Basin Electric Power Cooperative - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          leaseback was successful, and petitioner, the owner participants,           
          and Mercer County agreed to take the steps necessary to modify              
          and enhance5 the 1985 sale and leaseback, which included the                
          concomitant refinancing of the 1984 tax-exempt bonds, in order to           
          achieve a substantial rent reduction for petitioner.  Specifi-              
          cally, they agreed to certain modifications (1992 amendments) to            
          the 1985 sale and leaseback and to the concomitant transactions             
          necessary to achieve that objective.                                        
               On or about December 28, 1992, petitioner and each owner               
          participant6 modified, effective as of October 1, 1992, the                 
          various agreements that comprised the 1985 sale and leaseback.              
          (We shall refer to the 1985 sale and leaseback as modified by the           
          1992 amendments as the modified 1985 sale and leaseback or the              





               5Our use of the word “enhance” with respect to the 1985 sale           
          and leaseback agreements means that the modifications to such               
          agreements (discussed below) resulted in petitioner’s having a              
          minimum annual basic rent obligation under such agreements as               
          modified that was significantly more favorable to petitioner than           
          its minimum annual basic rent obligation under the 1985 sale and            
          leaseback agreements.                                                       
               6On Dec. 28, 1992, First Chicago Leasing Corporation, GELCO            
          Corporation, Arbella Leasing Corporation, J.C. Penney Company,              
          Inc., Batus Retail Services, Inc., and Chrysler Financial Corpo-            
          ration were the entities that owned respectively the grantor                
          trusts which held the respective percentage undivided interests             
          in the AVS unit II on behalf of such entities.  We shall for                
          convenience continue to use the terms “owner participant” or                
          “owner participants” when referring to one or more of those                 
          entities.                                                                   





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011