WPC 2BVTZ 3|g )6?xxxX?Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.WRSx  @,,,&X@2F@ ZP D3|g HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.WRSC\  P6Q,,,&P I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҫ2LrxwtawHeading 1Heading 1` hp x (#4 <DL!#gX  Pg9CP# heading 2heading 2 heading 3heading 3 heading 4heading 42o~lvYheading 5heading 5heading 6heading 6heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8>4#I2PkCP##XXX  Pg9CXP#2  l  * heading 9heading 9 >4#B2PkCP##XXX  Pg9CXP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font footnote textfootnote text ;1#IX  Pg9CP##XXX  Pg9CXP#Toc 1Toc 1 ` hp x (#4!`  4!`` hp x (#2 *! $K@oToc 2Toc 2 ` hp x (#! ! ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#l!  l! ` hp x (#headerheader` hp x (#!footerfooter` hp x (#!!` hp x (#2lvkpkQpage numberpage number a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kYvtta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2Wa1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style StyleB b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersL! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2P a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersUj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers pfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2J!!"#$ a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers!yW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style". k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style#\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style$)WD (1) . 2#%|!&"'"(X#a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style%)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style&<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style(8bv{ 2  a.   21')0$*$+x%,3%a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style)F!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style*(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style+(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Style,z   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2B--c'.g+/+0,PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper-E!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# 2/1t-2^ .3dh.4.SubheadingSubheading10\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance2PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd3+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date4 X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2>45061071181 3DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off5@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.56 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.57f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 118L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2691p4:n5;6<d6LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 149 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document:K\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented;N X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large<B*d. 2!<=j&7>7?E9@-:HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored= V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins>u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice? ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format@D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2@A8S<B8=C>DXd@INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceA:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroBz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceC+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleD2ZBE[@F[IAG[AH[ASMALLSmall TypestyleEFINEFine TypestyleFLARGELarge TypestyleGEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleH2EI[BJBKXjDLXDVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleIENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with HeaderJ+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormalK,.1Ldf2LMLENEOFPlkKStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsM$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5N$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIOJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsP )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2MOQ MRMS|1NTNStyle 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsQDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontR4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5S$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointT$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2ZUOVPWPXUStyle 7Swiss 11.5U$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 PointV$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedW U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for BeginninggXi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2eYZZ`[pe\qeStyle 9Initial Codes for IntermediateY )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleZ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g[` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g\  . 