What's next for MMA?

[CN9634]

The trustee has introduced legislation, that was approved by the court, that will protect lines from being purchased with the intent of abandonment. Also, they setup the sale so that someone has to purchase the Moosehead and operate it. They argued it was in the 'best public interest'. Obviously it is much more detailed than this breif, but rest assured the Moosehead is safe again. Look for return of MMA freight service in early Jan until the transaction of the sale is completed in March.

[johnpbarlow]

The trustee has introduced legislation, that was approved by the court, that will protect lines from being purchased with the intent of abandonment. Also, they setup the sale so that someone has to purchase the Moosehead and operate it. They argued it was in the 'best public interest'. Obviously it is much more detailed than this breif, but rest assured the Moosehead is safe again. Look for return of MMA freight service in early Jan until the transaction of the sale is completed in March.

Does this mean that only bids for the MM&A in its entirety will be considered? That is, the trustee won't entertain bids for MM&A segments?

[gokeefe]

The trustee has introduced legislation, that was approved by the court, that will protect lines from being purchased with the intent of abandonment. Also, they setup the sale so that someone has to purchase the Moosehead and operate it. They argued it was in the 'best public interest'. Obviously it is much more detailed than this breif, but rest assured the Moosehead is safe again. Look for return of MMA freight service in early Jan until the transaction of the sale is completed in March.

Does this mean that only bids for the MM&A in its entirety will be considered? That is, the trustee won't entertain bids for MM&A segments?

That appears to be the implication.

[CN9634]

They will take any bids, but it is up to the trustee which ones to recognize as legitimate. As it is, they have two lots, Canada and the US. There was talk of a third one being Vermont.

[KEN PATRICK]

i don't believe legislation can dictate business requirements in the purchase. certainly can't require an entity to lose money.

if legislation is based on 'public interest' isn't that a requirement for the public to purchase and operate it? and what of our federal government investment of $25million? are we taxpayers willing to write that off?

this situation is complex. i see no offers that will make economic sense. the canadians must step up and nationalize this.
ken patrick

[CN9634]

i don't believe legislation can dictate business requirements in the purchase. certainly can't require an entity to lose money.

if legislation is based on 'public interest' isn't that a requirement for the public to purchase and operate it? and what of our federal government investment of $25million? are we taxpayers willing to write that off?

this situation is complex. i see no offers that will make economic sense. the canadians must step up and nationalize this.
ken patrick

Well... you're wrong.

[Cowford]

Could you clarify "legislate"? That doesn't sound kosher.

[KEN PATRICK]

i am responding to a post that said someone introduced legislation that would prohibit scrapping the railroad, that it had to operated in the public interest etc.
clearly that can't happen without the province buying and operating the railroad.
i'm of the opinion that any legislation with these objectives would require the province to purchase the entity.
the hard part is to calculate an amount that provides for all lawsuits outcomes. i doubt any government body can calculate such a sum.
as i posted ,sadly, the non-action of a single person will result in the elimination of this entity . ken patrick

[BandA]

Could you clarify "legislate"? That doesn't sound kosher.

Bill number & text of said legislation?

[gokeefe]

"Legislation" is probably a misnomer.

"Conditions of sale" might be more likely.

[CN9634]

Legislation is a buzz word we use to describe formal written documents through a legal body (a court, etc), it isn't an LD... Properly stated it is 'admended version of the proposed bid procedures.'

If you want to go through all the paperwork, have at it...

Be sure to notice Attachment A. This works best with Adobe and look on the left side of the window.

http://www.richter.ca/~/media/Files/Ins ... x?la=fr-CA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MEC407]

i don't believe legislation can dictate business requirements in the purchase. certainly can't require an entity to lose money.

if legislation is based on 'public interest' isn't that a requirement for the public to purchase and operate it? and what of our federal government investment of $25million? are we taxpayers willing to write that off?

this situation is complex. i see no offers that will make economic sense. the canadians must step up and nationalize this.
ken patrick

Well... you're wrong.

For the sake of discussion and clarity, could you please elaborate on why you believe that Mr. Patrick is mistaken about this issue?

[CN9634]

Mr. Keach put fourth the bid procedures and they were approved by the court. However, he went back through and made some amendments after Irving made it clear they only wanted from Millinocket to Seaport. Further, there was talk (and a pph article) about abandoning the m oosehead and Mr. Keach proposed some amendments to the bid procedures that clarified the lots as described in the document I linked. There was a lot of back abd fourth between Keach and the Irving rep during the last hearing where Irving tried to prevent the amendments from going through. Keach said that the best public interest would be protected with a purchase of the whole line with the intention to run it, even if it wasn't the highest bidder. He also thought 'cherry picking' the lot or estate would be against public interest and set a precident that other interest parties could do the same.Irving protested with the claim that they would be forced to purchase a line that would not make money (i.e. the Moosehead) but Keach used the stalking horse as an example that someone would want to run the entire line and he doesn't believe that someone would do so of they didn't think the line could make a profit. Sorry this post isnt as thorough and clear as itnshould be but im sitting at a tire shop in Auburn waiting for the car (with a great view of the tracks).

The long and short of it is Keach and the court approved bit procedures that would require a successful bid to be for the Maine lot, Canadian lot or Newport sub lot as well as all or a combination of the above. So while some (Irving) claimed a successful bid would force them to pick up a line they don't believe will be profitable (which is a separate debate within itself) the court approved the amended bid procedures that will do just that.

If you want to know more, purchase a copy.of the latest ANR&P

[Cowford]

A few months ago, everyone was salivating over the thought that Irving saw the entire line as a strategic imperative. Now Irving is saying it is a loser and, in doing so, stands the risk of being derided for just not "getting it". Considering they control much of the Maritimes business (and run a couple of railroads in the region, to boot), I'd guess they know more about the railroad's prospects than the trustee. The Moosehead is far from "safe".

[MEC407]

CN9634, thank you for the very thorough explanation/analysis.