stating explicitly that NextWave was \"free to
pursue its challenge to the FCC\'s regulatory acts\" in an appropriate
forum, id. at 140, and that the court was making \"no comment on the
prospects\" of such an appeal. Id. at 129; see also id. at 138 n.8 (\"we
have no occasion to opine on whether the Public Notice is valid or
whether the Licenses automatically canceled at some prior date\"); id.
at 139 (\"Even if the bankruptcy court is right on the merits of its
arguments against revocation\--we have no occasion to express an
opinion\--it is without power to act on its determination.\").

According to the Commission, these repeated references to the bankruptcy
court\'s lack of jurisdiction mean only that the bankruptcy court lacked
jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had applied the auction
requirements of section 309(j) of the Communications Act arbitrarily and
capriciously, not that it lacked jurisdiction to review the
Commission\'s actions for compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. Likewise,
the Commission suggests, the Second Circuit\'s references to the
prospects of NextWave\'s appeal refer only to an appeal based on section
309(j). In support of this interpretation, the Commission points to
language in the Second Circuit\'s opinion suggesting that the bankruptcy
court lacked jurisdiction to question the Commission\'s regulatory
judgments under section 309(j). See, e.g., id. at 131-32 (\" \'\[E\]ven
if the bankruptcy and district courts were right in concluding that
granting the Licenses at a small fraction of NextWave\'s original
successful bid price best effectuated the \[Federal Communication
Act\'s\] goals, they were utterly without the power to order that
NextWave be allowed to retain them for that reason or on that basis.\'
\") (quoting initial opinion); see also id. at 136-37.

The Second Circuit, however, had good reason to address section 309(j)
directly: the bankruptcy court devoted several paragraphs to evaluating
the Commission\'s conduct in light of that section. See NextWave VI, 244
B.R. at 271, 281-83. Moreover, it is perfectly consistent to hold that
section 402 prohibits the bankruptcy court from reviewing Commission
action both under section 309(j) and under the Bankruptcy Code. True, as
the Commission points out, other circuits have recognized the
jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts to determine whether provisions of the
Code such as the automatic stay apply to agency actions. See, e.g.,
Commerce Oil Co. v. Word (In re Commerce Oil Co.), 847 F.2d 291 (6th
Cir. 1988); Universal Life Church, Inc. v. United States (In re
Universal Life Church, Inc.), 128 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1997). But that is
irrelevant to the question we face here: how did the Second Circuit view
the bankruptcy court\'s jurisdiction? Regardless of how other
circuits\--or even we\--might interpret section 402, we think the Second
Circuit construed the provision to confer \"exclusive jurisdiction\" on
courts of appeals to review even Bankruptcy Code challenges to the
Commission\'s regulatory acts. Many of the court\'s references to
section 402 are not clearly restricted to bankruptcy court power under
section 309(j). See, e.g., In re FCC, 217 F.3d at 139 (\"Exclusive
jurisdiction to review the FCC\'s regulatory action lies in the courts
of appeals.\"). And at least once in its opinion, the Second Circuit
expressly stated that \"\[t\]he bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to
declare the Public Notice \[of reauction\] null and void on \[the\]
ground\[s\] that the Public Notice violated the automatic stay, \[or\]
that the right to cure obviates any default\"\--that is, on Bankruptcy
Code grounds. Id. at 139 (emphasis added).

The Second Circuit\'s reasoning in granting mandamus further illustrates
the jurisdictional nature of its opinion. The court overturned the
bankruptcy court\'s decision on two \"independently sufficient\"
grounds, each discussed in a separate section of the opinion. See id. at
141. One ground was that the bankruptcy court lacked \"statutory
jurisdiction\" to nullify the Commission\'s license cancellation. Id.
Entitled \"Jurisdiction,\" this section of the opinion consists entirely
of a discussion of sections 402(a) and (b) of the Communications
Act\--it never mentions the Bankruptcy Code. Id. at 139-41. If, as the
Commission maintains, the Second Circuit thought the bankruptcy court
lacked authority to invalidate the license cancellation principally
because the Code does not reach the Commission\'s regulatory acts (and
if, as the Commission also maintains, the Second Circuit\'s discussion
of \"jurisdiction\" merely refers to the peripheral issue of the
bankruptcy court\'s jurisdiction to review Commission actions under
section 309(j) of the Communications Act) it is difficult to explain why
the court failed to discuss the Bankruptcy Code in this section of its
opinion, given that the reasons discussed here provide an
\"independently sufficient\" basis for mandamus.