2g]e-f^ef_f`pgDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g]  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g^  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g_*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g`  ` ` ` 2ja,hbhcYidiRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ga8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gbA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gc0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gdJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2mejfqkg'lhlRight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O geS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gf\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ghn` ` `  hhh@  2upimjnkkoloRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O giw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gjF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gk&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gl&#$  . 2smpnCqoqplrTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gm*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gn''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O go&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gp4+$,     2juqNsrssXtttTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gq&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gr&/0  . footnote tex#s'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referencet;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2Qzu~uviww xxyitemizeX1u&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2vI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilewW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentxiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2|y}zz{{{||a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fy$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fz/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F{: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F|E 2}|~}H~a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F}P   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F~[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ff  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fq 2}head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  2LGParagraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn 2\8 >Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toc 4toc 4` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#44` hp x (#2^v"@toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2J̗index 2index 2` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2|<qȚe9endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 2ʝeЛ5pȜ84S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  2},П8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  2e$12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2O.16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    2ߨZ20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 2.}24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  2`[28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 2L32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#2<vNIJZfootnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#endnote textendnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.2dnpҵqBeA, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2DeJpB36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   2vJ40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  27)߼f44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2i#-48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    2Y$52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2}56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  2x!60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 2x|64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#27TpVq68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 26eie3p72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 2h*76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  2c"80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 2,84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 2X88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     2}92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 94 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t$#$ 95 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t/%&` ` ` 2^96 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t:'(` ` `  97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)Verdana (Italic) (TT)Bookshelf Symbol 3 (TT)"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSS2"5^*8]SS.88S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BW*8888C8S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJoJoJoJSSS]]C]A]A8A]SSx]AN:*ZS8SSSSSS27}}S2||S}288SSS88SS8S82N8\\_C`_SS`*8]SS.88S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BWv8SSSS8]888SS:S8A8xx*8SSSS%S8|2S_8|SC\228`Z*827S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS\S]]]]S]"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^'+2ZFvP22FZ(2(2FFFFFFFFFF22ZZZx8- yO'ЍWarrant at section 5.14. Aggregation is required in this case because section 24.709(b)(8) of the Commission's rules provides that the interests of persons or entities with an "identity of interests" are aggregated for purposes of calculating equity holdings. 47 C.F.R.  24.709(b)(8). We believe that QUALCOMM and its officers and directors share an "identity of interest" with respect to their holdings in Leap and, therefore, must aggregate their equity interests in calculating QUALCOMM's equity interest in Leap. We note that, though this rule is specifically directed to situations involving control groups, we believe the rule should apply with equal force here. and limits the amount of shares that QUALCOMM may purchase such that the aggregated amount of shares owned by QUALCOMM and  S'shares and options owned by its officers and directors will not exceed 15 percent of Leap's equity.?- yO'ЍWarrant at section 5.14. We note that Section 5.3 of the Warrant provides for automatic exercise of remaining rights under the Warrant immediately prior to its expiration on September 23, 2008, if at that time, the fair market value of Leap's shares is greater than the exercise price under the Warrant. Based on Leap's representations during the pendency of these applications, and the specific requirements found elsewhere in the Warrant and in the Agreement Concerning Share Ownership, we read this automatic exercise provision to be subject to the overall 15 percent aggregate limit of Section 5.14 of the Warrant.  S'22.` ` These two obligations are also contained in the Agreement Concerning Share  Sp'Ownership.k@p - yO'ԍAgreement Concerning Share Ownership at sections 1 and 2. k QUALCOMM further commits in the Agreement Concerning Share Ownership to  SH 'implement a monitoring program to ensure compliance with the 15 percent aggregate limit.IAH - {O'ԍId. at section 3. I Accordingly, as we view this structure, QUALCOMM may not exercise its rights under the Warrant in a manner that would cause the aggregate of its shares and those of its officers and directors to exceed 15 percent of Leap's equity. Because QUALCOMM's officer and directors currently hold  S 'approximately nine percent of Leap's equity,ZB - {O'ԍSee Leap February 9th Letter at 3. Z QUALCOMM may purchase shares under the Warrant in an amount that equals no more than approximately six percent of Leap's equity. If the number of shares and options held by QUALCOMM's officer and directors changes, or if the structure of Leap's equity changes, QUALCOMM would be able to purchase additional shares, as long as the aggregate amount of its interest and that of its officers and directors does not exceed 15 percent of Leap's  S'equity.C 4- yO#'ЍWe note that we interpret the commitments made in the Warrant and in the Agreement Concerning Share Ownership to limit QUALCOMM's ability to acquire shares (or any other form of ownership interest) other than under the Warrant, if the acquisition would put the combined holdings of QUALCOMM and its officers and directors over 15 percent." C,''"""Ԍ S'ԙ23.` ` We do not agree with Petitioners that the obligations imposed upon QUALCOMM in the Warrant and the Agreement Concerning Share Ownership constitute either an impermissible  S'savings clause or a timerestricted call option under the Fifth MO&O such that QUALCOMM's interest  S'must be viewed as 23.61 percent.%DZ- {O'ЍSee Fifth MO&O, 10 FCC Rcd. at 45556,  95. See also Letter from Michael K. Kurtis, Esq., Kurtis & Associates, P.C., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 1999, at 45. % We do not believe that the combined interest of QUALCOMM and its officers and directors threatens Leap's status as a designated entity or puts Leap in a position where, at the end of the designated entity holding period applicable to its licenses, it will not have  S'complete control of decisions involving whether to sell equity, as is required by the Fifth MO&O.dE- {O 'ԍSee Fifth MO&O, 10 FCC Rcd. at 445,  94. d QUALCOMM's obligation under the Warrant to aggregate its shares with the shares and options held by its officers and directors and the overall 15 percent aggregate limit do not expire until September  S'23, 2008.`F |- {O'ЍWarrant at section 5.14. See Letter, James H. Barker III, Esq., Latham & Watkins and Thomas Gutierrez, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, Chtd., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed May 12, 1999. In that letter, Leap amends the language of section 5.14 of the Warrant to read as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Warrant, Holder hereby agrees that it will not exercise the Warrant or any portion thereof in a manner that would (i) preclude the Company from qualifying as a 'Publicly Traded Corporation With Widely Disbursed Voting Power' under 47 C.F.R.  24.720(m) as a result of the Company not satisfying the provisions of 47 C.F.R.  24.720(m)(2), or (ii) cause any change in the Company's status as a Very Small Business designated entity as defined by the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (to the extent the Company thereupon would not be qualified to hold or acquire, directly or indirectly, CBlock and FBlock broadband PCS licenses as to which it is or would be,  {O'directly or indirectly, the licensee), and any such exercise shall be invalid ab initio to the extent such exercise  {OT'would preclude such qualification or cause any such change." Id. We do not find a commensurate statement of the time period in the Agreement Concerning Share Ownership, and we require that the parties amend the Agreement to clarify that the commitments in that Agreement are coextensive with the commitments in the Warrant.