- 60 -
pre-May 22, 1986, circumstances did not amount to an abandonment
of the project by the partnership.
The gist of respondent’s argument, as we understand it, is
that events occurring after May 22, 1986, and no later than July
14, 1986, tipped the balance, transforming what respondent views
as the partnership’s gradual abandonment-in-process into actual
abandonment, somewhat as ever-colder water will finally make ice.
The post-May 22, 1986, events that respondent points to in
support of this theory are essentially these: On May 28, 1986,
ANRC and Transco Energy submitted to DOE a new proposal, which
DOE rejected on June 9, 1986; on June 20, Transco informed ANR
that it would not participate in appealing the District Court’s
foreclosure order; on June 24, 1986, ANRC and Transco Energy
submitted to DOE yet another proposal, which DOE rejected on June
25, 1986; and the foreclosure sale occurred on June 30, 1986,
without any bids from the partnership or any partner.
We are unpersuaded that there was such a change in the
partnership’s business climate immediately after May 22, 1986, as
to say that the partnership should be deemed to have abandoned
the project assets on (or by) July 1 or 14, 1986, if, as
respondent concedes, the partnership had not abandoned them
before then. Rather, it appears to us that the post-May 22,
1986, events were mainly a continuation of the partners’ ongoing,
albeit ultimately unsuccessful, efforts to protect their
significant investments in the project.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011