The Second Circuit\'s other reason for granting mandamus was that the
bankruptcy court violated the appellate court\'s earlier mandate. But as
the Second Circuit made clear, its initial opinion too was
jurisdictional:

> Our extraordinary mandamus power has two purposes: to achieve
> compliance with the terms and spirit of our mandates, and to constrain
> inferior courts to proper exercises of their jurisdiction. In this
> case, the two uses of mandamus overlap and reinforce one another. This
> Court\'s previous opinion reversed a decision of the bankruptcy court
> on the ground that that court lacked jurisdiction. The bankruptcy
> court again seeks to control the FCC\'s allocation of licenses,
> notwithstanding this Court\'s express holding that \'the bankruptcy
> and district courts lack\[ \] jurisdiction to decide the question of
> whether NextWave had satisfied the regulatory conditions placed by the
> FCC upon its retention of the Licenses.\' Thus a writ of mandamus
> protecting this Court\'s mandate also confines the inferior court to
> the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.

Id. at 137 (quoting In re NextWave, 200 F.3d at 54).

To be sure, in the \"mandate\" section of its opinion, the Second
Circuit appeared to decide on the merits that at least some parts of the
automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, do not
apply to the facts of this case. See In re FCC, 217 F.3d at 138
(\"Undoubtedly, the \[Commission\] is a governmental unit that is
seeking \'to enforce\' its \'regulatory power\' \[under subsection
362(b)(4)\].\"); id at 138 n.8 (\"\[W\]e hold that the FCC\'s regulatory
decisions fall within \[subsection\] 362(b)(4).\"). But leaving aside
for the moment the effect of this discussion under the doctrine of issue
preclusion, this portion of the Second Circuit\'s opinion does not
change our view that the court\'s decision was primarily jurisdictional,
for the court expressly couched its discussion of the automatic stay in
jurisdictional terms: the court prefaced its discussion by noting that
\"\[t\]he bankruptcy court founds its jurisdiction \[to interfere with
the FCC\'s enforcement of its payment schedule\] chiefly on the
automatic stay provision of \[section 362\]\....\" Id. at 138 (emphasis
added). We need not decide whether this jurisdictional interpretation of
section 362 is correct\--the Supreme Court has declined to express an
opinion on the issue, see Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v.
MCorp Fin., Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 41 n.11 (1991)\--because the
Commission\'s res judicata argument requires only that we determine what
the Second Circuit meant, and here we think it clear that the court
treated section 362 as though it provided a potential basis for
bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

In addition to this direct evidence of the jurisdictional nature of the
Second Circuit opinion, the Commission\'s alternate view of the
opinion\--that the court decided as a substantive matter that nothing in
the Bankruptcy Code prevents the Commission from canceling NextWave\'s
licenses\--is implausible. Not only does this interpretation fail to
account fully for the opinion\'s jurisdictional language, see supra at
21-22, but the Second Circuit never actually states that the Bankruptcy
Code as such does not reach the Commission\'s regulatory acts: the
entire opinion concerns the power and jurisdiction of the bankruptcy
court. Perhaps most telling, the Second Circuit does not discuss any
provision of the Bankruptcy Code besides section 362, despite the fact
that the bankruptcy court discussed section 525 and made a ruling based
on sections 1123 and 1124. As NextWave argues, \"\[t\]he exclusively
jurisdictional character of the Second Circuit\'s ruling provides a
complete explanation for its \... silence respecting NextWave\'s
principal bankruptcy arguments.\" Appellants\' Reply Br. at 4.

Faced with the Second Circuit\'s silence about sections 525 and 1123,
the Commission suggests that even though the court failed to mention
these provisions, it necessarily decided that they do not bar the
license cancellation because \"mandamus relief is warranted only where
the petitioner has demonstrated that its right to such relief is clear
and indisputable,\" and \"the Second Circuit would not have granted our
request for extraordinary relief if it had thought that the bankruptcy
court\'s decision was sustainable on the basis of \[section\] 525\" or
1123. Appellee\'s Br. at 21 n.13 (internal quotation omitted); id. at 24
n.15. The assumption that the Second Circuit \"necessarily\" resolved
these arguments, however, is valid only if the Commission\'s view of the
case is correct\--that is, if the Second Circuit meant to decide as a
substantive matter that the Bankruptcy Code did not reach the
Commission\'s actions. If instead the Second Circuit principally
decided, as much of the opinion\'s language suggests, see supra at
20-22, that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear these
arguments, that conclusion would also have provided a basis for
mandamus, without requiring the court to consider or decide anything
about sections 525 and 1123 at all.

