<PAGE>
FORM 8-K
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): March 30, 1994
--------------
UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION
-------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1-9712 62-1147325
--------- ------- -----------
(State or other (Commission (IRS Employer
jurisdiction of File Number) Identification
incorporation) No.)
8410 West Bryn Mawr, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois 60631
----------------------------------------------------- -------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (312) 399-8900
Not Applicable
---------------
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
The Exhibit Index is Located on Page 4 of 7 Total Pages.
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
Item 5. Other Events.
-------------
On March 30, 1994, the Company announced that the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court")
vacated a Federal Communications Commission (the "Commission")
decision holding that the Company had been in control of La
Star Cellular Telephone Company, an applicant for a cellular
license covering the St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana service
area. The Court remanded the matter to the Commission for
further proceedings.
This Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed for the
purpose of filing the Press Release issued by the Company
relating to such Court decision as an exhibit.
Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits
----------------------------------
(c) Exhibits
--------
The exhibit accompanying this report is listed in the
accompanying Exhibit Index.
2
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereto duly
authorized.
United States Cellular Corporation
(Registrant)
Date: April 8, 1994
By: /s/ PHILLIP A. LORENZINI
------------------------------
Phillip A. Lorenzini
Controller
(principal accounting officer)
3
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit Number Description of Exhibit Sequentially Numbered Page
-------------- ---------------------- --------------------------
99 Press Release dated 5
March 30, 1994
4
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99
For Release: Immediate
Appeals Court Vacates FCC's LaStar Cellular Decision
------------------------------------------------------
March 30, 1994, Chicago, Illinois--Telephone and Data Systems,
Inc. (AMEX symbol "TDS") and United States Cellular
Corporation (AMEX symbol "USM") reported today that in a
decision dated March 29, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court") vacated a Federal
Communications Commission (the "Commission") decision holding
that USM had been in control of LaStar Cellular Telephone
Company ("LaStar"), an applicant for a cellular license
covering the St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana service area. The
Court held that the Commission had not adequately explained
the basis for its decision, vacated the Commission's decision,
and remanded the matter to the Commission for further
proceedings. In making its decision, the Court relied in part
on its March 25, 1994, decision in another case in which it
vacated a Commission decision regarding control.
In a related matter, on February 1, 1994, the Commission
ordered a hearing involving TDS's application for a cellular
license in the Wisconsin RSA 8 market to determine whether, in
the LaStar proceeding, USM misrepresented facts to, lacked
candor in its dealings with, or attempted to mislead the
Commission. TDS and USM believe that USM was never in control
of LaStar, has always been candid in its dealings with the
FCC, and has not misrepresented facts or attempted to mislead
the FCC. Since the Court has now vacated the Commission's
LaStar decision, TDS and USM are evaluating what impact the
Court's decision might have on the Wisconsin 8 hearing.
Background
------------
LASTAR
-------
LaStar was a joint venture formed in 1983 by an affiliate of
LaFourche Telephone Company, Inc., located in southern
Louisiana, and Maxcell Telecom Plus. SJI Cellular, Inc. (the
LaFourche affiliate), owned 51% of the stock of the joint
venture and Maxcell owned 49%.
In September 1983, LaStar filed an application for St. Tammany
Parish in north New Orleans. The Commission dismissed
LaStar's application in favor of an application filed by New
Orleans CGSA, Inc. (NOCGSA), a BellSouth Mobility subsidiary.
LaStar appealed the Commission's decision to the United States
Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of LaStar and ordered
the Commission to reinstate LaStar's application.
In August 1987, a subsidiary of USM became the sole owner of a
corporation that had succeeded to Maxcell's 49% interest in
LaStar, as part of a larger transaction in which USM acquired
other properties from Maxcell. In connection with the
acquisition, USM assumed Maxcell's rights and obligations
under the joint venture agreement.
In May 1990, the Commission designated a comparative hearing
to determine whether LaStar
5
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
or NOCGSA should be awarded a construction permit for St.
Tammany. USM was initially denied status as a party in this
proceeding. This meant that USM representatives were
presented as LaStar witnesses by LaStar counsel. USM
representatives were represented by USM counsel only to give
advice, make objections and in some cases, ask clarifying
questions. However, USM counsel was not permitted to examine
or cross-examine witnesses or introduce its own evidence.
Approximately three months after the hearing was completed,
USM was admitted as a party. At that time it was permitted to
submit a written addition to the record, which it did.
Thereafter, NOCGSA, in its submission of proposed findings to
the administrative law judge, alleged a lack of candor on the
part of the principals of USM and SJI with respect to whether
USM rather than SJI was actually in control of LaStar. The
administrative law judge did not adopt NOCGSA's request for
those findings.
In June 1992, the Commission affirmed the administrative law
judge's Initial Decision granting the NOCGSA application. In
the appeal to the full Commission of the administrative law
judge's Initial Decision, NOCGSA had raised exceptions to the
administrative law judge's decision not to make any findings
as to candor. The Commission, in Footnote 3 in its decision,
ruled that the issue of candor was moot. It went on to say
that: "Questions regarding the conduct of SJI and USM in this
case may be revisited in light of the relevant findings and
conclusions here in future proceedings where the other
interests of these parties have decisional significance."
That Commission order was appealed by USM and LaStar to Court,
which has now vacated the Commission's decision.
Since the LaStar proceeding, Commission authorizations to USM
and certain of its affiliates have been granted subject to any
subsequent action the Commission may take concerning Footnote
3 in the LaStar case. In February 1993, USM filed a petition
to have Footnote 3 of the Commission's opinion deleted. In
response, the Commission issued the Hearing Designation Order
with respect to Wisconsin RSA No. 8.
WISCONSIN RSA NO. 8
----------------------
In March 1989, TDS won the lottery for Wisconsin 8. In
November 1989, the Commission staff granted the license to TDS
over the objections of a group of other applicants. TDS
placed the cellular system in service and subsequently
assigned the license and operations to a USM subsidiary.
Administrative appeals were taken by the other applicants. In
the opinion released February 1, 1994, the Commission denied
those objections to the grant of Wisconsin 8 to TDS/USM for
the third time. Further, the Commission set aside the
Wisconsin 8 license and granted TDS interim authority to
continue to operate the Wisconsin 8 cellular system pending
completion of a hearing regarding the issues raised in the
LaStar proceeding. The FCC also stated that, pending
resolution of that hearing, subsequent authorizations to TDS
and its subsidiaries will be conditioned on the outcome of
that hearing.
In light of the Commission's findings in the LaStar proceeding
that USM had been in control of LaStar, the Commission also
ordered a hearing to determine whether, in the course of
denying that it was in control of LaStar, USM had
misrepresented facts, had attempted to mislead the Commission,
or had been lacking in candor. The Commission's findings that
USM was in control of LaStar are among those which the Court
vacated.
6
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
TDS is a Chicago-based telecommunications company with
established local telephone, cellular telephone and radio
paging operations. TDS strives to build value for its
shareholders by providing excellent communications services in
attractive, closely related segments of the telecommunications
industry.
Copies of the Court's 1994 decisions referred to above may be
obtained by calling TDS Investor Relations at (312) 630-1900.
If you require additional information, please contact Murray
L. Swanson, Executive Vice President-Finance at that number.
7
<PAGE>
