As of 5 p.m. Monday, Superior Court Judge Harold Willocks had yet to rule on former Vitelco and Innovative Cable owner Jeffrey Prosser’s appeal of the Public Service Commission’s decision to allow Prosser’s former companies to be sold.
At a hearing held Sept. 7, Willocks said he would have a ruling by 5 p.m. Sep. 9, according to other court filings.
In May, the V.I. Public Services Commission voted to let Prosser’s former lender, the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC), take ownership of Vitelco and Innovative. (A specialized bank for rural utilities, CFC originally lent Prosser and his corporations more than half a billion dollars.)
Prosser did not participate in the PSC hearings, but objected afterwards and filed to have the PSC reconsider its decision. The PSC took no action on Prosser’s objection and by V.I. statute, his claim was deemed denied as of July 6.
On July 7, Prosser, his wife Dawn Prosser, and St. Croix attorney Jeffrey Moorhead jointly filed an appeal of the PSC decision in V.I. Superior Court.
But with no stay in effect, the federal court authorized the immediate sale of Vitelco and the Innovative cable companies Aug. 17.
Moments later, Willocks acted on a petition filed by Prosser Aug. 16 and ordered an emergency stay on the PSC’s May decision to approve the transfer.
Because Prosser has been removed from his role at the company and the properties are under the auspices of the court and court-appointed trustees, he has no special standing to challenge the PSC decision, so the three are appealing the decision in their capacities as interested "ratepayers," or telephone customers, not as owners of the company.
Hence, the Prossers’ motion does not argue they need an emergency stay because the Prossers’ will be harmed by losing the companies, but that they might possibly be harmed sometime in the future with poor phone service or high rates if the new owners do not invest enough in the network.
Ironically, Vitelco and Innovative officials testified in court that neither Prosser nor his wife is actually a customer of any of his former companies.
"Because they are not customers of Vitelco, their claim of standing as Vitelco ratepayers must fail," wrote the CFC attorneys, asking Willocks to dismiss the stay and the appeal for lack of standing.
Beyond the question of the emergency stay, the CFC argues Prosser’s entire appeal should also fail due to lack of standing and because Prosser is wrong on the facts: in reality, they argue, ratepayers will receive a guaranteed rate freeze for the next four years and stand to benefit from CFC’s capital investments in the network.
They also cite the fact the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has already ruled Prosser no longer has standing and typify the case as one more in a long line of frivolous delaying tactics.
Avenues for more delaying tactics seem to be closing one by one.
CFC attorneys are asking for a quick decision, pointing to V.I. law mandating that appeals of PSC decisions be heard before any other civil court matters of any kind. But the four-plus year bankruptcy has been filled with twists and turns.
Prosser has appeared down for the count on several prior occasions, only to file new last-minute appeals and lawsuits in new venues on new grounds, grinding proceedings to a slow crawl again and again.
Meanwhile, in another curious development in the Prosser saga, Prosser filed a brief in V.I. Superior Court Monday saying he falsely claimed there was new evidence in his recent belated appeal of the V.I. Public Services Commission’s decision to allow the sale of his former companies.
According to Prosser’s most recent filing, there is no new evidence whatsoever, and all the evidence has already been considered by the PSC during its hearings.
In the filing, Prosser apologizes to the V.I. Superior Court for entering a factually false claim in his appeal.
Stay tuned to the Source for further developments.
