WPC% 2BJ Z Courier3|xBoldTimes New Roman@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@26F 23|xCourierCourier Boldiptitional)HPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh:hX@CourierCourier BoldTimes RomanTimes Roman Bold2L XKZ:K<?xxx,2x6X@`7X@?xxx,)x `7X7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,%4Xn4  pG;X[dCYddddd7>d<d<$8YYdCCddooCYȾand, therefore, not eligible for consideration with the current processing group for Big LEO licenses.  X-  3.xMCHI is a Delaware Corporation. The majority of its voting stock (71.12%) is held by  xDC Limited Partnership, another Delaware Corporation of which Dr. David Castiel holds 56.88%  xof the voting stock. Dr. Castiel is also the president and director of MCHI. MCHI's other voting  xAshareholders are Venture First Associates (9.73%), Barclays de Zoete Wedd, Ltd.  x (5.72%)("Barclays"), Israel Aircraft Industries (3.81%)("IAI"), Fairchild Space and Defense  xCompany (1.91%), Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1.91%)("Westinghouse"), Cable &  x\Wireless (1.91%), Harris Corporation (0.95%)("Harris"), Spectrum Network Systems Limited (0.95%)("SNS"), and AECAble Engineering Company, Inc. (0.95%)("AECAble").  X-  4.xMCHI proposes to construct a satellite system consisting of 16 satellites, arrayed in three  x="constellations." Two constellations would consist of five satellites each, in inclined elliptical  xorbits. The third constellation would consist of six satellites in a circular equatorial orbital plane. The system would use Code Division Multiple Access ("CDMA") technology.  XN-' II. Discussion ĐTP  X -A. MCHI's Qualifications at This Time.   X-  o5.xFinancial Qualifications. In the Big LEO Order, the Commission noted that the  xenormous costs involved in constructing and launching a satellite system have historically made  xit particularly important that applicants for satellite licenses to use spectrum which is in high" 0*(("  x demand demonstrate, in advance, the financial ability to proceed with construction of their  xsystems. It noted its repeated experience that licensees without sufficient available resources  xispend a significant amount of time attempting to raise necessary funding, and that those attempts  X-often end unsuccessfully.u X4-#XP\  P6QXP#эBig LEO Order at  2630.u  X-  6.xThe Commission observed that, "where a grant to an underfinanced applicant may  xpreclude a fully capitalized applicant from implementing its plans, and service to the public may  X_- xbe consequently delayed," a "stringent financial showing" is warranted.n_y X -#Xj\  P6G;XP#эBig LEO Order at  26.n The Commission also  x.observed that the Big LEO spectrum sharing plan it adopted did not accommodate all pending  xapplicants, and left little or no room for expansion of existing systems or the development of  x0future mobile satellite systems in the United States. For these reasons, the Commission  xldetermined that a strict financial requirement was warranted for the Big LEO service, and  x\adopted a rule requiring that Big LEO applicants demonstrate committed internal or external  X - xfinancing sufficient to meet their systems' construction, launch, and firstyear operating costs.u * X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эBig LEO Order at  3032.u   X-  7.xConsequently, the financial qualification rules adopted for the Big LEO service require  x[applicants for space stations to demonstrate that they, or their corporate parents, have current  x[assets (cash, inventory, and accounts receivable) and operating income sufficient to cover the  xjcosts of construction and launch of the system's space segment, and of operating for one year  x[following the launch of the first satellite. The Commission also requires that applicants submit  xevidence of a management commitment, from the applicant or its parent corporation(s), as  xappropriate, to expend the necessary funds. Alternatively, applicants relying on external  xfinancing, such as bank loans, must demonstrate that such financing is "irrevocably committed,"  X- x.i.e., that it has been approved and does not rest on contingencies that require action by either  X-party to the transaction.] XM-#XP\  P6QXP#эThese requirements, and the documentation necessary to establish they have been met,  X6-are set forth in greater detail at 47 C.F.R.  25.140(c) and (d). See also 47 C.F.R.   X -25.143(b)(3); Big LEO Order at  35.]  X-  8.xMCHI estimates that the costs of construction, launch, and firstyear operation for its  xzsixteensatellite system total $564 million. To demonstrate its ability to finance this venture,  x1MCHI relies primarily on commitments from its parent corporations and on financing"e^ 0*(("  X- xcommitments from several of its vendors. On November 16, 1994, MCHI's financial showing Xy-#XP\  P6QXP#эThe showing was submitted with a request for confidential treatment. That request was  Xb-denied. See Order, DA 941322 (Int'l. Bur. Nov. 25, 1994). MCHI substantially narrowed  XK-its request; that request was granted. See Order on Reconsideration, DA 941566 (Int'l. Bur.  X4-Dec. 21, 1994), app. for rev. pending. consisted of: Xx1) MCHI's balance sheet, listing current assets of $309,645;(#   mXx2) Management letters from Westinghouse, Harris, IAI, and Barclays describing their   commitments to MCHI's satellite system, as well as annual reports or other financial information concerning those companies;(#   Xx3) A letter from SNS describing its commitment to acquire exclusive distribution rights for mobile satellite service in selected countries using MCHI's system;(#   Xx4) Letters from Arianespace, AECAble, and Satellite Transmission Systems, potential   1vendors of the equipment or services to be used in connection with MCHI's satellite   {system, concerning financing arrangements they would be willing to make in connection with MCHI's equipment or service purchases;(#   Xx5) A letter from Barclays providing its opinion, as an investment bank, that, subject to   a number of assumptions, financing could be arranged for up to twenty percent of the construction, launch, and operation costs.(#  X-  A9.xEach of the other applicants for a Big LEO license argues that MCHI's showing is  xinsufficient under the Commission's rules, in that the commitments from MCHI's shareholders  xare insufficiently firm to meet Commission standards. They also argue that, while some of  xMCHI's arrangements for vendor financing may meet Commission standards, those commitments fall far short of the $564 million needed to construct the system.  X-   10.xMCHI responded by submitting additional information concerning its financial plan. It  xsubmitted a revised balance sheet for MCHI, reflecting an increase in current assets to  x$1,260,185. The revised balance sheet also includes notes indicating that MCHI has entered into  xirrevocable contracts for a total of $14.1 million in financing. It also submitted an overview of  xits financial plan, dividing its sources of funds into three categories what it describes as  x"internal" sources, vendor financing, and "other" sources. The overview indicates that MCHI is  xrelying on internal funding, involving "total management commitments" of "$600,000,000+" from  xitself and four of its shareholders, IAI, Westinghouse, Harris, and Barclays. The amounts of the"40*(("  X- xcommitments from each particular shareholder are unspecified.: v Xy-#XP\  P6QXP#эIn a different portion of its filing, MCHI appears to rely on another shareholder, SNS, as a source of internal funding. However, SNS is listed as an "other" source of funds in the  XK-overview of MCHI's financial plans. We address the SNS commitment more fully, infra. We note, however, that to the extent MCHI intends to rely on SNS as an "internal" source of funds, it has not submitted evidence adequate to demonstrate that SNS has necessary financial resources.: MCHI also relies on what it  xLcharacterizes as committed vendor financing from a number of sources, including Arianespace  x($45 million), AECAble Engineering ($93 million), ESKOS ($160 million), Satellite  xTransmission Systems ($10 million), IBM ($5.0 million), Northern Telecom ($4.0 million), CSC  x($3.0 million), and Spectrum Astro ($206.0 million). It also relies on "other" sources of funds,  xincluding what it characterizes as committed funds from Spectrum Network Systems ($100 million) and Voyager Communications ($5 million).  XH-   11. xExcept with respect to the $1.26 million reflected in MCHI's balance sheet, the sources  xof funding that MCHI characterizes as "internal" are not sufficiently definite to meet Commission  xOrequirements. Specifically, while the letters and other documentation submitted from  x>Westinghouse, IAI, Harris, and Barclays include general statements of support for MCHI's  x[application, they do not establish management commitments to expend the funds necessary to  xZconstruct, launch, and operate the space segment of MCHI's proposed system. We address each  X -commitment below.  X-   12.xMCHI claims that Westinghouse's commitment is evidenced by a letter from Milton F.  xBorkowski, a VicePresident of Westinghouse's Electronic Systems Group. Mr. Borkowski states  xthat Westinghouse is involved in the MCHI project as a supplier and developer of ground  xnetwork and terminals. He states that "Westinghouse, as a member of the [MCHI] team, has  xcommitted significant financial resources and the support of its engineers to the development  x=project, and we are committed to continue the support of the team's efforts to move forward to  xcompletion of an operating system . . . ." Westinghouse does not indicate how much financing  xit has committed or to what extent it plans to support "the team" financially. In fact,  xxWestinghouse's involvement appears limited to serving as a supplier of ground segment facilities,  xand as a holder of a less than 2% interest in MCHI. While MCHI points to evidence that  xkWestinghouse has been active in arranging vendor financing for MCHI, that financing also  xiappears to be for ground segment facilities. Accordingly, we cannot find that Westinghouse has  xmade a financial commitment to expend funds necessary to construct, launch, and operate MCHI's space segment, as our rules require.  