player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 21:34:15 GMT -5
I disagree. I work for a $13B corporation and NO legal documents get signed without legal approving it. My clients are all Fortune 500 companies, and I have never seen one even sign a sales contract without legal OKing it. This is a major land sale. No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval. I dont know where you are getting your information from. Their=NSFOC or the same politicians who took it upon themselves to stop Eola. If I see them lifting a finger on their own accord to actually do something to make AME safe, I will eat crow. Less vague for you? Cheers. We completed a land sale with MWGEN and they breached the contract? Really? Do you have a scan of the signed sales contract? Why didn't D204 sue them for breach? We could use the money. Huh? This doesn't even make sense! Where do you read that we completed a land sale with MWGEN? And what has this got to do with MWGEN being able to enter a contract without internal legal approval, which is what you are claiming? Do you have a shred of evidence for that? Ever bought real estate, Arch? I'm sure you have. Ever had a piece of property under contract before the closing? Why don't you do your own research and find out how we could have had MWGEN land under contract and have them back out without a breach of contract, and answer your own question? Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 21:37:58 GMT -5
Their=NSFOC or the same politicians who took it upon themselves to stop Eola. If I see them lifting a finger on their own accord to actually do something to make AME safe, I will eat crow. Less vague for you? Cheers. First you mentioned the idealists in the group. Hypothetically if the group disbands and the idealists in turn get help from others who were never members to move forward, does that count or will you call a technicality? That would not count, as it would establish my belief that the current NSFOC organization majority did not and does not care about AME safety in any way unless it would lead to building at BB. You call it a technicality, I call it proof for my hypothesis. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:43:52 GMT -5
We completed a land sale with MWGEN and they breached the contract? Really? Do you have a scan of the signed sales contract? Why didn't D204 sue them for breach? We could use the money. Huh? This doesn't even make sense! Where do you read that we completed a land sale with MWGEN? And what has this got to do with MWGEN being able to enter a contract without internal legal approval, which is what you are claiming? Do you have a shred of evidence for that? Ever bought real estate, Arch? I'm sure you have. Ever had a piece of property under contract before the closing? Why don't you do your own research and find out how we could have had MWGEN land under contract and have them back out without a breach of contract, and answer your own question? Cheers. You put forth: "No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval." My bad Where I thought you were arguing with me, trying to imply we had a sales contract with them and a certain state senator put pressure on them to back out. I now see that you were actually agreeing with me. Their legal department killed it. I speculate it was part of the normal routine final legal check before signatures. You speculate it was due to 'pressure' from a state rep/senator. I think it would have been killed internally anyway without any 'outside' influence.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 21:45:15 GMT -5
First you mentioned the idealists in the group. Hypothetically if the group disbands and the idealists in turn get help from others who were never members to move forward, does that count or will you call a technicality? That would not count, as it would establish my belief that the current NSFOC organization majority did not and does not care about AME safety in any way unless it would lead to building at BB. You call it a technicality, I call it proof for my hypothesis. Cheers. I call it simple speculation. Neither of us know what they will do next, but I do know some in the org who actually overlap more with my view on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 21:56:14 GMT -5
Huh? This doesn't even make sense! Where do you read that we completed a land sale with MWGEN? And what has this got to do with MWGEN being able to enter a contract without internal legal approval, which is what you are claiming? Do you have a shred of evidence for that? Ever bought real estate, Arch? I'm sure you have. Ever had a piece of property under contract before the closing? Why don't you do your own research and find out how we could have had MWGEN land under contract and have them back out without a breach of contract, and answer your own question? Cheers. You put forth: "No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval." My bad Where I thought you were arguing with me, trying to imply we had a sales contract with them and a certain state senator put pressure on them to back out. I now see that you were actually agreeing with me. Their legal department killed it. I speculate it was part of the normal routine final legal check before signatures. You speculate it was due to 'pressure' from a state rep/senator. I think it would have been killed internally anyway without any 'outside' influence. Sorry quoting directly from the Midwest Gen letter it is quite obvious outside interfernece in fact killed the deal. However, it is now apparent that there is serious public opposition and a deep division within the community regarding the use of Midwest Generations’ property as the site of a new high school. The opposition includes a lawsuit against the School district, lobbying of public officials, and a grass-roots effort that has disseminated incorrect, misleading, and potentially harmful information about not only the school district, but Midwest Generation as well. Consequently, it is our considered opinion that continued negotiations and the potential sale represents a threat to both the business interests and reputation of Midwest Generation.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 21:59:32 GMT -5
