Insurer fires latest round in $125M utility case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

John Hancock Life Insurance Co. today asked a federal judge to force Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative to post an additional $20 million in escrow as the utility continues to challenge a $125 million claim against it by the New York-based insurer.

Attorneys for Bloomington-based Hoosier, meanwhile, said the legal battle that erupted with Hancock last year has severely depleted its liquid reserves and downgraded its credit ratings, and that dire financial consequences could result.

U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton may issue a decision on the request early next week in a case involving a deal Hoosier entered into seven years ago with Hancock. Hoosier leased its Merom Generating Station in Sullivan County to Hancock, and Hoosier leases portions of the station back from Hancock.

The 2002 deal amounted to a giant tax break for Hancock and netted Hoosier $20 million in cash.

Hoosier filed suit last October, winning a temporary injunction to block Hancock from collecting on a $120 million claim involving the complicated lease-back scheme.
Hoosier said it has never missed a lease payment to John Hancock, but Hancock asserts the utility is technically in default because a firm guaranteeing Hoosier’s lease payments, Ambac, suffered a credit downgrade during the nation’s credit crunch last year.
Hoosier, which generates and transmits electricity to 17 rural electric cooperatives in 48 Indiana counties, couldn’t line up a replacement firm fast enough for Hancock and still struggles to do so.

But Hoosier is under a year-end deadline to find a replacement or face the prospect of paying Hancock $125 million – nearly 25 percent of its annual operating revenue.

On Sept. 17 the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, affirmed a preliminary injunction Hoosier sought against Hancock—but only through year-end.

“The longer this impasse continues, the more the balance of equities tilts in favor of John Hancock,” wrote Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.
Hancock’s attorneys, at today’s hearing in Indianapolis before Judge Hamilton, seized on remarks by Easterbrook that $22 million in liquid security Hoosier pledged while the case is being decided “do not cover John Hancock’s exposure.”

“They [Hoosier] can go out and borrow a reasonable amount,” Matthew Herrington, an attorney for Hancock, told the court.
But Hoosier’s attorney, Reed Oslan, of Chicago law firm Kirkland & Ellis, scoffed at the suggestion, saying Hoosier’s “dismal” financial situation would make borrowing daunting, at best.

Oslan told the court Hoosier’s liquid reserves have dropped precipitously, to $115 million, from $208 million last fall. What money is left is dedicated to operating needs. The utility’s credit rating “has been downgraded to one level above junk status,” Oslan added. “In short, we are in a liquidity crisis.”

In his argument against Hoosier having to post additional security, Oslan testified that Hancock had this year effectively retained hundreds of millions of dollars in additional security interest in Hoosier under a trigger in the original lease-back default agreement.

That trigger gives Hancock second mortgage collateral in not only the Merom plant but also several of the utility’s other generating plants.  He estimated Hancock’s interest as high as $1.75 billion.

Hancock’s Herrington, however, reiterated the Seventh Circuit’s remarks that Hancock should be entitled to liquid security. “Do we get security or do we [just] get the right to sue?” said Herrington.

In another argument against ordering Hoosier to post additional security while the case plays out, Oslan cited legislation pending in Congress that seeks to protect struggling utilities and transit systems in a similar predicament.  If enacted, Hancock and other firms that structured lease-back deals would pay a stiff tax designed to discourage them from collecting default payments.

In fact, last December, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) mentioned the predicament Hoosier Energy faced, citing Hancock’s attempts to collect on  technical default. Baucus noted that the Internal Revenue Service found such lease-back deals essentially to be “sham” tax shelters and called them “among the most egregious abuses of the tax law.“

Oslan accused Hancock of trying to reap an enormous windfall by squeezing from Hoosier tax benefits it cannot legally obtain through the tax code.
But Judge Hamilton chuckled at Oslan’s argument.

“There are a lot of things pending before the (U.S.) Senate that aren’t necessarily moving,” said Hamilton. “I’m not given to placing much weight on pending legislation.”

The lease-back tax-shelter deals, known as “lease in/lease-out” or “sale-in/sale out” transactions, have burned a number of utilities and government agencies, including more than 25 city-transit agencies such as St. Louis’ Metro system.

Hoosier serves rural electric cooperatives in counties including Bartholomew and Johnson and Shelby, involving 800,000 residents and businesses in a 15,000-square-mile area.

“It’s not John Hancock’s desire in any sense that Hoosier gets to the liquidation scenario,” said Herrington.

But Hancock won’t get its $125 million if Hoosier can line up a replacement this year for Ambac.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I still don't understand how the FBI had any right whatsoever to investigate this elderly collector. Before the Antiquities Act it was completely legal to buy, trade or collect Native American artifacts. I used to see arrow heads, axes, bowls, corn grinders at antique shops and flea markets for sale and I bought them myself. But that was in the late 60's and early 70's. And I now know that people used to steal items from sites and sell them. I understand that is illegal. But we used to find arrow heads and even a corn grinder in our back yard when I was a child. And I still have those items today in my small collection.

  2. I lived in California and they had many of the things noted in the proposed suggestions from the "Blue Ribbon Panel". California is near financial collapse now. Let's not turn the great state of Indiana into a third world dump like California.

  3. The temporary closure of BR Avenue will get a lot of attention. But, one thing reported by the IndyStar really stands out to me, and is extraordinarily depressing: “Police also have agreed to crack down on noise violations, traffic violations and public intoxication.” In other words, the police have generously agreed to do their jobs (temporarily, at least), instead of just standing around waiting for someone to call 911. When is someone in this department going to get off their fat arse (looking at you, Chief), get their minds out of 1975-era policing and into 2014, and have his department engage in pro-active work instead of sitting around waiting for someone to be shot? Why in the hell does it take 7 people getting shot in one night in one of the city’s biggest tourist destinations, to convince the police (reluctantly, it would appear) that they actually need to do their f’n jobs? When is the Chief going to realize that there’s a huge, direct, proven correlation between enforcing the law (yes, all laws, especially those affecting quality of life) and preventing larger crimes from occurring? Is it racial BS? Is that what this extraordinary reluctance is all about? Is the department and the city terrified that if they do their jobs, they might offend someone? Whom, exactly? Will the victims of violence, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and theft be offended? Will the citizens who have to tolerate their deteriorating quality of life be offended? Will the businesses who see their customers flee be offended? Or, is it simple ignorance (maybe the Chief hasn’t heard about NYC’s success in fighting crime - it’s only the biggest g*&#am city in the country, after all)? Either way, Chief, if you don’t want to do your job, then step down. Let someone who actually wants the job take it.

  4. I thought Indiana had all the funding it needed for everything. That's why the state lottery and casino gambling were allowed, as the new tax revenue would take care of everything the state wanted to do.The recommendations sound like they came from California. Better think about that. What is the financial condition of that state?

  5. I was a fan of WIBC in the morning, Steve was the only WIBC host that I listened too, he gave the news with so much flare that I enjoyed listening to him on my way to work. Katz is no Steve. Sadly, I will not be listening to WIBC anymore.