X7-  P 13.xWith respect to IAI, MCHI submits a letter, dated November 8, 1994, from Shmuel  xPeretz, IAI's Vice PresidentFinance. Mr. Peretz's November 8 letter notes the involvement of  xother MCHI shareholders, and states that IAI, "as a team member with other MCHI partners, [is]  xprepared to support MCHI's efforts to raise the necessary funds in the financial market for  x\[MCHI's] system . . . ." MCHI also submits a further letter from Mr. Peretz, dated January 3," 0*(("  xy1995, in which Mr. Peretz indicates that IAI has arranged vendor financing for launch expenses  xywith ESKOS, S.A., the official representative of the Russian Space Agency, and has obtained a  x>letter of intent from CLAL Industries Ltd. "for the finance of up to US$40 Million of the IAI  xworkshare" in MCHI's system. Mr. Peretz's January 3 letter describes these arrangements, as  xwell as some financial details concerning IAI, and indicates that IAI has reviewed MCHI's  xjapplication and business plan and is confident that the project will succeed in the marketplace.  Xv- xMr. Peretz closes by indicating that, "[b]ased upon all of the above, we are therefore prepared to expend the necessary funds to support" MCHI's project (emphasis added).  X1-  0 14.xRead in context, IAI's statements suggest that it views the "necessary" expenditures as  xsomething less than the full amount of MCHI's projected costs, and that IAI's commitment is  xicontingent on MCHI reaching agreements with other MCHI equity holders that they will shoulder  X - xMsome unspecified share of MCHI's estimated costs.  Xe -#Xj\  P6G;XP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  25.140(d)(2)(ii), (iii). Precisely how much less than the full  x?amount IAI intends to commit is unclear. In light of IAI's relatively small (3.81%) equity  xinterest in MCHI, IAI may mean, for example, that the "necessary" funds constitute a 3.8% share  xof MCHI's cost. It does not say so, however. In fact, Mr. Peretz's letters do not clearly indicate  xwhether IAI contemplates making any expenditures, or the amount of those expenditures, except  xMfor the "expenditures" in connection with its proposed agreements with ESKOS and CLAL.  xTherefore, in the absence of an explicit and unequivocal statement to the contrary, we can only  xconstrue IAI's commitment as being conditioned on the participation of ESKOS and CLAL, and  xinvolving no independent commitment beyond expenditures in connection with those agreements.  xThis type of contingent commitment indicates no more than an interest in assisting the applicant  xjin obtaining financing, in this case from ESKOS and CLAL. Such arrangements are inadequate  X- x=to meet our financial standards. y X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эSee, e.g., United States Satellite Systems, Inc., 103 F.C.C.2d 888,  4 (1985) . Accordingly, we give no weight to IAI's commitment, except  xyinsofar as the ESKOS and CLAL arrangements separately satisfy the requirements of our rules.  X-  N15.xWith respect to ESKOS, MCHI submits a onepage letter from V. Kouznetsov, ESKOS's  xPresident, in which ESKOS "confirms its intention" to launch eight of MCHI's satellites in return  xfor equity in MCHI, "calculated at the rate of the most recent postlicense transaction." Mr.  xKouznetsov indicates that the launch services "could be accomplished" with "four launch vehicles  xat a cost of U.S. $160 million, if services are rendered not later than 1998." This does not appear  xto be a fully negotiated agreement between ESKOS and MCHI, and there is no indication that  X - xany such agreement exists.  * X#-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эSee Equatorial Communications Services, 103 F.C.C.2d 631,  4 (1985)(memorandum of understanding, without fully negotiated agreement, cannot be used as evidence of financial qualifications). Several key terms, such as the amount of ESKOS's potential equity"  0*((="  X- x[investment, are also omitted.z  Xy-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  25.140(d)(2)(iii).z ESKOS's commitment amounts to little more than an expression  X-of interest in purchasing an unspecified equity share. This is inadequate under our cases.y X-#XP\  P6QXP#эSee National Exchange, Inc., 103 F.C.C.2d 863,  7 (1985).   