Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of In Re: Application of Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia for approval of Second Amended Plan of Arrangement, Docket No. A. 10548.
Jeffrey B. Albert, with him Nathan L. Posner, of counsel, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, for petitioner.
Daniel P. Delaney, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Rogers, Craig and Palladino. Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and MacPhail did not participate. Opinion by Judge Craig. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision of this case.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 292]
The Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia (Yellow) appeals from the action of the Pennsylvania Public
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 293]
Utility Commission (PUC) denying Yellow's application to amend an earlier PUC order. Our review thus extends only to whether the PUC has clearly abused its discretion in refusing the requested amendment.*fn1 Borough of Platea v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 478, 322 A.2d 780 (1974).
On November 30, 1978, the PUC approved a plan of arrangement*fn2 which included permission for Yellow to pledge portions of its operating authority in secured transactions to raise operating capital or purchase equipment, subject, however, to several conditions. As extracted from the PUC order, those conditions have been as follows:
Condition 1 : the pledge may be made only to a creditor which is supplying operating capital or equipment;
Condition 2 : the creditor must be approved by the Commission (the Commission decided, on July 19, 1979, over the dissent of Commissioner Carter, to require that each creditor demonstrate that it can operate taxicabs);
Condition 3 : the certificates may be pledged only in blocks of one hundred; that is, no creditor may receive the right to operate less than one hundred taxis and the pledges ...