Title: GTE Corp., et al v. IN Utility Regulatory Comm.

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS 
 Dale E. Sporleder  Indianapolis, Indiana 
      
   
   
   
   
   
  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES 
 INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Jeffrey A. Modisett Attorney General of Indiana A. Scott Chinn  Cindy M. Lott  Geoffrey Slaughter Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana 
 OFFICE OF UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR Anne E. Becker Keith L. Beall Robert M. Glennon Timothy M. Seat Karol H. Krohn Indianapolis, Indiana 
 BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, ISPAT INLAND, INC., ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY  John F. Wickes, Jr.  Todd A. Richardson  Indianapolis, Indiana  
 IN THE  
 SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA      GTE CORPORATION; BELL ATLANTIC     ) CORPORATION; GTE NORTH, INC.;         ) CONTEL OF THE SOUTH, INC.;        ) GTE COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; AND    ) GTE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.        )      Appellants (Respondents Below),        )                              )             v.                    )                                 )      INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY         )      COMMISSION; OFFICE OF UTILITY     ) CONSUMER COUNSELOR; AT&T         ) COMMUNICATIONS OF INDIANA, INC.;    ) TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS OF     )    Indiana Supreme Court INDIANA, INC.; SPRINT          )    Cause No. 93S02-9907-EX-370 COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.;     ) UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY OF    ) INDIANA, d/b/a SPRINT; MCI            )    Indiana Court of Appeals TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; )    Cause No. 93A02-9906-EX-436 BROOKS FIBER, INC.; MCIMETRO ACCESS)     TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC.;     ) WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;     ) INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,    ) INCORPORATED d/b/a AMERITECH     ) CORPORATION; SBC COMMUNICATIONS; ) INLAND STEEL COMPANY; BETHLEHEM     ) STEEL CORPORATION; R.R. DONNELLY &) SONS COMPANY; ANCHOR GLASS         ) CONTAINER CORPORATION; INDIANA     ) MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY;         ) INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT         ) COMPANY; INDIANAPOLIS WATER     ) COMPANY; NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC ) SERVICE COMPANY; PSI ENERGY, INC.;     ) SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS & ELECTRIC     ) COMPANY                     )     Appellees (Statutory Parties and         )             Intervenors Below).        ) 
  
 APPEAL FROM THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION      Cause No. 41322  
  
  ON EMERGENCY PETITION TO TRANSFER  
  
  July 30, 1999   BOEHM, Justice.     This case, like Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, N.E.2d (Ind. July 30, 1999), raises the issue of the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission under Indiana Code § 8-1-2-83(a) over transactions by direct or indirect shareholders of a public utility.      On July 28, 1998, GTE Corporation and Bell Atlantic Corporation announced their proposed merger. GTE Corporation is the corporate parent of two Indiana utilities: GTE North, Inc. and Contel of the South, Inc. Bell Atlantic, one of the "Baby Bells" along with Ameritech and SBC whose proposal to merge gave rise to Indiana Bell, is a holding company whose subsidiaries include operating telephone companies in the Eastern United States. If the merger is consummated as proposed, shareholders of GTE Corporation will exchange their shares for Bell Atlantic stock and GTE Corporation will survive as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Atlantic, with GTE North and Contel of the South continuing as wholly- owned subsidiaries of GTE Corporation.     On May 26, 1999, the Commission asserted jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the merger pursuant to Indiana Code § 8-1-2-83(a). This section provides that "no public utility, as defined in section 1 of this chapter, shall sell, assign, transfer, lease or encumber its franchise, works, or system . . . without approval of the commission." The holding companies and the utilities appealed the Commission's finding of jurisdiction. On July 1, 1999, we granted their petition to transfer under Appellate Rule 4(A)(9).      For the reasons explained in Indiana Bell, the proposed transaction involves neither 
 action by a "public utility" nor the transfer of the utility's "franchise, works or system." Accordingly, section 83(a) does not require Commission approval of this proposed transaction in the outstanding securities of these public utilities or their parents.     The order of the Commission is vacated for lack of jurisdiction. 
     DICKSON, SULLIVAN, and SELBY, JJ., concur.     SHEPARD, C.J., concurs on the basis of Indiana Bell v. Indiana Utility Regulatory     Commission.