Great Plains Gasification Associates, A Partnership, Transco Coal Gas Company, A Partner Other Than The Tax Matters Partner - Page 34

                                        - 34 -                                        
          Final Debt-Restructuring Proposals                                          
               On May 28, 1986, ANRC and Transco Energy submitted to DOE a            
          formal restructuring proposal.  This proposal contemplated                  
          restructuring the DOE debt and providing $210 million of capital            
          infusions to fund continued project operations, contingent upon             
          receipt of a favorable IRS ruling that no recapture of taxable              
          credits or recognition of taxable gain had yet occurred.                    
          Although Pacific did not join this formal submission, it was                
          aware of it and contemplated continuing participation in the                
          project if a restructuring agreement could be reached and the IRS           
          provided a favorable ruling.                                                
               By letter dated June 9, 1986, DOE rejected the May 28, 1986,           
          proposal.  DOE insisted that any proposal must include a                    
          “substantial cash payment” to DOE toward partial retirement of              
          the $1.57 billion debt, “such that the payment outweighs the tax            
          benefits subject to recapture if the Project is acquired by an              
          outside party”.                                                             
               An internal Transco memorandum dated June 20, 1986, from a             
          lawyer in Transco’s legal office, reported communications that              
          day with Mr. S. Kinnie Smith, Jr., ANR’s vice chairman and legal            
          counsel, advising Mr. Smith that Transco did not see a                      
          “significant reason” to pursue an appeal of the foreclosure order           
          and did not wish to “dilute” Transco’s appeal on gas contract               
          issues by “interjecting rather weak arguments relating to                   






Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011