The Commission offers a second, equally unpersuasive explanation for the
Second Circuit\'s silence regarding sections 525 and 1123. The
bankruptcy court\'s analysis of those provisions, the Commission says,
\"hinges on its characterization of the FCC as an ordinary creditor,\"
Appellee\'s Br. at 24, and by rejecting decisively this
characterization, the Second Circuit in effect decided that these parts
of the Code do not apply. Apart from the fact that it seems odd that the
Second Circuit would have decided that sections 525 and 1123 do not
apply without ever mentioning them, this argument fails because, like
the previous argument, it assumes the correctness of the Commission\'s
reading of the Second Circuit\'s opinion. But the alternate reading of
the opinion\--that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear
challenges to the Commission\'s regulatory actions based on the
Bankruptcy Code or otherwise\--also relies upon the notion that the
Commission is not an ordinary creditor but a regulator in this
situation. The fact that the Second Circuit decided that the Commission
was not acting as an ordinary creditor when it canceled the licenses
thus does not indicate that the court implicitly decided that sections
525 and 1123 are inapplicable to this case.

Having thus concluded that the Second Circuit\'s opinion was
jurisdictional and that claim preclusion does not bar NextWave from
re-litigating its Bankruptcy Code arguments in this court, we turn to
the Commission\'s second major res judicata argument: that each of
NextWave\'s Bankruptcy Code arguments is barred by issue preclusion.
\"Under the issue preclusion aspect of res judicata, a final judgment on
the merits in a prior suit precludes subsequent relitigation of issues
actually litigated and determined in the prior suit, regardless of
whether the subsequent suit is based on the same cause of action.\"
I.A.M. Nat\'l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 947. Issue preclusion is most
often invoked where \"a subsequent action is brought on a different
claim,\" id. at 947 n.3, and as a result claim preclusion does not
apply. Issue preclusion, however, may also apply to subsequent actions
brought on the same claim: if a judgment \"does not preclude
relitigation of all or part of the claim on which the action was
brought\"\--if, for example, as here, the judgment was
jurisdictional\--it may still preclude relitigation of any issues
\"actually litigated and determined\" in the first action. Id. For issue
preclusion to apply, however, \"the issue must have been actually and
necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the first
trial.\" Connors v. Tanoma Mining Co., 953 F.2d 682, 684 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (internal quotation and emphasis omitted). If the \"basis\" of a
prior decision is \"unclear, and it is thus uncertain whether the issue
was actually and necessarily decided in \[the prior\] litigation, then
relitigation of the issue is not precluded.\" Id.

It may appear that the only issue potentially barred by issue preclusion
from a case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction is the jurisdictional
determination itself. Cf. Kasap, 166 F.3d at 1248. In this case, it may
thus seem that the Second Circuit cannot have ruled on the merits of any
of NextWave\'s Bankruptcy Code arguments, because the court only decided
that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear them. And indeed,
under our jurisdictional interpretation of the Second Circuit\'s
decision, we do not think the court \"actually and necessarily\" decided
whether sections 525 and 1123 bar the license cancellation. We thus
conclude that issue preclusion does not bar relitigation of these
issues.

Far less clear, however, is whether issue preclusion bars NextWave\'s
section 362 argument. As we have seen, the Second Circuit explicitly
discussed section 362\'s automatic stay, finding that the bankruptcy
court could not rely on the provision as an independent basis for
jurisdiction because the license cancellation was a regulatory act
exempt under subsection 362(b)(4). See supra at 23-24. It is true, as we
have said, that this was a jurisdictional discussion, but this does not
preclude it from having issue preclusive effect: if a court makes a
substantive determination in order to arrive at a jurisdictional
holding, the substantive determination can have issue preclusive effect
so long as it was \"actually litigated and determined in the prior
action.\" See I.A.M. Nat\'l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 947 n.3. The
Restatement gives the following example:

> A brings an action against B for personal injuries arising out of an
> automobile accident. Jurisdiction is asserted over B, a nonresident,
> on the basis that the automobile involved in the accident was being
> operated in the state by or on his behalf. After trial of this issue,
> the action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In a subsequent
> action by A against B for the same injuries, brought in the state of
> B\'s residence, the prior determination that the automobile was not
> being operated by or on behalf of B is conclusive.

Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27, illustration 3 (1980).

Here, the Second Circuit appears to have decided that section 362 does
not confer jurisdiction on the bankruptcy court because subsection
362(b)(4)\'s \"regulatory power\" exception applies as a substantive
matter. We thus agree with the Commission that issue preclusion bars
NextWave from relitigating the question of whether the license
cancellation falls within subsection 362(b)(4). The Second Circuit spoke
clearly and unequivocally about this issue, stating that
\"\[u\]ndoubtedly, the FCC is a governmental unit that is seeking \'to
enforce\' its \'regulatory power,\' \" In re FCC, 217 F.3d at 138, and
that \"we hold that the FCC\'s regulatory decisions fall within
\[subsection\] 362(b)(4).\" Id. at n.8. And under the Second Circuit\'s
jurisdictional reading of section 362, this decision was necessary to
the case: if subsection 362(b)(4) did not apply, section 362 could have
provided a basis for the bankruptcy court to assert jurisdiction over
the license cancellation. In considering NextWave\'s Bankruptcy Code
arguments, see Section III infra, we will thus assume that the license
cancellation falls within the regulatory power exception to the
automatic stay.

