Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

Marshall Islands National Telecommunications Authority v Emmius; Marshall Islands National Telecommunications Authority v Tomeing [1995] MHSC 6; 2 MILR 77 (21 December 1995)

2 MILR 77

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S. Ct. CIVIL NO. 95-01
(High Ct. Civil No. 1993-120)

MARSHALL ISLANDS NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff,

-v-

REPORT EMMIUS,
Defendant,

and

S. Ct. CIVIL NO. 95-03
(High Ct. Civil No. 1993-245)

MARSHALL ISLANDS NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff,

-v-

LITOKWA TOMEING,
Defendant.

ORDER OF REMAND TO SUPPLEMENT RECORDS

DECEMBER 21, 1995

ASHFORD, C.J.

These cases were removed to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(3) of the Constitution. They appear to raise similar constitutional issues and will be consolidated for further proceedings in this Court. Meantime, however, the record in No. 95-01 is not sufficient to permit determination of the issues presented and this Court anticipates that the record in No. 95-03, when transmitted, will have similar deficiencies. It is, therefore, ORDERED that these cases are remanded to the High Court for supplementation of the record in No. 95-01 and for making a complete record in No. 95-03, by stipulation, affidavits, or hearing. If there is any dispute as to fact, the High Court shall find the facts after notice and hearing. Supplementation shall cover at least the following:

1. The factual record in No. 95-03 shall be at least as complete as the factual record established by affidavits and a certificate of translation in No. 95-01.

2. In addition, in both cases, the following questions shall be answered:

(a) Were those portions of the accounts receivables involved in these cases that are claimed to be for service provided and billed prior to October 1, 1988 (hereinafter for convenience called the "affected receivables") ever abandoned, written off, or otherwise declared valueless by any of the Republic, the National Telecommunications Authority established by P.L. 1987-15 or the National Telecommunications Authority established by P.L. 1990-105?

(b) In the appraisal required to be made under Section 12(1) of P.L. 1990-105, was any value assigned to the affected receivables whether individually identified or treated as part of a class?

(c) What representations, if any, were made concerning the affected receivables, whether individually or treated as part of a class, in the prospectus and any other documentation given to the public in connection with the offering of stock in the National Telecommunications Authority established by P.L. 1990-105?

(d) Was the National Telecommunications Authority stock sold to the public for valuable consideration and, if so, was that consideration not less than $10.00 per share as required by Section 12(4) of P.L. 1990-105?

(e) Did either or both of Senators Emmius and Tomeing disclose to the Nitijela at the time of any votes upon the Bills which became P.L. 1994-83 and P.L. 1995-139 that he had an unpaid bill from the National Telecommunications Authority for service provided and billed prior to October 1, 1988? If so, in each such instance, did the Nitijela determine that he could vote?

(f) On what readings of the Bills which became P.L. 1994-83 and P.L. 1995-139 did each of Senators Emmius and Tomeing vote?

3. In addition to the translation of the Journal proceedings on the bill which became P.L. 1994-83, furnished as part of the record in No. 95-01, the records in Nos. 95-01 and 95-03 shall include any other legislative history that may exist concerning P.L. 1994-83 and P.L. 1995-139, with translations into English if those records are in Marshallese. Those records shall also include a copy of P.L. 1995-139.

4. Upon completion of the records, the High Court may again remove these cases to this Court. If it does so,

(a) The Opening Brief of Defendant Emmius shall be considered to have been filed in No. 95-03 as well as in No. 95-01. All other briefs shall be filed in both cases.

(b) The Opening Briefs of Defendants may be supplemented within 15 days following the transmission of the supplemental record, as herein ordered, to this Court. The Answering Brief of Plaintiff shall be filed within 30 days following the filing of Defendants' supplemental brief or expiration of the 15-day period, whichever is earlier, and the Reply Briefs of Defendants shall be filed within 10 days following the filing of Plaintiff's Answering Brief.

(c) Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Attorney General and the legislative counsel are invited. They shall be filed pursuant to the schedule governing the party whose position they support.