You put forth: "No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval." My bad Where I thought you were arguing with me, trying to imply we had a sales contract with them and a certain state senator put pressure on them to back out. I now see that you were actually agreeing with me. Their legal department killed it. I speculate it was part of the normal routine final legal check before signatures. You speculate it was due to 'pressure' from a state rep/senator. I think it would have been killed internally anyway without any 'outside' influence. No. You are misinterpreting what I said. I do not agree with you. The MWGEN land was under contract but it was before the closing when they backed out. They had the right, as did the District to back out of the contract even as late as 3 days after the closing. I'm no real estate expert, but thats what I went through when I bought and sold my house. You were claiming that the initial entering into contract with the district was done with no legal supervision, by some overenthusiastic yahoo at MWGEN who thought it was a cool idea to sell allegedly contaminated land to the District, and at the 11'th hour, some wise lawyer stopped him. I'm calling that a ludicrous and untenable theory. The wise lawyer would have had to be consulted before they entered the contract, and if they were, they would have stopped the action right at that point, not several weeks later. If they knew that land was contaminated, they also knew that before entering the contract. So I dont buy that somehow in the matter of weeks after agreeing to sell the land, they suddenly realized that their site went from acceptable to a chemical cesspool. They agreed to sell the land because they believed the land could be remediated in a cost effective manner, and would pass IEPA standards. The backed out because of political pressure from certain politicians. So we are in violent disagreement. Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 22:03:51 GMT -5
That would not count, as it would establish my belief that the current NSFOC organization majority did not and does not care about AME safety in any way unless it would lead to building at BB. You call it a technicality, I call it proof for my hypothesis. Cheers. I call it simple speculation. Neither of us know what they will do next, but I do know some in the org who actually overlap more with my view on the situation. Which is why I wait to see if I am wrong - it is speculation on my part till I see some action or lack thereof. I will certainly hope and agree that there are likely individuals who "overlap more with" your view. These would be the idealists I referred to, and my hats off to them. I maintain such individuals are the rare exception rather than the norm. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 22:30:14 GMT -5
You put forth: "No corporation I know signs documents that are valid in a court of law without internal legal approval." My bad Where I thought you were arguing with me, trying to imply we had a sales contract with them and a certain state senator put pressure on them to back out. I now see that you were actually agreeing with me. Their legal department killed it. I speculate it was part of the normal routine final legal check before signatures. You speculate it was due to 'pressure' from a state rep/senator. I think it would have been killed internally anyway without any 'outside' influence. No. You are misinterpreting what I said. I do not agree with you. The MWGEN land was under contract but it was before the closing when they backed out. They had the right, as did the District to back out of the contract even as late as 3 days after the closing. I'm no real estate expert, but thats what I went through when I bought and sold my house. You were claiming that the initial entering into contract with the district was done with no legal supervision, by some overenthusiastic yahoo at MWGEN who thought it was a cool idea to sell allegedly contaminated land to the District, and at the 11'th hour, some wise lawyer stopped him. I'm calling that a ludicrous and untenable theory. The wise lawyer would have had to be consulted before they entered the contract, and if they were, they would have stopped the action right at that point, not several weeks later. If they knew that land was contaminated, they also knew that before entering the contract. So I dont buy that somehow in the matter of weeks after agreeing to sell the land, they suddenly realized that their site went from acceptable to a chemical cesspool. They agreed to sell the land because they believed the land could be remediated in a cost effective manner, and would pass IEPA standards. The backed out because of political pressure from certain politicians. So we are in violent disagreement. Cheers. There was never a signed contract between the district and MWGEN for the land. A letter of intent was signed by the parties with contingencies and terms and conditions for the sale. In fact, the AME purchase was contingent on the MWGEN purchase as I recall. the Letter of Intent or commitment to sell/purchase MWGEN expired either the day or or the day before the official letter was sent by MWGEN advising of their withdrawal from the deal. MWGEN had a proposed contract to sell in hand in January 2008 yet I do not believe the SB heard anything back from them until about two weeks before the expiration of the Letter of Intent. That's about the time the call to action and rumors started flying. Quite frankly, MWGEN's silence over that period of time seems to me to have been an indication they were getting cold feet on any deal. . This began before NSFOC was formed and Holmes got involved. I believe that the formation of NSFOC and the contact from Holmes,( minimal according to her account ) , was the perfect scapegoat for MWGEN to back out gracefully without heat thereby allowing them to shift the blame somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 22:37:45 GMT -5
I believe that the formation of NSFOC and the contact from Holmes,( minimal according to her account ) , was the perfect scapegoat for MWGEN to back out gracefully without heat thereby allowing them to shift the blame somewhere else. So what is it? NSFOC claims they got Midwest Gen to back out. Did they or is that just another piece of misinformation they are posting on their web site?