We are less sure, however, that the Second Circuit \"actually and
necessarily\" decided as part of its jurisdictional decision that all
provisions of section 362 do not apply to the license cancellation. In
particular, as the Second Circuit implicitly acknowledged, subsection
362(b)(4)\'s \"regulatory power\" exception does not apply to
subsections 362(a)(4) and (5), which stay actions to enforce liens. See
In re FCC, 217 F.3d at 138. Although the bankruptcy court thought the
cancellation of NextWave\'s licenses \"unarguably violate\[d\]\" these
subsections, NextWave VI, 244 B.R. at 267, and explicitly quoted the
language in the security agreements creating a \"first lien on and
continuing security interest in\" the licenses, id. at 267 n.7, the
Second Circuit, in a footnote, simply observed: \"Subsections (4) and
(5) are concerned with liens. The bankruptcy court does not explain why
they are implicated here.\" In re FCC, 217 F.3d at 138 n.7. Thus, unlike
in its subsection 362(b)(4) discussion, the Second Circuit never said it
was \"hold\[ing\]\" that subsections 362(a)(4) and (5) do not apply to
the cancellation of NextWave\'s licenses. Cf. id. at 138 n.8. Instead,
the court merely observed that the bankruptcy court did not explain why
they are implicated. It is thus unclear whether the Second Circuit
decided that subsections 362(a)(4) and (5) do not block cancellation of
NextWave\'s licenses, or whether it simply concluded that it had no need
to reach the issue because the bankruptcy court failed adequately to
address it. Since under our decision in Connors, if it is \"uncertain
whether \[an\] issue was actually and necessarily decided in \[prior\]
litigation, then relitigation of the issue is not precluded,\" 953 F.2d
at 684, we conclude that NextWave is not barred from arguing that
subsections 362(a)(4) and (5) prohibit cancellation of its licenses.

Having resolved these threshold issues, we turn to the merits of
NextWave\'s appeal.

III

NextWave argues that the Commission\'s cancellation of its licenses
violated sections 525, 1123, and 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act, we must \"hold unlawful and set aside
agency action \... found to be \... not in accordance with law \[or\]
\... in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.\" 5
U.S.C. § 706(2). This provision requires us to invalidate agency action
not only if it conflicts with an agency\'s own statute, but also if it
conflicts with another federal law. See, e.g., Scheduled Airlines
Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Dep\'t of Def., 87 F.3d 1356, 1361 (D.C. Cir.
1996) (applying 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and declaring Department of Defense
policy invalid under Miscellaneous Receipts statute); see also Cousins
v. Sec\'y of the U.S. Dep\'t of Transp., 880 F.2d 603, 608 (1st Cir.
1989) (stating that the quoted passages from section 706 are \"general
in their meaning\" and \"do not restrict the courts to consideration of
the agency\'s own enabling statute\").

We begin with section 525:

> \[A\] governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to
> renew a license \... or other similar grant to, \... discriminate with
> respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the
> employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a
> person that is \... a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act
> \... solely because such bankrupt or debtor \... has not paid a debt
> that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was
> discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

11 U.S.C. § 525(a). No one disputes that the Commission is a
\"governmental unit\" that has \"revoke\[d\]\" a license for purposes of
section 525, nor that NextWave is a \"bankrupt or a debtor under the
Bankruptcy Act.\" Pointing to the fact that the Commission has filed
proofs of claim in bankruptcy court based on its security interests in
PCS licenses, see, e.g., Proof of Claim, In re NextWave Pers.
Communications, Inc., No. 98 B 21529 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 1998)
(filed on behalf of creditor The United States of America), NextWave
argues that the installment payment obligations were dischargeable debts
under the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d) (stating that
dischargeable debts under Chapter 11 generally include \"any debts that
arose before the date of \... confirmation\" of the debtor\'s
reorganization plan). And be-cause failure to make installment payments
was the \"sole triggering mechanism\" for automatic cancellation,
NextWave continues, its licenses canceled \"solely because\" it failed
to pay dischargeable debts. Appellants\' Reply Br. at 8.

The Commission never denies that if NextWave had made its payments, the
company could have retained its licenses. Nor does the Commission
dispute that NextWave\'s license fee obligations were at least in part
genuine, enforceable debts\--indeed, the Commission\'s own regulations
provide for their collection if left unpaid. See 47 C.F.R. §
1.2110(g)(4)(iv) (\"A licensee in the PCS C or F \[B\]locks shall be in
default, its license shall automatically cancel, and it will be subject
to debt collection procedures, if the payment due on the payment
resumption date \... is more than ninety (90) days delinquent.\")
(emphasis added). Instead, the Commission offers a series of
unpersuasive arguments intended to demonstrate why, notwithstanding
section 525\'s apparent applicability, the provision does not bar
cancellation of NextWave\'s licenses.