X-  16.xWith respect to CLAL, MCHI submits a letter from CLAL to IAI in which CLAL  xindicates its intent to invest $40 million "toward the workshare of IAI . . . . Such intention is  xsubject to, among others, (i) the finalizing of the specific terms of the proposed financing, (ii)  xthe finalizing of the necessary business agreement with IAI regarding CLAL's equity and  xworkshare participation in the Project . . . ." The conditions outlined in the letter render it  XH-inadequate to demonstrate financial qualifications.uH* X# -#Xj\  P6G;XP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  25.140(d)(2).u  X -  17.xMCHI attempts to demonstrate Harris's commitment by submitting a letter from Dr. Bill  xC. Tankersley, Director, Space Systems, in which Dr. Tankersley indicates that Harris "has  xcommitted significant financial and technical resources to the development project to date. We  x<are committed to continuing this support under the terms of our present business agreement with  x{MCHI." In a subsequent letter, Phillip W. Farmer, President and Chief Operating Officer,  xreiterates Dr. Tankersley's statement of support. MCHI, however, has not presented any evidence  xas to the extent of Harris's financial support or the business arrangements between it and Harris,  x.other than noting Harris is a 1% shareholder in MCHI. Harris's statements could well be made  xjby any potential vendor who had agreed to take a small equity share in a new venture in return  xjfor early developmental work. While such arrangements can be significant, the documentation  xsubmitted by MCHI does not show that Harris is immediately prepared to contribute any portion  xof the substantial additional expenditures necessary to complete the project, as required by our  X-rules.   X-  |18.xWith respect to Barclays, MCHI submits a letter from Trevor Nash, Director, in which  xMr. Nash states Barclays' commitment "as financial advisor" to MCHI, and indicates that "we  x>will continue to commit our worldwide professional resources" to MCHI. A commitment to  x-provide merely advisory services does not constitute a financial commitment and cannot be used  X|-to demonstrate MCHI's qualifications.| X!-#XP\  P6QXP#эEquatorial Communications Services, 103 F.C.C.2d 631,  5 (1985); United States  X!-Satellite Systems, Inc., 103 F.C.C.2d 888 at  4.  XN-  /19.xIn addition to these "internal" sources, MCHI has submitted evidence of vendor and other  xfinancing arrangements. These arrangements are also inadequate to establish MCHI's financial qualifications.  X-  z20.xMCHI has submitted evidence of vendor financing, arranged by Westinghouse, for various"u0*((Z"  x>ground segment facilities. The vendors are Satellite Transmission Systems, IBM, Northern  xTelecom, and CSC. These arrangements are not relevant under our financial standard, since they  xZdo not involve the construction and launch of the system's space segment, or firstyear operating expenses.  X-  M21.xMCHI also relies on vendor financing for satellite system construction and launch services  xZfrom Arianespace, Spectrum Astro, and AECAble. With the possible exception of Arianespace's  xagreement to provide $45 million in launch services, these agreements do not appear to be fully  x!negotiated, as evidenced by the fact that MCHI has not submitted detailed terms of the  X1- xtransactions as required by Section 25.140(d)(2) of the Commission's rules.`v1 X -#XP\  P6QXP#эWith respect to Spectrum Astro, MCHI also submits a letter, substantially in the form of letters submitted in this proceeding to indicate a management or parent company commitment. To the extent this letter is intended to evidence Spectrum's "commitment" to the project as an internal financier, it is not accompanied by evidence of Spectrum's financial capability, which  XN-must be submitted in connection with internal financing. 47 CFR  25.140(d )(1); Big LEO  X7-Order at  35.` Furthermore, AEC xAble explicitly indicates that it is agreeing only to "arrange financing," but there is no indication  X - xMthat this financing has been arranged.  X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эSee Equatorial Communications Services, 103 F.C.C.2d 631,  4 (1985). This commitment is not significantly different than  x Arianespace's commitment to arrange financing with European banks of an additional $255  xmillion of MCHI's launch costs, funds which MCHI itself, in the overview of its financial plan  xsubmitted with its opposition, declines to characterize as "committed." At best, therefore, MCHI  X -can claim vendor financing of $45 million.  X-#XP\  P6QXP#эMCHI also submits a letter from Banque Nationale de Paris indicating its "interest in principle" in "assisting" MCHI in arranging financing, "on a best effort basis," subject to, among other things, Export Credit Agency guarantees, and "completion of the overall financing of the project." This letter is patently insufficient under 47 C.F.R.  25.140(d)(2).  