Court Opinion

ID: 9446704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:16:33.349226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:45.064232
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I had set forth my views of the transaction at issue when this case was before us in 1955. See dissent in Enterprise Company v. Federal Communications Commission, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 374, 379, 231 F.2d 708, 713, certiorari denied Beaumont Broadcasting Corp. v. Enterprise Co., 1956, 351 U.S. 920, 76 S.Ct. 711, 100 L.Ed. 1451. As I read the record, the Hobby agreement may at any time be totally terminated if Hobby should demand and receive the full amount of his loan of $55,000. Moreover, as I set forth in my dissent, the agreement can never be exeeutéd unless the Commission finds that it will be in the public interest for Beaumont to assign its construction permit to a new holding company, yet to be formed, in which Beaumont would own 67% Percent of the stock and Hobby would own 32% per cent of the stock for which he must pay in full.
Details as to the background of that transaction were to be appraised by the Commission, as I read the terms of the majority’s previous direction. The Commission was asked to consider the “changed” financial status in the light of Clarksburg Publishing Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 211, 225 F.2d 511. But Clarksburg had said explicitly that the extent to which the Commission may wish to require itemization of expenses and similar data “is a matter for the Commission’s judgment.” Id., 96 U.S. App.D.C. at page 220, 225 F.2d at page 520.
Here, it could have seemed that the Commission had exercised that judgment on the basis of the sworn testimony of record, wholly unchallenged, and Beaumont's complete disclosure of the terms of the agreement back in December 1954. However, it is clear my colleagues feel that further particulars should be developed of record, and I am not disposed to object. Thus I concur in the result.
It may be in order to observe that in my view this case does not at all resemble the Clarksburg situation. There the only other applicant “dropped out” the day before the Commission’s award to Ohio Valley, and there were various other factual deficiencies. Here, however, as my colleagues recognize, the Commission has found not once but three times, after comparative hearings on the relative merits, that Beaumont is and was superior to all contesting applicants.
When the record shall have been completed, I assume dispositive finality will appear, who knows ?