First, the Commission urges us to read section 525 in light of section
362. The latter section, the Commission suggests, \"serves the important
purpose of providing a debtor with some breathing room in the situations
to which it applies. Accordingly, \[section\] 362 should be broader than
\[section\] 525, providing for breathing room even in some situations
where cancellation ultimately would be permitted.\" Appellee\'s Br. at
21-22. Thus, the Commission argues, because (on its reading) the
automatic stay does not apply to this case, section 525 should not apply
either. Fleshing out this argument, Intervenors suggest that \"\[i\]t
would make little sense for Congress to exempt governmental
\'regulatory\' actions from the stay \[under subsection 362(b)(4)\] but
then flatly forbid them in \[section\] 525. Basic structural coherence
requires the conclusion that \[section\] 525 does not prevent a license
cancellation already correctly found exempt from the stay as
regulatory.\" Intervenors\' Br. at 18.

This is an interesting argument, but it fails for several reasons. To
begin with, it is inconsistent with section 525\'s plain language.
Section 525 clearly and explicitly prohibits governmental units, for
whatever reason, from canceling licenses for failure to pay a
dischargeable debt: \"a governmental unit may not \... revoke \... a
license \... to \... a bankrupt \... solely because such bankrupt \...
has not paid a debt that is dischargeable \... under this title.\" 11
U.S.C. § 525(a). Nothing in section 525 or 362 states that section 525
is subject to subsection 362(b)(4)\'s regulatory power exception, or
that the exception should be read to limit section 525\'s clear reach.
Thus, while interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code is a \"holistic
endeavor,\" and \"\[a\] provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation\"
can often be \"clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme,\"
United Sav. Ass\'n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd.,
484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988), here we see no such ambiguity. Various
bankruptcy and district courts, accordingly, have held that section 525
can apply even if the automatic stay does not. See, e.g., William Tell
II, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm\'n (In re William Tell II,
Inc.), 38 B.R. 327, 330 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (\"even if a state proceeding
is not automatically stayed, a bankruptcy court has authority to enjoin
certain conduct under 11 U.S.C. § 525\"); In re The Bible Speaks, 69
B.R. 368, 373 n.5 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1987) (\"\[Section\] 525(a) is
directed at governmental units and may apply even where the automatic
stay has no effect.\").

Moreover, contrary to Intervenors\' argument, this interpretation of
section 525 does not render the Code \"structural\[ly\]
\[in\]coheren\[t\].\" Though this reading does mean that an action
exempted under subsection 362(b)(4) might nonetheless be barred by
section 525, it does not render subsection 362(b)(4) meaningless,
because that subsection covers a different and wider variety of actions
than section 525. For example, subsection 362(b)(4) exempts from the
automatic stay (among other things) \"any act\" by a governmental unit
to \"obtain possession of property of the estate \... or to exercise
control over property of the estate,\" so long as the act is taken to
enforce the unit\'s \"regulatory power.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), (b)(4)
(emphasis added). Section 525, in contrast, prohibits governmental units
only from taking certain specific actions with respect to an extremely
limited subset of a debtor\'s property\--licenses and similar
grants\--or with respect to employment opportunities.

Even if the Commission were correct that section 525 should be read to
permit all actions exempted from the automatic stay by subsection
362(b)(4), that argument would be inapplicable to this case because
subsection 362(b)(4) does not apply to the stay of acts to \"create,
perfect, or enforce\" liens against property of the estate or of the
debtor imposed by subsections 362(a)(4) and (5). Here, NextWave executed
security agreements giving the Commission a \"first lien\" on the
company\'s interest in the licenses, and under subsections 362(a)(4) and
(5), \"a creditor holding a lien on property of the estate may not
enforce the lien by seizure, foreclosure, or otherwise.\" 3 Collier on
Bankruptcy p 362.03\[6\] (15th ed. rev. 2000). Stayed actions include
\"self-help remedies against collateral\" such as \"repossession.\" Id.
p 362.03\[6\]\[b\]. Before the bankruptcy court, Commission counsel
acknowledged that canceling the licenses and seeking to collect on the
debt was \"tantamount \... to foreclosing on collateral.\" Hearing Tr.
at 14, In re NextWave Pers. Communications, Inc., No. 98 B 21529 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1999). Thus, contrary to the Commission\'s argument,
and notwithstanding the applicability of the regulatory power exception,
section 362\'s automatic stay does apply here. This is thus not a case
in which section 525, if applicable, would bar an action exempt from the
automatic stay.