Xy-  !22.xFinally, MCHI relies on what it characterizes as "other" sources of funding. MCHI lists  xas "committed" $100 million from Spectrum Network Systems ("SNS") and $5 million from  xVoyager Communications. The SNS letter submitted with MCHI's amendment states that the  xkterms of the arrangement "would be" that it "will, prior to January 31, 1995, acquire" an 80%  x[interest in distribution rights for MCHI's service in certain countries. This "final agreement" is  xLapparently subject to further negotiation, including negotiations with a third party. Therefore,  X- xit does not provide evidence of financial qualifications under our rules.#  X#-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эEquatorial Communications Services, 103 F.C.C.2d 631,  4 (1985). Furthermore, to the  xextent SNS, because of its .95% stock interest in MCHI, is considered an internal investor, its  xstated commitment to provide "necessary funds" appears to be limited to the $100 million  xcontemplated by the notyetfullynegotiated agreement for distribution rights. With respect to  xthe Voyager agreement, which apparently involves the sale of distribution rights for its system,"0*((3"  x\MCHI has not provided sufficient information to allow us to determine whether it meets the  x[requirements of our rules. Finally, even if both agreements were fully negotiated and complied  xwith our rules, they would still leave MCHI far short of meeting its estimated costs of $564  X-million.]v X4-#XP\  P6QXP#эMCHI lists its agreement with Cable and Wireless as an "other" potential source of funding. Specifically, Cable and Wireless acquired a 2% equity interest in MCHI and what Cable and Wireless describes as an option to increase its participation in MCHI. An option to invest additional funds represents the type of arrangement, contingent on further performance by one of the parties, that is insufficient for purposes of demonstrating financial  X -qualifications. See 47 C.F.R.  25.140(d)(2)(iii).]  X-  l23.xThus MCHI's documentation of its financial qualifications is generally of the type which  Xv- x{the Commission has summarily rejected as insufficient under our rules. MCHI's financial  xKshowing clearly evidences a number of arrangements which may, between now and January 1996,  xdevelop into commitments which, in the aggregate, would be sufficient to meet MCHI's  xestimated costs. However, at this time no single source on which MCHI relies appears willing  xor able to fund MCHI's estimated costs, and few have even indicated a definite amount they  xmight be willing and able to commit. Viewing all these sources of funds in the aggregate, we  xmust conclude they fail to demonstrate MCHI's financial ability to proceed immediately to  X -construct, launch, and operate its system.  X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эMCHI also argues that its financial plan is at a more advanced stage than the plans of other applicants. We have, by separate orders, addressed MCHI's objections to the other applicants' financial showings.  X -B. Future Processing Status of MCHI's Application  X-  Xy-  24.xSeveral of the parties opposing MCHI's application urge us to dismiss the application  Xb- xif we find MCHI is not financially qualified. We will not do this. In the Big LEO Order, we  xafforded applicants until January 31, 1996 to demonstrate financial qualifications. We cannot  x=find that because MCHI has submitted an inadequate showing, it should lose its status in this  X- xprocessing group. Neither the Big LEO Order nor our rules indicate any such intent, and we  xwould expect the Commission to provide explicit notice of such a policy. Indeed, to hold  xotherwise would unfairly penalize applicants who, in good faith, file a system application we later  x[find does not conform with our rules. Therefore, consistent with the Commission's stated goal  xin adopting the deferral mechanism to provide applicants with an opportunity to finalize  xfinancial arrangements over the next year we will defer action on MCHI's application rather than dismiss it.  Xe-  25.xFeeder Links. MCHI originally requested feeder links in the Big LEO service link  xfrequencies, 16101626.5 MHz and 2483.52500 MHz. On November 16, MCHI amended its  x{application, requesting feeder links at 15.4 15.7 GHz (Earthtospace)and 67257025 MHz  xx(spacetoEarth), operating in reverse band mode. Motorola argues that MCHI's amended request"  0*((\"  X- xfor feeder link frequencies constitutes a major amendment under Section 25.116 of our rules.e Xy-#Xj\  P6G;XP#э47 C.F.R.  25.116.e  xjIt claims that the amendment was not necessitated by the new policies and rules established in  X- x\the Big LEO Order, and that it increases the potential for interference without resolving any  xfrequency conflicts. Motorola also claims the amended request will decrease the likelihood that  xLthere will be enough spectrum available for all the applicants in their desired feeder link bands,  xand that such requests will further delay unconditional licenses to Motorola as well as other  Xv-system operators.   