` The designated entity holding period for AirGate's licenses will expire on April 28,  St'2002.CGZt- {O'ЍAirGate's licenses were granted April 28, 1997 and will expire April 28, 2007. See 47 C.F.R.  24.839(d)(1) (assignment or transfer of control of a C or F Block license prohibited unless filed after five years from the date of the initial license grant).C The designated entity holding period for the licenses that Leap will acquire pursuant to  SL 'Auction No. 22 will expire in 2004. Thus, the obligations in the Warrant and the Agreement Concerning Share Ownership exceed not only the fiveyear designated entity holding period for both the C and F Block licenses it seeks to acquire but also the license term of the F Block licenses that Leap seeks to acquire from AirGate. In addition, the obligations will last nine of the ten years of the  S 'license term for the licenses granted pursuant to Auction No. 22.H $- {Op#'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  24.15 (providing for a tenyear license term for PCS licenses). We conclude, therefore, that the " H,''""d " structure does not afford QUALCOMM the ability to change Leap's status as a designated entity by purchasing shares under the Warrant, and we do not consider the provisions creating these obligations  S'to constitute an impermissible savings clause or time restriction.I - {O'ЍThis conclusion is consistent with the ruling in DiGiPH PCS, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 17,950 (DA 981888)  {O'(Auc. and Indus. Anal. Div., 1998). In DiGiPH, a PCS designated entity licensee sought to modify its financing arrangement with a vendor by making certain rights under a particular debt instrument convertible to nonvoting stock in exchange for a reduction in interest rate. The licensee asked permission to view rights under a different instrument, also held by the vendor, as not fully diluted because the exercise of the rights were mutually exclusive by their terms and treating all of the rights as fully diluted could cause a change in the licensee's designated entity status. Because the interests were mutually exclusive by their terms, the Auctions and Industry Analysis Division treated the interests as diluted, but not exercised, and viewed the rights as exercisable only in  {O\ 'the possible combinations in which they may be exercised by the holder. Id. at 17,952. Similarly, we view QUALCOMM's interest in Leap only in the combinations that are possible under the terms of the instruments. QUALCOMM may exercise its full rights under the Warrant only to the extent that (i) its officers and directors  {O 'dispose of their interest in Leap or (ii) Leap changes its equity structure (i.e., increases the number of shares such that, if QUALCOMM were to purchase all 4,500,000 shares under the Warrant, QUALCOMM's interest when aggregated with its officers and directors would be 15 percent or less). Under these circumstances, QUALCOMM's interest will not exceed 15 percent.  S`'24.` ` Accordingly, QUALCOMM does not hold more than 15 percent of Leap's equity. Because we find that no party holds more than 15 percent of Leap's equity, Leap satisfies this criterion  S'of the PTC Exception.  S' ` ` 3. 15 Percent of the Board of Directors  Sp'25.` ` The second criterion of the PTC Exception also provides that no person may control  SH 'the election of more than 15 percent of the board of directors.QJH P - yO8'ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.720(m)(2)(ii).Q Western Wireless argues that, if QUALCOMM is considered to hold 18 percent of Leap, as was permitted by the original Warrant, then QUALCOMM would be entitled to elect two board members, which exceeds the 15 percent limit,  S 'and would allow QUALCOMM to control Leap.QK - yOP'ԍWestern Wireless Comments at 17.Q Leap argues that QUALCOMM has no right to  S 'elect any members of the board of directors of Leap.gL p- yO'ЍAssignment Application, Exhibit I, at 13. In addition, to minimize the effect of QUALCOMM's vote, Leap and QUALCOMM have entered into an additional agreement whereby QUALCOMM and its officers and directors will hold their votes until other shareholders have voted, then vote any QUALCOMMrelated shares in  {O!'the same proportion as the rest of the shares were voted. See Voting Agreement Between QUALCOMM and Leap, dated April 1, 1999. Petitioners argue that, under section 1.2110(b)(4)(C)(iv) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2110(b)(4)(C)(iv), this arrangement constitutes an impermissible separation of voting power from  {Oj#'beneficial ownership of any QUALCOMMrelated shares. See Western Wireless March 17th Letter, at 5; Letter from Michael K. Kurtis, Esq., Kurtis & Associates, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications  yO$'Commission, filed March 17, 1999, at 3. Because we do not find the Voting Agreement relevant to our analysis, we do not reach this issue.g Because cumulative voting is not provided for in Leap's corporate documents, it is highly unlikely that QUALCOMM, acting alone or in combination" L,''""A "  S'with its officer and directors, would be able to control the election of particular directors.?MZ- {Oh' "& ԍSee Amended and Restated Bylaws of Leap Wireless International, Inc. (A Delaware Corporation) at section  xo 8 (setting quorum for shareholder action at a majority of shares and providing that directors are elected by a plurality vote).? We conclude, therefore, that QUALCOMM cannot control the election of more than 15 percent of Leap's board of directors.  