GTE Corp. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

Indiana Supreme Court

GTE Corp. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

715 N.E.2d 360, 1999 Ind. LEXIS 547, 1999 WL 553723

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 30, 1999

Docket93S02-9907-EX-370

StatusPublished

This text of 715 N.E.2d 360 (GTE Corp. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

GTE Corp. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 715 N.E.2d 360, 1999 Ind. LEXIS 547, 1999 WL 553723 (Ind. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ON EMERGENCY PETITION TO TRANSFER

BOEHM, Justice.

This case, like Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 715 N.E.2d 351 (Ind.1999), raises the issue of the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission under Indiana Code § 8-l-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 *362 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON EMERGENCY PETITION TO TRANSFER

BOEHM, Justice.

This case, like Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 715 N.E.2d 351 (Ind.1999), raises the issue of the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission under Indiana Code § 8-l-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 *362 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 N.E.2d 360, 1999 Ind. LEXIS 547, 1999 WL 553723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gte-corp-v-indiana-utility-regulatory-commission-ind-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack