NASUCA Seeks Intervention in Tunney Act Review
Another interest group -- the National Assn. of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) -- sought Wed. to be part of the Tunney Act court review of the SBC-AT&T and Verizon- MCI mergers. Opposition swirled around an earlier bid for entry by the American Antitrust Institute (AAI).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
NASUCA wants to intervene for the “limited purpose” of explaining the mergers’ public interest implications, it told U.S. Dist. Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, D.C. State law designates NASUCA members to represent consumers in state and federal utility cases, the group said. NASUCA offered to provide consumer advocates’ written comments, including submissions made to the FCC during its review. It also offered economist Lee Selwyn’s analysis of the amount of market concentration the mergers would cause. Selwyn is willing to appear before the court to answer questions on “procedural, substantive or constitutional issues that may arise” in the judge’s review, NASUCA’s motion said.
“It has come to our attention that at the opening of this court’s July 12, 2006, Tunney Act hearing… questions were raised regarding the apparent absence of consumer group representation at the hearing and the significance of that absence,” NASUCA said: “We understand that some may have offered their supposition that consumer groups intended to signal to the Court by their non-presence that they were not troubled by the merger approval. NASUCA assures the Court that nothing could be further from the truth.”
Meanwhile, key parties to the review -- DoJ, Verizon and AT&T -- objected to AAI’s request to intervene (CD July 18 p9), saying the institute’s involvement wouldn’t enhance the deliberations and terming its motion “untimely.” AAI’s offer to provide 2 experts’ testimony “will add nothing substantive to the record… as it either consists of inadmissible opinion regarding legal standards applicable to these proceedings or duplicates CompTel’s objections to the proposed final judgment,” DoJ said.
AAI “has no legally protected interest at stake” and “the experts AAI offers are neither unbiased nor qualified to assist the court with the sole issue before it -- whether the government’s proposed final judgment meaningfully addresses the harm alleged in its complaint,” Verizon said. AT&T called the motion “untimely and dilatory.” AAI’s “excuse for its tardiness -- that previously it did not believe the court would take its responsibilities under the Tunney Act seriously -- is an affront to the integrity and credibility of this court,” AT&T said. One professor offered by AAI “is clearly aligned with CLEC interests” and the other “is offered for the impermissible purpose of telling this Court what the law is,” AT&T said.
AAI said the court has “wide latitude and discretion” to decide which parties can intervene “under whatever limitations or conditions the Court sees fit.” It’s “remarkable” that DoJ and the Bells think AAI can’t be of help, the institute said in a formal response to opposition: “The obvious implication is that the court can gain nothing from the opinions and views of two of the nation’s thought leaders in antitrust and telecommunications regulation.”
CompTel accused the Bells and DoJ of “seeking to limit this Court’s ability to discharge [its] responsibilities” by opposing AAI’s intervention. The parties have “consistently sought to limit the court’s discretion” and now are trying to limit Sullivan’s “access to independent information,” CompTel said.