How much was Brookfield Asset Management willing to spend to develop the quarry? After it was in their hands?
Table 1: Components and Construction Schedule for the Limestone Processing Facilities (Hammerstone Project Update, October 2009) Source: https://nrp.nrcb.ca/Portals/1/Documents/Decisions/Hammerstone/Hammerstone-decision.pdf
November 5, 2008, in Receivership Court Transcript Excerpts
Mr. Gorman is from Norton Rose Fullbright law firm and is counsel for Brookfield Asset Management
22 MR.GORMAN: Sir, I don’t know if you had a chance to receive
23 the material. I don’t think this morning is going to be at all contentious.
25 Submissions by Mr. Gorman
27 MR.GORMAN: It’s my application on behalf of Tricap Partners
28 Ltd. as a secured lender over Birch Mountain Resources Ltd. --
30 THECOURT: Right. No, I did receive the materials,
31 Mr. Gorman, I did look at them and, in some ways, I really only have one question. It
32 seems to me, given this was going to be a consent and isn’t going to be contentious, why
33 are we proceeding by way of a court-appointed receiver, instead of just -- because I -- I
34 got through the instrument, the instrument has receiver provisions in it.
36 MR.GORMAN: Well, I think -- certainly, the starting point, this
37 company’s going to need some -- some DIP financing --
39 THECOURT: Oh, I see, okay.
41 MR.GORMAN: -- and of a serious amount. The order right
1 now provides for $2 million in receiver certificates. The cash flows we received from the
2 company would suggest, to -- to keep operating ’til January 31, they will need 4 million.
3 Whether they operate or not is something that we’ll learn in due course.
5 THE COURT: So, Mr. Roberts have to organize the Christmas
6 party, they need $2 million?
What is being said here?
The Court seems to be asking why the Receivership is being switched from a debtor receivership to a court appointed public receivership? Why? (We'll make a guess in the next post).
The company only needed $4M to get through to January 31st, 2009? Then what? Perhaps a very lucrative contract in the wings?
January 8,2009, Receivership Court "Sale of the Asset" Transcript Excerpts
33 The Receiver carried out its own sales process for a variety of reasons, but in a harsher
34 economic environment than before, and although there were 18 people who kicked the
35 tires, no one wanted to buy the Chev. So, the only party who came up with the offer is
36 Tricap, and they’ve done it in the form of forgiveness of debt offer.
What is being said here?
Mr. Gorman seems to be trying to paint the picture that the company/asset might be like this:
$737M investment would certainly make the Chev more like this:
Seems the Chev was worth saving!