- 62 -
$975,153,806 of principal from July 1987 to May 1994 and to pay
interest, petitioners would have had to stop buying companies and
capital assets. It would be difficult or impossible for LTI or
LII to survive if they significantly reduced or eliminated their
capital spending.
Petitioners contend that they had many sources from which to
repay LIIBV. Petitioners contend that they could have sold
tangible and intangible (e.g., licenses, permits, and goodwill)
assets, or refinanced the LIIBV loans with their operational
cash-flow. This argument misconstrues this factor, which
requires that we consider whether petitioners could repay the
advances with reasonably anticipated cash-flow or liquid assets.
Petitioners sold their solid waste business in 1996 for $1.2
billion and bought a health transportation business. Petitioners
contend that this sale shows that their intangible assets had
substantial value during the years in issue. This argument is
unconvincing. Even if petitioners' intangible assets had
substantial value during the years in issue, we doubt that
petitioners could have operated their business without those
assets.
Petitioners contend that they could have extended the due
dates for repaying the $975,153,806, and that they did not need
to repay that amount in 7 years. Petitioners point out that
Robert T. Jacobs (Jacobs), their banking expert, testified that
it was not unusual during the 1980's to extend loans for 12-18
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011