S`' ` ` 4. De Facto Control  S'26.` ` The final requirement for the PTC Exception is that no person, other than the management and members of the board of directors or other governing body of such publicly traded  S'corporation, in their capacities as such, has de facto control over the corporation.MN- yOJ 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.720(m)(3).M The determination  S'of the existence of de facto control is inherently factual and must, therefore, be determined on a case St'bycase basis.wOtz- {O'ЍFifth MO&O, 10 FCC Rcd. at 447,  80; Intermountain Microwave, Order, 24 Rad. Reg. (P&F) 983  {OX'(1963) ("Intermountain Microwave"); Baker Creek Communications, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13  {O"'FCC Rcd. 18,709, 18,71213,  6 (PSPWD 1998) ("Baker Creek"); see also Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.530.0 Ghz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for  {O|'Fixed Satellite Services, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  {OF'Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd. 12,545, 12,692,  352 (1997).w Because there is no exact formula to ascertain de facto control, Pt - {O' " ԍBaker Creek, 13 FCC Rcd. at 18,713,  7; LA Star Cellular Telephone Company, Memorandum Opinion  {O'and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 7108, 7109,  13 (1994) ("LA Star II").  we must look at the  SN 'totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.2QN - {O'ЍFifth MO&O, 10 FCC Rcd. at 447,  80; Ellis Thompson Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order  {O'and Hearing Designation Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 7138, 7139,  10 (1994) ("Ellis Thompson HDO"); LA Star II, 9  {O'FCC Rcd. at 7109,  13; Blue Ribbon Broadcasting, Inc., Review Board Decision, 90 F.C.C.2d 1023, 1025,  5  {Ol'(1982); Stereo Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 55 F.C.C.2d 819, 821,  7 (1975); see also  {O6'Stephen F. Sewell, Assignments and Transfers of Control of FCC Authorizations Under Section 310(d) of the  {O'Communications Act of 1934, 43 Fed. Com. L.J. 277 (1991). 2 The six factors upon which we have  S& 'traditionally relied, established in Intermountain Microwave, represent the normal incidents of responsibility for the operation and control of a company providing wireless services, such as Leap,  S 'and therefore may be used as guidelines.]R\ - {O!' " ԍRVC Services, Inc. d/b/a Coastel Communications Company and Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., Order, 11 FCC  {O!' x Rcd. 12,136, 12,143,  16 (1996); Ellis Thompson HDO, 9 FCC Rcd. at 7139,  10; LA Star II, 9 FCC Rcd. at 7109,  13. ] The factors are: (1) who determines and carries out the policy decisions, including preparing and filing applications with the Commission; (2) who is in charge of the payment of financing obligations, including operating expenses; (3) who controls daily " R,''""N " operations; (4) who is in charge of employment, supervision, and dismissal of personnel; (5) does the licensee have unfettered use of all facilities and equipment; and (6) who receives monies and profits  S'from the operation of the facilities.S- {O' " ԍIntermountain Microwave, 24 Rad. Reg. at 984; DCR PCS, Inc., Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 16,849, 16,859,  28  {O'(1996) ("DCR PCS").  S`'27.` ` Control of Policy Decisions. Of the six Intermountain Microwave factors, we are the most concerned about the first factor, the control over Leap's policy decisions. We are specifically concerned about Leap's relationship with QUALCOMM prior to the SpinOff Transaction and the impact that this relationship has on Leap's major policy decisions. Leap contends that all of its policy  S'decisions have been made by the officers and directors of Leap.oT$- yO 'ԍAssignment Application, Exhibit I, at 11; Leap Response at 22.o While we believe that this is the case on a goingforward basis, a number of major initial decisions affecting Leap were made by QUALCOMM prior to the SpinOff Transaction. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, for example, Leap is prohibited from deploying or investing in technology other than  S" 'QUALCOMM's proprietary cdmaOne.oU" - yOv'ԍSeparation and Distribution Agreement at Sections 5.1 and 5.2.o In addition, the Procurement Agreement requires Leap to purchase from QUALCOMM, for a fiveyear period, not less than 50 percent of Leap's own direct requirements for infrastructure and subscriber equipment, up to a total of $250 million, provided that  S 'QUALCOMM's bid is no more than ten percent above the lowest acceptable bid.\V D- yO'ԍProcurement Agreement at sections 2.1, 2.4.\ QUALCOMM also has the opportunity to review the bids of other parties and reform its own bid before the vendor is  SZ'selected.LWZ- {O'ԍId. at section 2.4.3.L Further, the Procurement Agreement prohibits Leap from investing in any U.S. Operator, for a fouryear period, unless that operator agrees to purchase not less than 50 percent of its equipment  S 'from QUALCOMM.OX f - {O'ԍId. at section 2.1.1(b).O Finally, all of Leap's debt financing is provided by QUALCOMM (over $250  S'million).IY - yOz'ԍLeap S1 at 5, 13.I  S'28.