security interest in FCC license

Subscribe to security interest in FCC license

In a decision this week on the sale of radio stations by Univision Radio to Latino Media Network, the Audio Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau discussed the FCC’s longstanding prohibition on the seller of a broadcast station retaining a “reversionary interest” in the station it is selling.  In this case, FCC staff found that the intent of the buyer to enter into a Local Marketing Agreement by which the seller would program some of the stations after closing was not a reversionary interest, because the buyer was free to make programming decision for the stations as long as it retained ultimate control over that programming and station operations.  Had the LMA been a condition of the sale, or had it served as partial consideration for the sale, the FCC suggested that it would have violated the prohibition against revisionary interests. But as the seller did not make the LMA a condition of the sale, the post-closing decision to enter into an LMA was a programming decision under the control of the buyer and thus was not deemed to be a prohibited reversionary interest.  No matter what the holding of this case, a more fundamental question arises – what is a reversionary interest and why is it prohibited?

In reviewing our blog when writing this article, we noted that in the almost 17 years we have been publishing, we don’t seem to have ever referred specifically to the question of reversionary or retained interests in a broadcast station.  It is an issue that does not come up often, but it is related to another issue that we have written about before – the prohibition on a lender taking a security interest in a broadcast license (see, for instance, our two part article on security interests in broadcast licenses, here and here).  The prohibition on the right of reversion or retained interest in a broadcast license is set out in Section 73.1150 of the FCC rules, which states:

(a) In transferring a broadcast station, the licensee may retain no right of reversion of the license, no right to reassignment of the license in the future, and may not reserve the right to use the facilities of the station for any period whatsoever.

(b) No license, renewal of license, assignment of license or transfer of control of a corporate licensee will be granted or authorized if there is a contract, arrangement or understanding, express or implied, pursuant to which, as consideration or partial consideration for the assignment or transfer, such rights, as stated in paragraph (a) of this section, are retained.

The prohibition against the right of reversion, and the prohibition against a lender taking a security interest directly in a license, were both adopted by the FCC to implement Communications Act requirements that state that a broadcast license does not convey an ownership interest in the spectrum being used, but instead only confers on the license holder a right to use the spectrum that does not extend “beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.”  In adopting the prohibitions against a reversionary interest, and the prohibitions on taking a security interest in a license, the FCC believed that these interests would imply an ownership interest in the license akin to the ownership interest that one might hold in other forms of property that can be subject to leases, mortgages, and other security interests.  Thus, the restrictions were imposed over half a century ago.  But, since being implemented, the FCC has from time to time questioned whether these restrictions really were necessary.
Continue Reading FCC Decision Discusses Prohibition on Retaining Reversionary Interests in Broadcast Licenses After Sale – What Is a Reversionary Interest and Why Is It Prohibited? 

It is not every year that the FCC seriously asks broadcasters for suggestions as to what rules it should abolish or modify, but that is exactly what the FCC is doing in its Modernization of Media Regulation proceeding (about which we wrote here and here). Comments due the week after next, on July 5, and broadcasters should accept the invitation and suggest rules that are ripe for repeal or amendment. I recently spoke at the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association’s annual convention and the broadcaster who chaired the association’s Federal legislative committee urged all broadcasters in attendance to register their ideas for reforms. That comment made me realize that many broadcasters may not be taking this invitation seriously.

The number of changes already made in broadcast regulations in the less than 6 months that Chairman Pai has headed the agency (e.g. reinstating the UHF discount, abolishing the requirements for letters from the public in the public file, allowing online recruitment to be the sole means of EEO wide dissemination of job openings, relaxing the location restrictions on FM translators for AM stations, relaxing the limitations on noncommercial fundraising, abolishing the obligation for noncommercial stations to report the social security numbers of their board members, the rescission of FCC enforcement actions for political violations, and the revocation of a policy statement against shared services agreements) demonstrate that this Commission is serious about deregulation. There has perhaps never been as real an opportunity as now to make your voice heard about the broadcast rules that should be relaxed as part of this proceeding. What rules should be examined by the FCC?
Continue Reading Modernization of Media Regulation – What Rule Changes Should Broadcasters be Requesting?

An uncertainty for the broadcast lending world was by removed by a decision of the US Court of Appeals issued last week. In 2010, a US District Court considering the bankruptcy of Tracy Broadcasting Corporation ruled that a security interest in the proceeds of the sale of a broadcast license could not be enforceable after a bankruptcy action had commenced unless the sale agreement had been signed prior to the bankruptcy – a situation that almost never occurs. As the FCC forbids taking a security interest directly in an FCC license, the practice of lenders for over 20 years, based on past precedent of the Commission, is to secure their loans by a security interest in the proceeds of the sale of the license. When the Tracy case was decided by the District Court, many lenders expressed their concern as to whether that long-standing precedent was still valid. We wrote about the Tracy decision and how it had been rejected by other courts as its reasoning was inconsistent with the prior FCC precedent.

Last week’s decision of Court of Appeals directly overturned the District Court decision.  The Appeals Court looked at the District Court decision, and the economic reality of the situation, and determined that a security interest in the proceeds of the sale was indeed enforceable after bankruptcy, even if the sale agreement did not come into being until after the bankruptcy petition had already been filed. The District Court had looked at certain provisions in the bankruptcy code providing that a creditor could not acquire a security interest in property or rights that arose after the bankruptcy proceeding had commenced. The District Court reasoned that an interest in the proceeds of the sale of a license could only arise after a sale agreement was signed and approved by the FCC. Thus, if the sale and FCC approval did not occur until after the bankruptcy, the rights to the proceeds did not arise until after the bankruptcy, and thus there could be no security interest in the proceeds of that sale. The Court of Appeals rejected that reasoning.Continue Reading Court of Appeals Overturns Case Questioning Lending Practice of Taking Security Interest in Proceeds of the Sale of an FCC License

How do you secure a loan to an FCC broadcast licensee? This was the issue discussed by a case released by the Commission last week – addressing the FCC’s policies prohibiting a station creditor from foreclosing on a broadcast license and also restricting the sale of a “bare license.” While this case involved an action for collection by a judgment creditor, it is instructive as to how any broadcast creditor, including a lender to a broadcast licensee, should act to secure loans or other financial obligations of a broadcaster, and how the creditor can exercise its rights in the event of a default. It is also instructive as to how to proceed to enforce a loan obligation to any FCC licensee – in the broadcast services or in the other services regulated by the FCC.  As the FCC has a long-standing policy prohibiting a lender from taking a security interest directly in an FCC license, lenders need to pay careful attention in documenting loans and in enforcing security agreements upon defaults to make sure that their interests are protected. 

Lenders cannot foreclose directly on a license when a broadcaster defaults on its obligations, as the FCC has made clear that a license is not a property right that can be used for security. The FCC has said that a license is not subject to “mortgage, security interest, or lien, pledge, attachment, seizure, or similar property right.”   As the license cannot be attached, to get at the value of the license if there is a default and the debtor won’t cooperate in a voluntary foreclosure, the Lender has to go to court and have a receiver or trustee appointed to oversee the assets of the debtor. An involuntary transfer to a trustee or receiver pursuant to a court order can be approved by the FCC expeditiously on a “short form” (Form 316 in the broadcast services) transfer application. Once appointed, the trustee can sell the sell the station (pursuant to FCC approval on a subsequent "long-form" application) and distribute the proceeds to the creditors. In the case decided last week, the actions of the local court that was attempting to enforce the rights of the creditor gave the Commission pause.Continue Reading Securing a Loan to a Broadcaster – Part 1 – FCC Case Clarifies How a Creditor Enforces Its Rights After a Default