IBJNews

Judge OKs sale of Indiana's oldest ethanol plant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal bankruptcy judge has approved the sale of Indiana's oldest ethanol plant three months after its owner filed for bankruptcy protection.

A joint venture bought the New Energy Corp. plant at auction last week for $2.5 million and a bankruptcy judge in South Bend approved the sale Tuesday.

New Energy President Russ Abarr said he had hoped the auction price would cover the company's $54 million in debt. A large portion of that debt is owed to the U.S. Department of Energy, which guaranteed the original loans for the plant.

"It was very disappointing," Abarr told the South Bend Tribune.

A bid of $3 million was submitted, but an official who helped manage the auction said it wasn't considered acceptable.

The sale to Detroit-area Maynards Industries and Los Angeles-based Biditup Auctions Worldwide could spell the end of the plant's nearly 30-year run on South Bend's southwest side.

The plant cost more than $180 million to build. It opened in 1984 and could produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year, but was closed in November.

Abarr said he had also hoped the plant would eventually reopen. Attorneys for Maynards and New Energy said the companies planned to look into finding a new operator for the plant, but the Tribune reported the plant components might be resold because the new owners are described on their websites as experts in auctions, liquidations and appraisals.

New Energy employed 126 people before cutting its staff to 90 in June 2011, according to bankruptcy documents. A small staff has remained on hand throughout the bankruptcy to maintain the property.

Interim City Attorney Aladean DeRose said in a motion that the loss of utility revenue from the plant, which was a major customer, would "inevitably be shifted to existing customers" and could cause a significant increase in their bills.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT