Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Big Deal Misdeal: Divestiture Trust Gambit Rejected by Audio Division

By Matt McCormick on July 31, 2011
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Regulators put the kibosh on effort to re-shuffle radio portfolio through parking trust mechanism

Townsquare Media (TM) thought it had a perfect, and perfectly legal, way to shuffle ownership of a bunch of radio stations in two small Washington state markets and finesse its way around the multiple ownership rules. But the only player at the table that really mattered – that would be the Media Bureau’s Audio Division – called a misdeal.

The result puts a new wrinkle in the use of “divestiture trusts”, a handy device used in large deals to address the occasional loose ownership end that does not fit comfortably within the Commission’s rules. Anyone contemplating the use of such a trust – sometimes known as a “parking” trust, because it permits the parties to “park” inconvenient stations with a trustee – should give this decision careful attention before moving forward.

As with any fancy card trick, this gets a little complicated, so keep your eyes peeled and stick with me.

New Northwest had accumulated stations in several Northwest markets, including six in the Yakima market and six in the adjacent Richland-Kennewick-Pasco (a/k/a/ “Tri-Cities”) market. But things didn’t go well financially and the company went into receivership.   The Receiver was to sell the stations and pay off the creditors. 

Enter TM. TM already had the maximum permissible number of radio stations in Yakima and lacked only an AM to hold a full house in the Tri-Cities. But New Northwest had a few stations that TM wanted for itself, and TM presumably wouldn’t mind getting its hooks into the rest of New Northwest’s holdings.

Time for a divestiture trust. The concept of a divestiture trust is not new. It’s been used mainly in BIG broadcast deals involving scores if not hundreds of stations. Occasionally, assignment of a very small handful of the stations in such a deal can’t be closed for various technical reasons – and the multiple ownership rules will not permit the proposed assignee to continue to hold those stations, incidental though they may be, and still acquire the additional stations proposed in the assignment. Rather than allow a huge deal to crater because of such technicalities, the Commission has permitted the problem stations to be dealt off to an independent trustee. Those stations are then beneficially owned by the buyer (even if that buyer could not own them directly under the ownership rules). If you hold beneficial ownership of a station, you still get the profits and cover the losses – but the trustee controls the operations, and is (at least theoretically) charged with selling the station off to some third party in due course.

TM sat down at the New Northwest table and agreed to take over all of New Northwest’s Yakima and Tri-Cities stations. Because of multiple ownership limits, TM would acquire in its own name only five of the stations. The other seven would be dropped into the divestiture trust along with four of TM’s less desirable stations. In other words, TM was looking to upgrade its hand from a near full house to a royal flush: TM was looking to own outright six cream-of-the-crop stations – the maximum under the rules – in each of the Yakima and Tri-Cities markets. Plus, through the divestiture trust, it would have the beneficial ownership of another six stations in Yakima and five in Tri-Cities. For those of you keeping score at home, that would give TM a stake in 23 of the 54 station in the two markets.

What a deal.

Or misdeal, as the Audio Division concluded. In the Division’s view, TM’s proposed use of a divestiture trust did not involve mere incidental aspects of a much larger transaction. Rather, TM itself was netting out, numerically, with only one more station than it started with. The trust was simply serving as a parking lot for the (presumably) less desirable New Northwest stations. Even though the court overseeing New Northwest receivership had approved the TM plan, the Division determined that the potential adverse effect of the deal on competition in the two markets was unacceptable. Accordingly, the Division eschewed the Commission’s normal policy of accommodating state court orders. The Division also noted that the proposed deal would not wrap up the receivership, since New Northwest’s Receiver would still have a herd of stations in Oregon and Alaska to dispose of. And the Division was not tickled pink with the fact that TM was using the trust to hold some of its own (again presumably) less desirable stations in order to allow TM to skim the cream from the New Northwest holdings. 

And with that, the Division dismissed the various TM applications as “inadvertently accepted for filing”.

The bottom line is that a station owner will not be allowed to use a divestiture trust “to re-shuffle its radio station portfolio.” Where the line falls between (a) the permissible use of a divestiture trust to accommodate a deal and (b) impermissible re-shuffling of a station portfolio will have to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Parties looking to play the divestiture trust card should proceed with caution.

Photo of Matt McCormick Matt McCormick

Matt McCormick has practiced broadcast communications law for more than 39 years. He has extensive experience in all aspects of FCC regulation of broadcasting. Over the years, he has represented hundreds of clients in their dealings with the FCC, including applicants for new…

Matt McCormick has practiced broadcast communications law for more than 39 years. He has extensive experience in all aspects of FCC regulation of broadcasting. Over the years, he has represented hundreds of clients in their dealings with the FCC, including applicants for new commercial and noncommercial stations, licensees faced with renewal difficulties, stations confronted with FCC enforcement actions and proponents of FM and TV allotment changes and changes in communities of license. He also represented clients in hundreds of transactional matters requiring FCC approval.

Read more about Matt McCormickEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Communications, Media & Entertainment
  • Blog:
    CommLawBlog
  • Organization:
    Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo