County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., CV 87-0646.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 87-0646.,CV 87-0646. |
| Citation | 87 F.Supp.2d 187 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, a municipal corporation, and Robert Alcorn, Christopher S. George, Fred Harrison, Peter Maniscalco, William F. Quinn, Robert Hoffman, Susan Chase, Yolanda Owens, James Roth, Myra Berkoff and Sandra Rosenberg on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Charles R. Pierce, Wilfred O. Uhl, Charles J. Davis, and Andrew W. Wofford, Defendants, and Marketspan Corp., Intervenor-Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Judith P. Vladeck, Karen Honeycutt, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C., New York City, for plaintiff-class members.
United States Attorney Loretta Lynch, by Igou M. Allbray, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY, for the United States Government.
Michael Lesch, Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., New York City, for intervenor-defendant.
Cynthia R. Clark, Keyspan Corporation d/b/a Keyspan Energy, Brooklyn, NY, for intervenor-defendant.
MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION ............................................... 189
II FACTS ...................................................... 189
III JURISDICTION ............................................... 191
IV INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION .......................... 192
V STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ..................................... 195
VI LAW OF THE CASE ............................................ 195
VII INTEREST ................................................... 196
VIII ATTORNEYS' FEES ............................................ 196
IX CONCLUSION ................................................. 196
The Class seeks a declaration interpreting the judgment and stipulation of settlement of a RICO class action and False Claims action ("Stipulation"). See County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F.Supp. 1428, 1452-66 (E.D.N.Y.1989) (Stipulation appended). It contends that the Long Island Lighting Company and its successors, including Keyspan Corporation ("LILCO"), are required to pay the Class approximately $21.5 million more than LILCO intends to pay. Additionally requested are interest on past due amounts and attorneys' fees.
LILCO responds that the $21.5 million is being provided to ratepayers in the form of reduced taxes on their electric bills. Essentially, LILCO contends that the tax benefits reaped by the Class as a result of rate reductions resulting from the RICO class action are appropriately included in the $390 million aggregate settlement LILCO agreed to pay.
The Class is entitled to the relief it seeks.
A decade ago LILCO was in serious financial trouble as a result of its construction of the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Ratepayers had brought a class action alleging that LILCO and those associated with it had fraudulently obtained rate increases from the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) by making deliberate misrepresentations to the PSC respecting Shoreham. Extensive litigation followed. See, e.g., County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F.Supp. 1428 (E.D.N.Y.1989) [LILCO I] (approving settlement); County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F.Supp. 1487 (E.D.N.Y.1989) [LILCO II] (final judgment); County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F.Supp. 1387 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) ( claims by Suffolk County), aff'd as modified, 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir.1990); County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 685 F.Supp. 38 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (); see also County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 14 F.Supp.2d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (); County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., Civ. No. 87-0646, 1995 WL 761828 (Dec. 19, 1995) (extending life of Citizens Advisory Panel), aff'd sub nom, County of Suffolk v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 106 F.3d 1112 (2d Cir.1997) [LILCO III].
Faced with the substantial possibility that it would be liable to pay a judgment for billions of dollars — resulting in bankruptcy — LILCO settled the suit. LILCO agreed to pay "the sum of Three Hundred Ninety Million Dollars ($390,000,000) in the form of (i) rate reductions, and (ii) payments to Former Ratepayers." Stipulation ¶ 2(a). The $390 million figure was arrived at after intense negotiations by the parties with the aid of the court-appointed Special Master.
Payments were to be made over a ten year period, with the largest payments ballooning in the latter years. The amount and terms of the payments were fixed at a level that it was believed the stock and capital markets would recognize as reasonable, thus avoiding further injury to LILCO's financial standing. There was a concern that setting the aggregate settlement payment too high would result in a "boomerang effect," that is to say, a higher settlement would have unsettled the financial markets causing LILCO to pay exorbitant interest on needed loans, in turn requiring LILCO to charge higher electric rates to cover these costs. As the decision approving the settlement put it:
higher payments in the RICO settlement would present a serious danger to LILCO by threatening investor confidence in the financial health of the utility. This would lead to higher interest rates if LILCO's bonds were not certified as of investment quality. The higher interest rates would, in turn, under standard PSC practice, be charged back to ratepayers as allowable utility costs. These additional costs would then, the experts for the PSC concluded, more than outweigh any increased level of payments above the schedule set out. . . .
The settlement worked. LILCO has prospered.
The Stipulation, settlement and judgment are specific about the amount that was to be paid by LILCO to ratepayers.
LILCO shall pay to the Ratepayer Class . . . the sum of Three Hundred Ninety Million Dollars ($390,000,000) in the form of . . . rate reductions. . . . (Stipulation ¶ 4(a)).
The annual rate reductions required by the Stipulation shall be accomplished in accordance with the following schedule, commencing on the month and date indicated:
June 1990 ____ $20 million
June 1991 ____ $20 million
June 1992 ____ $20 million
June 1993 ____ $30 million
June 1994 ____ $30 million
June 1995 ____ $40 million
June 1996 ____ $50 million
June 1997 ____ $60 million
June 1998 ____ $60 million
June 1999 ____ $60 million
[Total = $390 million]
Instead of paying the sums due under the schedule, LILCO has paid less, leading to a deficit that will amount to more than $21.5 million by May 31, 2000. The following table sets out the monthly installments made by LILCO, the resulting monthly tax "reduction," and the total monthly bill "reduction" to the Class.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffrey M. Brown Associates v. Crk Contracting, CIV. A. 99-5487.
...as its language is not reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation. See id.; see also County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 87 F.Supp.2d 187, 192 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (noting that a court need not find language ambiguous if the interpretation urged by one party would torture c......
-
County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
...from Judge Weinstein's decision finding that it breached a class settlement agreement and awarding damages. See County of Suffolk v. LILCO, 87 F. Supp. 2d 187 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); County of Suffolk v. LILCO, No. 87-CV-0646 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2000) (Corrected Final Order and Judgment); County of ......
-
Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc. v. CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc., Civil Action No. 99-5487 (E.D. Pa. 6/14/2000)
...as its language is not reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation. See id; see also County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 87 F. Supp.2d 187, 192 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (noting that a court need not find language ambiguous if the interpretation urged by one party would torture ......