` ` These agreements, all of which were executed before the SpinOff Transaction, raise concerns regarding Leap's ongoing relationship with its former parent. To address these concerns, we grant the licenses at issue in this proceeding on the condition that Leap comply with the requirements outlined below. We find that satisfaction of the following requirements will eliminate any concerns that there has not been a "clear fracture" between Leap and QUALCOMM and that Leap's policy  S'decisions are exercised independently of QUALCOMM's influence.~ZX - yO$' " ԍIn its Petition, SBA argues that, under that agency's longstanding rules, for a spinoff to be considered  x separate from its parent company, the spinoff must demonstrate that there has been a "clear fracture" between the old and the new company. SBA Petition at 11 (citing 13 C.F.R.  121.103(a)).~ First, prior to consummation of"Z,''""K" the transaction with AirGate, Leap must eliminate the restriction in Section 5.2 of the Separation and Distribution Agreement that requires Leap's U.S. operations to use only cdmaOne technology and to refrain from supporting GSM, TDMA or any other digital technologies in competition with cdmaOne. Second, prior to consummation of the transaction with AirGate, Leap must eliminate the restriction in section 5.1 of the Separation and Distribution Agreement that requires Leap's U.S. operations to invest in companies that use only cdmaOne technology and agree to procure infrastructure and subscriber equipment from QUALCOMM in accordance with the Procurement Agreement. Third, Leap must amend the Procurement Agreement to eliminate QUALCOMM's right to review bids submitted by  S'other equipment vendors prior to submitting its own bid to Leap.}[- yO( 'ԍLeap is required to make this change applicable only to its U.S. operations.} Fourth, for the duration of the designated entity holding period, Leap is required to ensure that individuals who are now, or were previously, officers or directors of QUALCOMM do not comprise a majority of Leap's Board of Directors or a majority of Leap's officers. Fifth, within 180 days of the release of this Order, the QUALCOMM/Ericsson settlement must be consummated on substantially the same terms as Leap has represented in the Thornley Declaration. Finally, within 18 months of the release of this Order, Leap must take steps so that QUALCOMM, or any QUALCOMM affiliate, holds no more than 50 percent of Leap's outstanding debt obligations.  SX'29.` ` Control of Daily Operations. The only other Intermountain Microwave factor raised by a Petitioner pertains to control over Leap's daily operations. Carolina PCS argues that the services offered to Leap by QUALCOMM pursuant to the Interim Services Agreement, namely accounting, financial management, tax, payroll, shareholder and public relations, legal, human resources, procurement, real estate management and "other" administrative functions, give QUALCOMM the  S'ability to control Leap.L\X- yO'ԍCarolina PCS Petition at 9.L We disagree with Carolina PCS's conclusion. That QUALCOMM offered Leap these services does not provide evidence that QUALCOMM controls Leap's daily operations. In fact, the record reveals that Leap does not use any of the abovereferenced services offered by QUALCOMM. Rather, Leap is providing these services either through its own staffing or outside  S'resources other than QUALCOMM.]\- {Oz' " ԍSee Baker Creek, 13 FCC Rcd. at 18,71819,  1618. Because the manager had the power to control the  x applicant's business plan and budget, the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division concluded that the manager  {O 'had an impermissible level of control over the daily operations of the applicant.  Id.ı There also is no evidence that Leap has ceded either management or administrative functions to QUALCOMM.  Sz' B.` ` Affiliation  S*'30.` ` In addition to analyzing Leap's qualification for the PTC Exception, we must analyze  S'whether QUALCOMM is an affiliate of Leap.^ - yO#' "/ ԍQualifying for the PTC Exception does not also exempt Leap from claiming the assets and revenues of its  {Ov$'affiliates, as opposed to those of its investors. See 47 C.F.R.  24.709(a).  Section 24.720(l)(1) of the Commission's rules defines "affiliate" as any individual or entity that: (1) directly or indirectly controls or has the power to control the applicant; (2) is directly or indirectly controlled by the applicant; (3) is directly or"f ^,''""" indirectly controlled by a third party or parties that also controls or has the power to control the  S'applicant; or (4) has an "identity of interest" with the applicant.M_- yO@'ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.720(l)(1).M In the previous section, we determine that Leap is a publicly traded corporation with widely dispersed voting power and that  S'QUALCOMM does not exercise de facto control over Leap. In light of our finding above that there is a clear separation between Leap and QUALCOMM, we find that QUALCOMM does not have the power to control Leap directly or indirectly.  S'31.` ` Petitioners argue that QUALCOMM and Leap have common investments that create an "identity of interests" because QUALCOMM has equipment contracts with Leap and other  S'operating companies in which Leap holds an interest.