NOTICE ************************************************************************* NOTICE ************************************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In The Matter of ) ) THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH ) COMPANY ) Complainant ) ) v. )File No. E-87-143 ) GRAPHNET, INC. ) Defendant ) ) ) And ) ) ) GRAPHNET, INC. ) Complainant ) ) v. )File No. E-88-66 ) THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH ) COMPANY ) Defendant ) ORDER Adopted: November 12, 1996Released: November 15, 1996 By the Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau: 1.New Valley Corporation, formerly to The Western Union Telegraph Company ("Western Union" or "New Valley"), and Graphnet, Inc. ("Graphnet") have filed a Joint Motion For Order Terminating Proceedings ("Joint Motion") in the above-captioned proceedings. This proceeding was initiated as the result of a Commission order that directed Western Union to file a formal complaint with the Bureau's Enforcement Division. Such complaint was intended to provide, inter alia, a procedural forum for determining the extent to which certain interconnected carriers ("ICs") would be required to reimburse Western Union for discounts taken by the ICs on interconnected telex and TWX services. Western Union thereupon filed a formal complaint on July 9, 1987, directed against Graphnet and certain other ICs engaged in providing international record services, in order to recover amounts charged or claimed to be due to it. On April 25, 1988, Graphnet filed a formal complaint against Western Union requesting damages for overcharges billed to Graphnet by Western Union for outbound international telex traffic to Canada and Mexico. 2.This case arises from lengthy proceedings before the Commission. The background, including the various decisions of the Commission and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is recited in the Commission's recent Memorandum Opinion and Order in Western Union Telegraph Company, FCC 96-410, October 17, 1996. 3.On November 8, 1996, New Valley and Graphnet filed their Joint Motion seeking dismissal with prejudice of the above-captioned complaints insofar as they were directed against Graphnet (File No. E-87-143) and Western Union (File No. E-88-66), respectively. These parties state that they wish to avoid continued litigation and have reached a mutually agreeable settlement. In reaching their settlement, New Valley and Graphnet have agreed that "[n]either party admits liability for any of the claims asserted [in the above proceedings], nor shall this agreement be considered an admission by New Valley or by Graphnet concerning the merits of any of the issues raised [in the above proceedings] or any other proceedings arising out of similar facts and circumstances," including CC Docket Nos. 78-97 and 82-122. 4.The Joint Motion also states that: (a)New Valley requests FCC authority for withdrawal of New Valley's Motion for Final Order, filed April 17, 1996 in CC Docket Nos. 78-97 and 82-122, to the extent it requests an order with regard to Graphnet, provided that New Valley's request shall not affect the Motion for Final Order as it relates to TRT Telecommunications Corp., FTC Communications, Inc. and IDB WorldCom, Inc.; (b)Graphnet requests FCC authority for withdrawal of its Opposition to New Valley's Motion, and of its Petition For Flow-Through Order, both filed on May 6, 1996, in CC Docket Nos. 78-97 and 82-122; (c)New Valley requests FCC authority for withdrawal of its reply, filed on May 14, 1996, to the aforementioned Graphnet pleadings in (b) above; and New Valley agrees not to request sanctions and/or attorney's fees as a result of Graphnet's aforementioned pleadings; (d)Graphnet requests FCC authority for withdrawal of its response, filed on May 24, 1996, to the aforementioned New Valley response in (c) above; and (e)New Valley and Graphnet request the withdrawal of the letter of October 25, 1996, of Adrien A. Auger, Staff Counsel, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, because such letter has become moot. 5.We are satisfied that granting the Joint Motion for an order terminating these proceedings will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission in these proceedings. 6.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and the authority delegated under Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, that the Joint Motion filed by the parties in the above- captioned proceedings, IS GRANTED. 7.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint filed by Western Union on July 9, 1987, in File No. E-87-143, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE insofar as it was directed against Graphnet. 8.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint filed by Graphnet on April 25, 1988, against Western Union in E-88-66, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 9.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that New Valley and Graphnet are AUTHORIZED TO WITHDRAW their respective pleadings specified above in paragraph 3(a)(b)(c) and (d); and that Staff Counsel's letter specified above in paragraph 3(e) has now become moot and is, therefore, WITHDRAWN. 10.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceedings ARE TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kurt A. Schroeder Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigation Branch Enforcement Division Common Carrier Bureau