The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should take up the Standard/Tegna broadcasters’ appeal of the FCC’s HDO, said NAB in an amicus filing Thursday. “This Court should treat this order according to its intent and effect—a de facto final denial of the license application—and hear the appeal,” NAB said in the brief filed late Thursday. Refusal to act is itself an agency final action, said the Standard/Tegna broadcast parties in a filing opposing the FCC’s motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to dismiss their appeal (see 2303280072). The FCC Media Bureau’s action “on gossamer evidence” injects “untenable unpredictability into license transfer applications,” NAB said.
The consent of a foreign manufacturer does not overcome the Privacy Act of 1974's ban on disclosure of the confidential Enforce and Protect Act record, the U.S. said in response to importer Richmond International Forest Products' motion to compel. Richmond's motion does not qualify for disclosure since the company is requesting the entire confidential EAPA record, which has data submitted by parties other than the consenting foreign manufacturer, LB Wood, the government said (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).
The Court of International Trade on March 29 dismissed a lawsuit from cell phone case maker Otter Products seeking interest on customs duty overpayments, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Claire Kelly held that the Administrative Procedure Act waiver of sovereign immunity only applies to interest on deposits linked with liquidated entries. As a result, there is no specific waiver of immunity related to Otter's claim for interest for its overpayments on tendered prior disclosures "under the no-interest rule," Kelly said.
NAB will take the FCC to court unless it delays the 2022 quadrennial review and concludes the 2018 QR, said an ex parte filing Wednesday and broadcast industry officials in interviews, “The Commission has no lawful basis for withholding the belated 2018 review, and that failure independently threatens the viability of the 2022 review,” said the filing in docket 22-459. Multiple broadcast attorneys said the trade group is resolved to pursue the matter in court and without FCC action NAB will petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus. The filing gives the agency until April 12 to toll the 2022 QR proceeding and conclude the 2018 iteration. It’s not likely the FCC will agree to the request, attorneys said.
Antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to a 16-minute late submission (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
NAB filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit calling on the court to treat the Standard/Tegna hearing designation order as a final action and calling the order a threat to the broadcast industry. “This Court should treat this order according to its intent and effect -- a de facto final denial of the license application -- and hear the appeal,” NAB said in the brief filed late Thursday. The trade group also filed a motion seeking permission to file the amicus brief. The FCC Media Bureau’s action “on gossamer evidence” injects “untenable unpredictability into license transfer applications,” the trade group said. NAB has historically held back from weighing in on specific deals, but CEO Curtis LeGeyt vocally condemned the HDO earlier this month.“We urge the court to correct this egregious misstep by the FCC," said LeGeyt in a release Thursday. "Unappointed FCC staff have sent this proposed deal to regulatory purgatory, depriving the Commissioners the opportunity to participate in decisions that carry significant implications for broadcast stations and their viewers and listeners." “Public interest review is not a mechanism for regulating licensee business contracts and employment practices,” the filing said. The Media Bureau’s “significant departure” from FCC precedent “means in practice that no party contemplating an investment in broadcast stations can, with any certainty, predict how the FCC will process its license transfer,” NAB said. “The broadcast industry cannot tolerate this kind of unpredictability.”
NAB will take the FCC to court unless it delays the 2022 quadrennial review and concludes the 2018 QR, said an ex parte filing Wednesday and broadcast industry officials in interviews, “The Commission has no lawful basis for withholding the belated 2018 review, and that failure independently threatens the viability of the 2022 review,” said the filing in docket 22-459. Multiple broadcast attorneys said the trade group is resolved to pursue the matter in court and without FCC action NAB will petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus. The filing gives the agency until April 12 to toll the 2022 QR proceeding and conclude the 2018 iteration. It’s not likely the FCC will agree to the request, attorneys said.
The U.S. this week charged FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's anti-bribery provisions. Filing a superseding indictment at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York March 27, the U.S. Attorney's Office said Bankman-Fried and others paid around $40 million in cryptocurrency to one or more Chinese government officials to "induce them" to unfreeze certain cryptocurrency trading accounts held by one of Bankman-Fried's companies, Alameda Research (U.S. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, S.D.N.Y. # 22-00673).
The U.S. this week charged FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's anti-bribery provisions. Filing a superseding indictment at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York March 27, the U.S. Attorney's Office said Bankman-Fried and others paid around $40 million in cryptocurrency to one or more Chinese government officials to "induce them" to unfreeze certain cryptocurrency trading accounts held by one of Bankman-Fried's companies, Alameda Research (U.S. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, S.D.N.Y. # 22-00673).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.