`X- yO 'ԍSBA Petition at 31; Reply of Carolina PCS I Limited Partnership, filed Jan. 10, 1999, at 56. We disagree. That QUALCOMM supplies equipment to Leap and other operating companies in which Leap has an interest does not provide a basis for a finding that the companies are affiliates. Further, as explained above, we are granting these licenses on the condition that Leap and QUALCOMM make substantial changes to their contracts. These changes help eliminate any concerns we may have had that there is a substantial or material question as to whether Leap is qualified to hold C or F Block PCS licenses.  S '32.` ` Petitioners also argue that the current composition of Leap's management evidences "a  SZ'unity of interest and control" with QUALCOMM.DaZ- yO'ԍSBA Petition at 27.D Though some of QUALCOMM's former officers and directors are now officers and directors of Leap, this does not create identity of interest. None of Leap's officers and directors currently have a position with QUALCOMM, and they now have a fiduciary duty to serve Leap's shareholders. Further, as explained above, we are granting these licenses on the condition that Leap assures that individuals who are now or were previously officers or directors of QUALCOMM do not comprise the majority of Leap's officers and directors. Accordingly, the record does not support an argument that the composition of Leap's officers and directors creates an affiliate relationship between the companies.  S' 33.` ` We also disagree with Petitioners' arguments that QUALCOMM and Leap have  S'affiliation through stock ownership.Wbx- {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  24.720(l)(4).W QUALCOMM's shareholders also became Leap's shareholders on the Distribution Date. Leap's shareholders and QUALCOMM's shareholders were, therefore,  Sz'identical on that day. Public trading in the shares of each company began immediately, however, and, since that time, the composition of the shareholders of each company has changed. Because each company has thousands of individual shareholders, we cannot fairly find that the close identity between the two groups of shareholders that existed at the moment that the SpinOff Transaction  S'closed supports a finding of affiliation here.c - {O$' " ԍIn this respect, we disagree with Petitioners. See Western Wireless Comments at 1819; SBA Petition at 24. "d c,''"""Ԍ S'!34.` ` Finally, the second and third affiliation criteria are not issues in this proceeding because (1) there is no evidence that a third party controls or has the power to control Leap and QUALCOMM, and (2) Leap does not, of course, control or have the power to control, QUALCOMM.  S'  &I   S`' &I C.` ` Standing to File Petitions to Deny Leap's Long Form Application  S'"35.` ` Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, permits any "party in  S'interest" to file a petition to deny any application.Jd- yOP'ԍ47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).J To establish standing, a petitioner must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that a grant of the subject application would cause the petitioner to  S'suffer a direct injurye^X- {O 'ЍSee Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 4601, 46034604,  5 (CWD,  {OZ '1998) (citing AmericaTel Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd. 3993, 3995 (1994)); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,  {O$ '504 U.S. 555 (1992); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975). and further demonstrate a causal link between the injury and the challenged  Sp'action.fp~- {O'ԍSee Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 74, 81 (1978). In the competitive bidding context, as Leap argues in its opposition,gp- {O 'ԍ See Opposition of Leap Wireless International, Inc., filed June 10, 1999, at 36 ("Leap Opposition"). the Bureau has previously decided that a petitioner has standing to challenge licenses won at auction only if the  S 'petitioner was qualified to bid in those markets.eh^ - {Ob' "y ԍIn re Application of Nextel License Acquisition Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd.  {O,' x 11,983, 11,984,  3 (WTB, 1998) (standing conferred based on markets listed on Form 175) ("Nextel License  {O'Acquisition Corp.").e  S '#36.` ` Carolina PCS. Pursuant to Nextel License Acquisition Corp., Carolina PCS lacks standing to challenge Leap's Long Form Application because Carolina PCS was not qualified to bid in the relevant markets. In its petition to deny, Carolina PCS argues that, because it has standing in the  SZ'Assignment Application proceeding, it has standing to petition Leap's Long Form Application.iZ - yO' " ԍCarolina PCS Petition to Deny Leap's Long Form Application, filed June 3, 1999, at 2 ("Carolina PCS Long Form Petition"). Carolina PCS argues that, if we were to grant Leap's Long Form Application before acting on its Assignment Application, that grant would effectively decide that Leap was eligible for grant of the Assignment Application, thereby rendering Carolina PCS's challenge to the assignment application  S'moot.@j - {Oz!'ԍId. at 2.@ We need not decide whether Carolina PCS's theory of standing has merit, because we are acting on both Leap's Assignment Application and Long Form Application in this Order and, thus, have fully considered all of the arguments raised by Carolina PCS in both proceedings. Carolina PCS's argument, therefore, is moot. "j,''"""Ԍ S'$37.