XH-  {26.xMCHI replies that our global coverage standard for LEO systems requires its feeder link  x[amendment. MCHI also observes that its feeder links do not increase frequency conflicts with existing services, nor with Motorola.  X -  27. xIn the Big LEO Order, the Commission afforded applicants the opportunity to amend their  xLapplications to bring them into conformance with newly adopted requirements and policies for  xsatellite systems. It noted, for example, that a change from a geostationary system configuration  xto a LEO configuration to meet our system design requirement, or a change in coverage patterns  xto conform with our satellite visibility requirements, would not affect a particular application's  xstatus in the processing group. It also indicated, however, that "a change that is not necessary  Xb- xto bring the application into conformance with our rules and which would increase frequency  XK- xjconflicts," would render the application newly filed under Section 25.116 of the Rules.Ky Xu-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эBig LEO Order at  59 (Emphasis added). As an  xkexample, it stated that a design change from a CDMA to a TDMA/FDMA system, a change  xwhich would not facilitate spectrum sharing for Big LEO service links, would be a major  xiamendment. Such applications would be considered in a future processing group, and after those applications deferred for consideration until January 1996.  X-  28.xMCHI redesigned its system to facilitate the spectrum sharing plan adopted in the Big  X- xLEO Order by increasing the number of end users that can be served simultaneously. It appears  x=that MCHI's amended feeder link requests were a consequence of this redesign. Therefore, we  xdo not believe the changes in MCHI's feeder link proposal should be considered major.  xFurthermore, even if the amendment were considered major within the meaning of Section 25.116  xof the Rules, we would waive that rule in this case because (a) the modified system serves the  xKpublic interest by increasing system capacity and spectrumuse efficiency in the service links; (b)  xfeeder link spectrum is for a use ancillary to the use of Big LEO spectrum; (c) the service is at  x]a relatively early stage of development in which its spectrum requirements are still being  xaddressed; and (d) any third parties who might be adversely affected by feeder link allocations  xwill have a full opportunity to address potential interference concerns in other pending" *0*(("  X- x]proceedings Xy-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эWe note that the Commission has a number of issues related to the allocations of spectrum for Big LEO feeder links separately before it in several pending proceedings,  XK-including the 28 GHz Proceeding, (Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket  X4-No. 92297), 9 F.C.C. Rcd. 1394 (1994), and Preparation for the World Radio Conference, (Notice of Inquiry in IC Docket No. 9431), 9 F.C.C. Rcd. 2430 (1994). or, in the event MCHI ultimately establishes its financial qualifications, in  xconnection with any further amendments to or modifications of MCHI's feeder link proposal.  X-Accordingly, we decline to treat MCHI's application as newly filed.H X -#Xj\  P6G;XP#эIn its consolidated opposition, MCHI also reargues issues raised in a May 2, 1991,  X -objection and in a May 31, 1991, petition for reconsideration, Geostar Positioning  Xr -Corporation, 6 F.C.C. Rcd. 2276 (Comm.Car. Bur. 1991). MCHI objects to the acceptance  X[ -of applications other than its own. The Commission in the Big LEO Order effectively overruled any objections to consideration of the other pending applications by developing a spectrum sharing plan and licensing rules premised on six pending applications. Therefore,  X-we will not further address MCHI's contentions in this Order.   X-  III. Conclusion and Ordering Clause TP  Xv-  29.xFor the reasons stated, we cannot find at this time that MCHI is financially qualified to  xLconstruct, launch, and operate the Big LEO system it proposes. In light of this conclusion, we  xneed not address MCHI's technical qualifications and we express no opinion on that issue. We  xreject, however, the parties' arguments that MCHI has forfeited its right to further consideration  xywith the second portion of this processing group. MCHI will therefore have until January 1996  X -to firm up its financial qualifications, in accordance with the Big LEO Order.u - X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эBig LEO Order at  4041.u  X -  30.xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that application file Nos. 11DSSP91(6); 18DSSP x91(18); 11SATLA95; 12SATAMEND95 ARE DEFERRED, subject to Mobile  xCommunications Holdings, Inc., submitting a showing demonstrating its financial qualifications no later than January 31, 1996. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Scott Blake Harris x` `  hh@Chief, International Bureau