The Commission next argues that section 525 is inapplicable because
NextWave\'s license fee obligation was not a \"dischargeable\" debt. In
support of this proposition, the Commission offers two arguments. First,
it claims that the New York bankruptcy court could not have discharged
NextWave\'s debt because the Second Circuit, whose decisions are binding
on that court, held in its initial opinion that so long as NextWave
retained its licenses, its payment obligation was subject to neither
modification nor discharge in bankruptcy. As a result, the Commission
concludes, the payment obligation was not a debt \"dischargeable\" in
bankruptcy while the license was held.

We disagree. To begin with, it is unclear that the Second Circuit in
fact thought the bankruptcy court lacked power to alter or discharge the
payment obligation while NextWave held the licenses. Though parts of its
initial opinion do suggest this, see In re NextWave, 200 F.3d at 56,
other parts suggest that the court simply thought the bankruptcy court
had no authority to require the Commission to allow NextWave to keep its
licenses after modification of its payment obligation. See, e.g., id. at
54 (\"It is beyond the jurisdiction of a court in a collateral
proceeding to mandate that a licensee be allowed to keep its license
despite its failure to meet the conditions to which the license is
subject.\"). If the latter reading is correct, then insofar as
NextWave\'s payment obligation was a debt (as opposed to a license
condition), it was dischargeable by the bankruptcy court. Even if the
Commission\'s reading of the Second Circuit\'s opinion is correct, the
Commission\'s argument assumes that the phrase \"debt that is
dischargeable \... under this title\" in section 525(a) refers to the
bankruptcy court\'s power to modify or discharge a payment obligation.
The provision\'s plain language, however, refers to a payment obligation
that can be modified or discharged under the Bankruptcy Code; and as we
read the Second Circuit\'s opinion, the court merely decided that
insofar as timely payment was a condition for license retention, the
bankruptcy court had no authority to modify it. It never decided that a
court of competent jurisdiction (such as this one) could not modify or
discharge it under section 525.

The Commission also argues that because \"\[a\] licensee\'s full and
timely payment of its winning bid installments is an essential condition
of its license grant\[,\] \[p\]ayment \... is a regulatory requirement,
not a dischargeable debt.\" Appellee\'s Br. at 22. At oral argument,
Commission counsel conceded that the payment obligation also has the
character of a dischargeable debt. As we indicated earlier, the
Commission could seek to collect its license fee, and in so doing it
would be subject (as the Second Circuit held) to the constraints imposed
on creditors by the Bankruptcy Code. See In re NextWave, 200 F.3d at 56.
But here, the Commission contends, it seeks only to revoke NextWave\'s
licenses, not to collect on the debt, and insofar as timely payment is a
condition of license retention, it is a regulatory requirement, not a
dischargeable debt, and section 525 is inapplicable.

As Commission counsel also acknowledged, this claim amounts to a request
for a regulatory purpose exception to section 525: the Commission in
effect argues that because (for legitimate regulatory motives) it made
timely payment a regulatory requirement, it should be permitted to
cancel licenses for failure to meet that requirement despite section
525\'s plain language (\"a governmental unit may not \... revoke \... a
license \... to \... a bankrupt \... solely because such bankrupt \...
has not paid a debt that is dischargeable \... under this title\"). But
basic principles of statutory interpretation preclude such a result. To
begin with, section 525 contains several exceptions, but none for
agencies fulfilling regulatory purposes. See 11 U.S.C. § 525(a)
(\"Except as provided in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
\... the Packers and Stockyards Act \... and section 1 of \... \'An Act
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1944, and for other purposes\' \... a governmental
unit may not deny, revoke, suspend \... a license\....\"). This in
itself suggests that Congress did not intend to provide a regulatory
purpose exception to section 525. See Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437
U.S. 153, 188 (1978) (relying on fact that Endangered Species Act
\"creates a number of limited \'hardship exemptions\' \" but none for
federal agencies to conclude \"under the maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius \... that these were the only \'hardship cases\'
Congress intended to exempt\"). Moreover, other parts of the Bankruptcy
Code contain explicit regulatory purpose exceptions. Section 362, as we
have seen, exempts from certain provisions of the automatic stay any
\"governmental unit\" exercising its \"police or regulatory power.\" 11
U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). Section 362 also contains a series of narrower
exceptions for certain named agencies that have entered lending
relationships, allowing them to engage in particular acts of foreclosure
and other actions. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(8) (exception
permitting HUD Secretary to foreclose on certain mortgages insured under
the National Housing Act). To us, these express exceptions demonstrate
that section 525 contains neither an implied regulatory power exception
for governmental units in general nor an implied agency-specific
exception allowing the Commission to enforce an automatic cancellation
policy pursuant to an installment payment scheme under section 309(j) of
the Communications Act. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23
(1983) (\"Where Congress includes particular language in one section of
a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is
generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the
disparate inclusion or exclusion.\") (internal quotation omitted).