` ` Mountain Solutions. Leap was the net high bidder for two licenses in Auction No. 22  S'for which Mountain Solutions had been the net high bidder in an earlier auction.k$- {O@'ЍMountain Solutions Petition to Deny, filed June 3, 1999, at 1 ("Mountain Solutions Petition"). See "Entrepreneurs' C Block Auction Closes: FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 493 Licenses to  {O'Provide Broadband PCS in Basic Trading Areas," Public Notice, DA 96716 (rel. May 8, 1996). Those licenses are Bozeman, Montana (BTA053) and Pueblo, Colorado (BTA366). Mountain Solutions, however, failed to make its second down payment for these licenses as required by section  S'24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's rules.Kl\- {O' " ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.711(a)(2).  See "FCC Announces Grant of Broadband Personal Communications Services  {O ' x* Entrepreneurs' C Block BTA Licenses; Final Down Payment Due by September 24, 1996," Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd. 11,316 (1996).K On October 1, 1998, the Commission denied Mountain Solutions' Application for Review of the Bureau's denial of Mountain Solutions' Emergency Petition  S8'for Waiver of the Commission's down payment deadline rule.nm\8- {O 'ЍSee Mountain Solutions, Ltd., Inc., Emergency Petition for Waiver of Section 24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules Regarding Various BTA Markets in the Broadband Personal Communications Services C  {OB'Block Auction, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 98220 (rel. Oct. 1, 1998). n Following the release of the October  S'1998 Order, Mountain Solutions filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  S'District of Columbia Circuit, which is currently pending.n - {O'ԍMountain Solutions, Ltd., Inc. v. FCC, No. 981503 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 30, 1998). Pursuant to section 1.2104(g)(2) of the  S'Commission's rules, based on Leap's winning bids for these licenses, Mountain Solutions' default  S'penalty amounts to $6.4 million.}o - {O'ԍMountain Solutions Petition at n.12. See 47 C.F.R.  1.2104(g)(2).} Mountain Solutions argues that, by bidding on licenses formerly held by Mountain Solutions, Leap has triggered this substantial default penalty that would not attach if  SH 'Leap's Long Form Application is not granted.XpH - yO'ԍMountain Solutions Petition at 3.X Therefore, Mountain Solutions argues that, because grant of Leap's Long Form Application will trigger the default penalty, it will suffer direct economic  S 'harm and, therefore, has standing to file its petition.Bq - {OH'ԍId. at 34.B  S '%38.` ` In its Opposition, Leap argues that Mountain Solutions has failed to demonstrate injury  S 'sufficient to confer standing.Fr B- yOb 'ԍLeap Opposition at 6.F Leap argues that Mountain Solutions' alleged "injury" is not one that is traceable or causally linked to a grant or denial of Leap's Long Form Application; it is merely an "Xr,''""8"  S'application of the Commission's default penalty rules.@s- {Oh'ԍId. at 8.@ Leap contends that any penalty imposed upon Mountain Solutions would have been incurred regardless of the identity or qualifications of the  S'winning bidder for the licenses in question.:tZ- {O'ԍId.:  S`'&39.` ` We agree. Pursuant to sections 1.2109 and 24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's rules,Yu`- yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.2109, 24.711(a)(2).Y Mountain Solutions was in default after it failed to make its second down payment. As a result, it is subject to the Commission's default payment provisions in section 1.2104(g)(2). The injury Mountain Solutions incurred resulted from its default, not from the grant of Leap's licenses. Moreover, Mountain Solutions has not demonstrated that the amount of the penalty to be assessed will be greater because Leap's applications were granted in lieu of some other applicant's. Accordingly, because Mountain Solutions is not directly injured by the grant of the Leap's Long Form Application, we dismiss its petition for lack of standing.  S ' D.` ` Pacific Eagle 's Petition Against Leap's Long Form Application  S ''40.` ` On June 3, 1999, Pacific Eagle Investments, Ltd. ("Pacific Eagle") filed a Petition to Defer or, in the Alternative, to Condition Grant of Leap's Long Form Application for three markets, arguing that the three licenses are part of the pending bankruptcy estate of the former licensee, DCR  S0'PCS, Inc., of which Pacific Eagle and several of its affiliates are secured creditors.v0|- yOL'ԍThose markets are Fayetteville (BTA140), Fort Smith (BTA153) and Little Rock, Arkansas (BTA257).  S'(41.` ` On November 4, 1996, the Commission conditionally granted 43 C block PCS licenses  S'to DCR PCS. #w - {Od'ԍ#&T/Y &Y# # Xj\  P6G;2XP##X\  P6G;/P#Applications of DCR PCS, Inc. for Broadband PCS C Block Licenses, Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 16,849 (1996).# On March 31, 1997, DCR PCS, and its parent company, Pocket Communications Inc. ("Pocket") (collectively, "Debtors"), filed Chapter 11 petitions in the Bankruptcy Court for the  Sh'Northern District of Maryland ("Bankruptcy Court").X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: