Laserfiche WebLink
Cheryl. A. Linden <br /> May 12, 1994 <br /> Page 2 <br /> days of acceptance of a contract. Resources is proceeding to <br /> prepare a sale contract embodying the terms of the enclosed <br /> proposal, at which point I will submit it to the Court for <br /> approval. In the meantime, Resources is proceeding with a Phase <br /> II environmental audit. The contract and motion will be drafted <br /> to permit Resources to switch to another buyer if one of the <br /> other parties submits an offer for more cash which is otherwise <br /> on substantially the same terms. In the absence of objection, <br /> this should permit us to close the sale of the property by mid- <br /> summer, at which point money would be reserved for payment of <br /> administrative expenses, with the balance distributed to the MLRB <br /> and unsecured creditors pursuant to the terms of the Plan. <br /> Bale of Roekdust Plant. On April 28, I submitted a <br /> "certificate of partially contested and partially non-contested <br /> matter" to the Court, requesting entry of an order authorizing <br /> the sale of equipment and structures to Pete Lien & sons, and <br /> requesting a hearing on the sale of real property to Dale Eubank. <br /> The Court has yet to enter an order on the Lien sale or set a <br /> hearing on the Eubank sale. <br /> The Eubank contract was dated March 10, 1994. <br /> Paragraph 16 of the contract provided that the contract would <br /> become void unless the Court approved the contract within 60 <br /> days. On May 11, Eubank agreed to a 10 day extension. I am <br /> enclosing a copy of the amendment, together with Bob Delaney's <br /> cover memo stating that "Eubank is unwilling to extend beyond the <br /> 10 days unless some progress is shown. " <br /> Both the DMG and the Creditors' Committee have objected <br /> to the Eubank sale. The Committee's objection was solely that <br /> there might be a better offer from Mid-Valley Design/Business <br /> Center ( "Mid-Valley") . The DMG's objection focused on the Mid- <br /> Valley offer, and also on "the requirement in the contract that <br /> the debtor clean-up the property and that $40,000 be retained <br /> from the proceeds of the sale to ensure that such clean-up <br /> occurs. " <br /> The problem with Mid-Valley's offer is that it is <br /> conditioned on subdivision, and it is likely that this would <br /> delay any closing for months. Originally I was hopeful that the <br /> competition between Eubank and Mid-Valley might cause Mid-Valley <br /> to drop the development contingency, which in turn might cause <br /> Eubank to increase hie offer. However, Mid -valley has held firm <br /> on the development contingency, and Eubank has declined to "bid <br /> against himself" by increasing his bid when there is no higher <br /> bid on the same terms as his offer. <br /> E"d dOSS3f '8 W3Q_10H WJ10=E0 b6. ZS MW <br />