Next, Intervenors argue that even if the license fee obligation itself
is a dischargeable debt, the Commission did not cancel NextWave\'s
licenses \"solely because\" of failure to pay that debt. \"The \'solely
because\' language,\" they argue, \"limits the bar on license revocation
to circumstances where a government \[agency\] is simply advancing
creditor interests in receiving the money due.\" Intervenors\' Br. at
16-17. Since here, license cancellation was intended not to induce
payment but instead to \"protect\[ \] the integrity of \[the\] auction\[
\] and select\[ \] the applicant most likely to use the Licenses
efficiently for the benefit of the public,\" section 525 is not
implicated, because \"it is not the \'debt\' character of the defaulted
obligation that is the \'sole\' basis for the cancellation.\" Id.
(internal quotation omitted).

We are unconvinced. Intervenors argue that \"solely because\" should be
read to mean \"solely because of creditor interests in receiving the
money due.\" But the statute says nothing about an agency\'s motives in
canceling a license for failure to pay a dischargeable debt\--it simply
says governmental units may not cancel licenses \"solely because\" a
debtor \"has not paid\" such a debt. See 11 U.S.C. § 525(a) (emphasis
added). It may be true, as the Second Circuit decided, that the
Commission had a regulatory motive for examining NextWave\'s timely
payment record and canceling its licenses on that basis, but as we
pointed out earlier, neither the Commission nor Intervenors dispute that
NextWave could have retained its licenses if it had made timely
installment payments. NextWave\'s failure to make its payments was thus
the \"sole\" trigger of the license cancellation, in the sense that the
Commission looked to no other factor in determining whether NextWave
should retain its licenses; and we think this is exactly the kind of
conduct barred by section 525\'s plain text. Adopting Intervenors\'
intent-based reading of section 525 would allow governmental units to
escape section 525\'s limitations simply by invoking a regulatory motive
for their concern with timely payment, and as we have already explained,
section 525 contains no implicit regulatory purpose exception.

To support their view that the phrase \"solely because\" permits license
cancellation based on failure to pay a dischargeable debt so long as the
cancellation is motivated by a non-pecuniary regulatory purpose,
Intervenors point to legislative history stating that section 525 \"does
not prohibit consideration of \... factors\[ \] such as future financial
responsibility or ability \... if applied nondiscriminatorily,\" H.R.
Rep. No. 95-595, at 367 (1977), and that \"in those cases where the
causes of the bankruptcy are intimately connected with the license grant
\... an examination into the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy
will permit governmental units to pursue appropriate regulatory policies
and take appropriate action without running afoul of bankruptcy
policy.\" Id. at 165. But these passages do not lead us to conclude that
section 525 is inapplicable here. To begin with, we may not \"resort to
legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.\" Ratzlaf
v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48 (1994). Moreover, while the
quoted passages do suggest that agencies may make regulatory decisions
(including perhaps canceling the licenses of bankrupt debtors) based on
factors such as future financial responsibility or ability, they do not
state that an agency may use timely payment of a dischargeable debt as
the sole indicator of such responsibility, as the Commission has done
here. Cf. H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 165 (\"The purpose of \[section 525\]
is to prevent an automatic reaction against an individual for availing
himself of the protection of the bankruptcy laws.\").

Duffey v. Dollison, 734 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1984), which Intervenors
invoke, reinforces rather than undermines this interpretation of section
525. In Duffey, the court upheld as applied to a bankrupt debtor a state
law suspending the driver\'s license of anyone who failed to make timely
payment of a state tort judgment until that person provided proof of
future financial responsibility. The statute at issue there specifically
required extrinsic \"evidence of financial responsibility,\" such as a
certificate of insurance or a bond, in order to reinstate a license, and
was specifically re-written not to require payment of discharged debts
as a precondition for reinstatement: \"the registrar shall vacate the
order of suspension upon proof that such judgment is stayed, or
satisfied in full \... and upon such person\'s filing \... evidence of
financial responsibility\....\" Id. at 269 (quoting Ohio Rev. Code §
4509.45 (Baldwin 1975)). The Commission\'s automatic cancellation
policy, in contrast, refers to no analogous extrinsic evidence of
fitness to hold a license, and allows license cancellation to rest
solely on failure to pay a dischargeable debt.

Finally, noting that section 525 is entitled \"Protection against
discriminatory treatment,\" and that the House Report on the bankruptcy
bill provides that section 525 \"extends only to discrimination or other
action based solely \... on the basis of nonpayment of a debt discharged
in the bankruptcy case,\" H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 366-67, the
Commission suggests that the provision is inapplicable here because
\"\[a\]ll licensees lost their licenses if they failed to meet the
payment deadline.\" Appellee\'s Br. at 23.

The text of section 525, however, includes \"discriminat\[ion\]\" only
as an item in a series of prohibited actions: \"a governmental unit may
not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license \... to, \[or\]
condition such a grant to, \[or\] discriminate with respect to such a
grant against, \[or\] deny employment to, \[or\] terminate the
employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against\[ \] a
person that is \... a debtor under this title\....\" 11 U.S.C. § 525(a)
(emphasis added). Another prohibited action in the series is (as we have
just seen) to \"revoke\" the license of a bankrupt \"solely because such
bankrupt\" has \"not paid a debt dischargeable\" under the Bankruptcy
Code\--precisely what happened in this case. And the House Report itself
explicitly states that section 525 \"extends only to discrimination or
other action based solely \... on the basis of nonpayment of a debt
discharged in the bankruptcy case\....\" H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 366-67
(emphasis added); see also Walker v. Wilde (In re Walker), 927 F.2d
1138, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 1991) (invalidating under section 525 a license
cancellation policy that applied to bankrupts and non-bankrupts alike).

We have no doubt that in developing its installment payment plan, the
Commission made a good faith effort to implement Congress\'s command to
encourage small businesses with limited access to capital to participate
in PCS auctions. We are also mindful that, as the Commission suggests,
allowing NextWave to retain its licenses may be \"grossly unfair\" to
losing bidders and licensees who \"complied with the administrative
process and forfeited licenses or made timely payments despite their
financial difficulties.\" Appellee\'s Br. at 9. Any unfairness, however,
was inherent in the Commission\'s decision to employ a licensing scheme
that left its regulatory actions open to attack under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, the very purpose of which is \"to permit successful
rehabilitation of debtors.\" NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513,
527 (1984); see also H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 220 (\"The purpose of a
business reorganization case, unlike a liquidation case, is to
restructure a business\'s finances so that it may continue to operate,
provide its employees with jobs, pay its creditors, and produce a return
for its stockholders.\"). The Code expressly contemplates that bankrupts
will sometimes avoid the consequences of late or non-payment they might
have faced had they not filed for bankruptcy. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §
1123(a)(5)(G) (stating that a reorganization plan may, among other
options, provide for \"curing or waiving of any default\"); United
States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 204 (1983) (\"The creditor
with a secured interest in property included in the estate must look to
\[the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code\] for protection, rather than to
the nonbankruptcy remedy of possession.\"). And the Code\'s restrictions
have been applied even to the official actions of Government agencies.
See, e.g., Whiting Pools, 462 U.S. at 209 (enforcing the Bankruptcy Code
against the IRS to prevent seizure of property under a tax lien and
concluding that \"\[n\]othing in the Bankruptcy Code or its legislative
history indicates that Congress intended a special exception for the tax
collector\"). Here, as we have explained, we think section 525 prevents
the Commission, whatever its motive, from canceling the licenses of
winning bidders who fail to make timely installment payments while in
Chapter 11.

We do not think this conclusion frustrates the purposes of the
Communications Act, because nothing in the Act required the Commission
to choose the licensing scheme at issue here. Although section 309(j)
suggests the possibility of using guaranteed installment payments of
some kind, the statute also suggests alternative methods of facilitating
small business participation. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(A). Indeed, in
1998, the Commission decided that \"until further notice, installment
payments should not be offered in auctions as a means of financing small
businesses and other designated entities seeking to secure spectrum
licenses.\" See Competitive Bidding Proceeding, 63 Fed. Reg. 2315,
2318-19 (Jan. 15, 1998). Moreover, irrespective of the Commission\'s
decision to use installment payments as part of its licensing scheme,
nothing in the Act required it to enter a creditor relationship with
winning bidders, take liens on licenses, or\--most important for our
decision here\--make timely payment a license condition. For example,
the Commission could have required winning bidders to obtain third party
guarantees for their license fee obligations, or required full upfront
payment from C Block licensees and helped them obtain loans from third
parties. The Commission could also have made license grants conditional
on periodic checks of financial health, a more extensive credit check,
or some other evidence that winning bidders were capable of using their
licenses in the public interest. Having chosen instead a scheme that put
it in a creditor-debtor (and lienholder) relationship with its licensees
and conditioned licenses on timely payment of their debts, and having as
a consequence run afoul of section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, the
Commission may not escape that provision\'s clear command simply because
it acted for a regulatory purpose.

IV

In view of our conclusion that the Commission violated section 525 of
the Bankruptcy Code in canceling NextWave\'s licenses, we need not
consider NextWave\'s remaining Bankruptcy Code arguments, nor its
arguments that the cancellation violated principles of due process and
fair notice. We therefore reverse and remand to the Commission for
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.