GTE Corp., et al v. IN Utility Regulatory Comm.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

Dale E. Sporleder
Indianapolis, Indiana

 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Jeffrey A. Modisett
Attorney General of Indiana
A. Scott Chinn
Cindy M. Lott
Geoffrey Slaughter
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana

OFFICE OF UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR
Anne E. Becker
Keith L. Beall
Robert M. Glennon
Timothy M. Seat
Karol H. Krohn
Indianapolis, Indiana

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, ISPAT INLAND, INC., ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY
John F. Wickes, Jr.
Todd A. Richardson
Indianapolis, Indiana
 

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
 
 
 
GTE CORPORATION; BELL ATLANTIC     )
CORPORATION; GTE NORTH, INC.;         )
CONTEL OF THE SOUTH, INC.;        )
GTE COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; AND    )
GTE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.        )
    Appellants (Respondents Below),        )                             )    
        v.                    )    
                            )    
INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY         )    
COMMISSION; OFFICE OF UTILITY     )
CONSUMER COUNSELOR; AT&T         )
COMMUNICATIONS OF INDIANA, INC.;    )
TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS OF     )    Indiana Supreme Court
INDIANA, INC.; SPRINT          )    Cause No. 93S02-9907-EX-370
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.;     )
UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY OF    )
INDIANA, d/b/a SPRINT; MCI            )    Indiana Court of Appeals
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; )    Cause No. 93A02-9906-EX-436
BROOKS FIBER, INC.; MCIMETRO ACCESS)    
TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC.;     )
WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;     )
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,    )
INCORPORATED d/b/a AMERITECH     )
CORPORATION; SBC COMMUNICATIONS; )
INLAND STEEL COMPANY; BETHLEHEM     )
STEEL CORPORATION; R.R. DONNELLY &)
SONS COMPANY; ANCHOR GLASS         )
CONTAINER CORPORATION; INDIANA     )
MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY;         )
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT         )
COMPANY; INDIANAPOLIS WATER     )
COMPANY; NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC )
SERVICE COMPANY; PSI ENERGY, INC.;     )
SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS & ELECTRIC     )
COMPANY                     )
    Appellees (Statutory Parties and         )
            Intervenors Below).        )

APPEAL FROM THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
    Cause No. 41322

ON EMERGENCY PETITION TO TRANSFER

July 30, 1999 BOEHM, Justice.
    This case, like Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, N.E.2d (Ind. July 30, 1999), raises the issue of the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission under Indiana Code § 8-1-2-83(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 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.