Laserfiche WebLink
Cheryl A. Linden <br /> May 12, 1994 <br /> Page 4 <br /> the Eubank contract because the holdback is also tied to the <br /> removal of equipment and structures. This is an obligation of <br /> Pete Lien & Sons under the other contract to which the DMG has <br /> consented. That contract gives Lien six months to a year to <br /> remove the property, depending on the type of property. We <br /> cannot look to Pitkin to perform this work, since as <br /> lessee/operator of the rockdust plant, Pitkin has no obligation <br /> to remove equipment or structures. <br /> Due to Pitkin Iron's offer to remove deposits, waste, <br /> and the like, the holdback provision only will create economic <br /> consequences if Lien fails to remove structures. If the DMG's <br /> position is that it objects to such a holdback, then instead of <br /> holding back $40,000 and distributing the balance of net proceeds <br /> to the DMG, there will be no sale to Eubank and the entire value <br /> of the real estate will be held back. This could place limits on <br /> implementation of the reclamation program this Summer. I also am <br /> advised that if the State unreasonably blocks the liquidation of <br /> corporate assets which would be used for reclamation, the <br /> defendants in the Pitkin County litigation will allege failure to <br /> mitigate and other defenses. <br /> if Pitkin Iron executes the agreement which I have <br /> described above, will the DMG join with the Committee in <br /> withdrawing its objection to the Eubank sale unless Mid--valley <br /> immediately deletes its development contingency? This would <br /> permit us to move forward with the sale within the next ten days. <br /> Please advise. <br /> very truly y urs, <br /> JrXR4 <br /> e B. Holden <br /> JBH/je <br /> cc: Bob Delaney <br /> Stephen W. Seifert <br /> Joel cantrick <br /> S'd dOSS3f '8 H3T10H Wd2O:EO b6, 21 A,UW <br />