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 3, 2008 22:45:36 GMT -5
No. You are misinterpreting what I said. I do not agree with you. The MWGEN land was under contract but it was before the closing when they backed out. They had the right, as did the District to back out of the contract even as late as 3 days after the closing. I'm no real estate expert, but thats what I went through when I bought and sold my house. You were claiming that the initial entering into contract with the district was done with no legal supervision, by some overenthusiastic yahoo at MWGEN who thought it was a cool idea to sell allegedly contaminated land to the District, and at the 11'th hour, some wise lawyer stopped him. I'm calling that a ludicrous and untenable theory. The wise lawyer would have had to be consulted before they entered the contract, and if they were, they would have stopped the action right at that point, not several weeks later. If they knew that land was contaminated, they also knew that before entering the contract. So I dont buy that somehow in the matter of weeks after agreeing to sell the land, they suddenly realized that their site went from acceptable to a chemical cesspool. They agreed to sell the land because they believed the land could be remediated in a cost effective manner, and would pass IEPA standards. The backed out because of political pressure from certain politicians. So we are in violent disagreement. Cheers. There was never a signed contract between the district and MWGEN for the land. A letter of intent was signed by the parties with contingencies and terms and conditions for the sale. In fact, the AME purchase was contingent on the MWGEN purchase as I recall. the Letter of Intent or commitment to sell/purchase MWGEN expired either the day or or the day before the official letter was sent by MWGEN advising of their withdrawal from the deal. MWGEN had a proposed contract to sell in hand in January 2008 yet I do not believe the SB heard anything back from them until about two weeks before the expiration of the Letter of Intent. That's about the time the call to action and rumors started flying. Quite frankly, MWGEN's silence over that period of time seems to me to have been an indication they were getting cold feet on any deal. . This began before NSFOC was formed and Holmes got involved. I believe that the formation of NSFOC and the contact from Holmes,( minimal according to her account ) , was the perfect scapegoat for MWGEN to back out gracefully without heat thereby allowing them to shift the blame somewhere else. If it was a Letter of Intent or Commitment, so be it - I stand corrected. My bad. There was documented intent to sell. I still stand firm in my stance that they did not sell because of Holmes and the NSFOC, and not because they were afraid that the sale would expose their land to be a chemical deathtrap, as Arch speculates. If exposure was their concern, we would have never had a Letter of Intent/Commitment from them to begin with. This political interference and the NSFOC was not a scapegoat - it was the ONLY cause for them to back out. They didn't say anything, and that is evidence of cold feet? Really! How about a radically different hypothesis? They didn't say anything because they actually intended to sell, just as they had signed in the letter! Until Holmes and NSFOC pressured them to get out, that is. I believe in Occam's Razor. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 3, 2008 22:48:18 GMT -5
And with that, I think it's time to lock this thread. We've been off of the topic of boundaries for some time now.
|
|