In Re Las Vegas Monorail Company, BK-S-10-10464-BAM.
| Decision Date | 26 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. BK-S-10-10464-BAM.,BK-S-10-10464-BAM. |
| Citation | 429 B.R. 317 |
| Parties | In re LAS VEGAS MONORAIL COMPANY, Debtor. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Nevada |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Gerald M. Gordon, Las Vegas, NV, for Debtor.
OPINION ON CASH COLLATERAL MOTIONS
Las Vegas Monorail Company (“LVMC”), the debtor in possession in this case, filed its chapter 11 case on January 13, 2010. Almost immediately, its secured creditor sought adequate protection for its cash collateral; in response, LVMC made an offer of adequate protection that was rejected. This opinion resolves the dispute.
After filing, both LVMC and its secured creditor moved for orders regarding cash collateral. Under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4001(b)(2), the court held an interim hearing on January 22, 2010, at which time the court approved the parties' provisional stipulation regarding cash collateral use. In addition to outlining LVMC's permissible interim use of cash collateral, this stipulation preserved the parties' rights pending a final hearing, which the court scheduled for February 17, 2010. Both parties then commenced discovery.
At the February 17, 2010 hearing, the court admitted into evidence various declarations and exhibits from all sides, and heard testimony. The court took the matter under submission after the parties agreed to extend their interim stipulation until the court's final ruling.
LVMC owns and operates a 3.9 mile long monorail which connects nine hotels along and near the Las Vegas “Strip.” LVMC's ridership has never met projections; it is not overly convenient (it does not connect to the local airport or to the Las Vegas downtown area), and many of its potential patrons use other transportation services.
This is not to say, however, that LVMC cannot cover its operating expenses; to the contrary, its revenues exceed its operating expenses, leaving more than $5 million in annual profits before debt service. LVMC's operating expenses consist mainly of obligations under an operating agreement with Bombardier Transit Corporation (“Bombardier”), which operates and services LVMC's trains. Under this agreement, LVMC pays Bombardier, on average, approximately $900,000 per month.
This positive cash flow, however, is barely enough to cover 10% of LVMC's scheduled debt service. The vast majority of LVMC's debt service arises from a type of financing variously called conduit financing or industrial revenue bond financing or special revenue financing. This type of financing is a common way to finance municipal infrastructures. It allows local government to build and operate beneficial projects with private money and without local government having to increase tax burdens.
Conduit financing addresses an essential tension-while local government can issue debt which bears tax-free interest, and thus is sought after by tax-conscious investors, it rarely wants its taxpayers to bear the full risk of construction and operation. In conduit or industrial revenue bond financing such as is present here, a local government issues bonds to the general public under an indenture (the way most public debt is issued). The local government then lends the bond proceeds to a private party willing to build or operate the project. This loan is usually secured by the project or by its revenues. The key aspect of this type of financing, at least for local government, is its nonrecourse nature; the local government's obligation to repay the bonds is limited to the collateral pledged. And that collateral generally consists of all the government's rights under the loan agreement with the private party. 2
All of these transactions happen simultaneously. At the conclusion of the transaction, tax-conscious investors have bonds the interest on which is tax-free. Repayment of the bonds is secured by the project built with the bond proceeds, and nothing else. The private company has the advantage of a lower rate of interest on its construction loan, since municipal bond rates generally are lower than construction loan rates. And the local government has provided its citizens with new projects designed to improve community life.
In this case, the industrial revenue bond financing took the following form. In 2000, the Director (“Director”) of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry (“Dep...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...v. Del Rio (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 47, 54, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 402 ( Del Rio ); see also In re Las Vegas Monorail Co. (Bankr. D.Nev. 2010) 429 B.R. 317, 338, fn. 37 [detailed recounting of the fable].) Defendant argues that the prosecutor's use of the fable was improper because it was a character......
-
In re Young
...to property acquired by the estate or debtor-in-possession after the filing of the bankruptcy petition); In re Las Vegas Monorail Co., 429 B.R. 317, 342 (Bankr. D.Nev. 2010)(Section 552(b) is an exception to the rule under Section 552(a) that a creditor may no longer enforce its liens in af......
-
In re Shree Meldikrupa Inc.
...existence and the extent of its interest in the property it claims as cash collateral. 11 U.S.C. § 363(p)(2); In re Las Vegas Monorail Co., 429 B.R. 317, 328 (Bankr.D.Nev.2010). The Debtor generates revenue from the sale of its inventory of gasoline and convenience store items (including be......
-
In Re Gorilla Companies LLC, Bankruptcy No. 2:09-bk-02898-RJH
... ... the sole owners of 13 Holdings LLC, which was an event-management company. In June of 2007, 13 Holdings entered into an asset purchase agreement ... ...
-
Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules That Collateral Proceeds Do Not Include Accounts
...only included proceeds of sale of the equipment instead of proceeds of the use of the equipment, and In re Las Vegas Monorail Co., 429 B.R. 317 (Bankr.D.Nev.2010), in which the court held that rider fees were not proceeds of a monorail 9 See Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶552.02[1]. 10 If the Sixt......
-
An Equitable Tightrope: Blackjewel's Balancing Act On After-Acquired Property In Bankruptcy
...that the court, after notice and a hearing and based [on] the equities of the case, orders otherwise." In re Las Vegas Monorail, Co., 429 B.R. 317, 344 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2010). This "exception to the exception" authorizes a bankruptcy court to utilize its discretion when deciding whether to a......
-
An Equitable Tightrope: Blackjewel's Balancing Act On After-Acquired Property In Bankruptcy
...that the court, after notice and a hearing and based [on] the equities of the case, orders otherwise." In re Las Vegas Monorail, Co., 429 B.R. 317, 344 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2010). This "exception to the exception" authorizes a bankruptcy court to utilize its discretion when deciding whether to a......
-
Courting Equity in Bankruptcy.
...the word "proceeds" in [section] 552(b) is given the same scope as the word "proceeds" under Article 9- See In re Las Vegas Monorail Co., 429 B.R. 317, 343 (Bankr. D. Nev. (131) 11 U.S.C. [section] 552(b)(1) (2018). A similar exception exists in [section] 552(b)(2). (132) Westbrook, supra n......
-
The Next Financial Hurricane? Rethinking Municipal Bankruptcy in Louisiana
...is a “municipality” if it is subject to the control of state or municipal public authority. See, e.g. , In re Las Vegas Monorail Co., 429 B.R. 317, 323 n.1 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2010) (rejecting a claim by the bond insurer that the company was a municipality and therefore not entitled to Chapter ......