In Re Chicago, Missouri & Western Railway Co.

90 B.R. 344, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1511, 1988 WL 94544
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedAugust 24, 1988
Docket19-05215
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 B.R. 344 (In Re Chicago, Missouri & Western Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Chicago, Missouri & Western Railway Co., 90 B.R. 344, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1511, 1988 WL 94544 (Ill. 1988).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE BORROWING APPLICATION AS MODIFIED OF DANIEL R. MURRAY, TRUSTEE OF THE DEBTOR, CHICAGO, MISSOURI AND WESTERN RAILWAY

JOHN D. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The court has held a hearing on the Borrowing Application as modified filed by Daniel R. Murray, the duly appointed and acting Trustee of the Debtor, Chicago, Missouri and Western Railway Company seeking orders permitting him as Trustee to enter into several loan agreements with the State of Illinois or related entities more particularly described in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. At that hearing, the Debtor’s secured Lenders, Citi-corp North America, Inc. and Heller Financial Services, Inc. also made objections to any such loans. In accordance with the applicable rules, the court now makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

Finding No. 1

The railroad line owned and operated by the Chicago Missouri & Western Railway Company (“CM & W”) was chartered in the late 1840’s. (The CM & W is herein referred to as “CM & W”, “Debtor” or “Railroad”.) Passenger service commenced in the mid-1850’s. Four owners have operated the line since its inception.

Finding No. 2

The CM & W was incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Venango River Corporation (“Venango”). CM & W provides common carriage between the railroad gateways of Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago. Its line extends for over 631 miles. CM & W provides terminal services for the Illinois Central Railroad, formerly the Illinois Central and Gulf Railroad (“IC”) at East St. Louis. This service includes the receipt and dispatch of road freight trains, interchange pickup and delivery, and servicing of IC motive power and rolling stock.

Finding No. 3

The CM & W route is the shortest route between St. Louis and Chicago. It is well engineered, having minimal curvature and few grades. As a result, the route provides for fuel efficiency and less wear and tear on railroad cars.

Finding No. 4

The St. Louis to Kansas City line is a sturdy railroad suitable for the type of tonnage it is currently handling, as well as for any future tonnage it is likely to handle.

Finding No. 5

There are four different classes of traffic served by the CM & W: (1) local traffic {i.e., traffic which is loaded on at CM & W stops and unloaded at CM & W stops); (2) forwarded traffic (i.e., where CM & W originates the traffic, which is then completed by another carrier); (3) receipt traffic (i.e., the reverse of forwarded traffic); and (4) overhead traffic (i.e., traffic that is neither loaded nor unloaded on the CM & W).

Finding No. 6

The CM & W serves a wide variety of customers, from commercial giants like Continental Grain and Con-Agra, that deal on a world-wide scope, down to smaller local entities.

Finding No. 7

The commodities the CM & W handles are primarily intermodal traffic (trailers carried on flat cars), grain, food and food products, steel, scrap, petroleum, chemicals, plastic products, and some aggregates.

*346 Finding No. 8

The rail lines of CM & W were purchased in April of 1987 from the IC, together with trackage rights.

Finding No. 9

The purchase was funded by a loan to Venango from Citicorp North America and Heller Financial Services, Inc., (collectively, the “Lenders”). The court, for the purposes of these findings has accepted the relationship of the Lenders one to the other to mean that the knowledge of one was the knowledge of the other. Each Lender or its parent was and remains one of the free world’s largest banking institutions.

Finding No. 10

The Lenders’ original loan for the purchase of the CM & W line was $86,650,000. Venango made no more than a $55,000 equity contribution to the capitalization of the CM & W. Of the total loan, approximately $79,400,000 was designated for purchase of the IC assets, $6,800,000 for transaction expenses associated with the loan, and $500,000 for working capital. Additional subsequent loans have resulted in an indebtedness, to the Lenders of approximately $100,000,000. of principal, which with interest now exceeds $107,000,000.

Finding No. 11

CM & W's original debt to equity ratio was between 150,000% and 200,000%, exceeding the customary debt-to-equity ratio for reporting railroads in the United States which is in the 40% range.

Finding No. 12

Prior to making the Loan, Lenders:

(i) recognized that “there is no junk bond or equity cushion for us to rely upon” in the event of default by the CM & W;

(ii) recognized that the intended loan was a high risk, with the possibility of high reward;

(iii) recognized that they were providing in substance the total amount of the Debt- or’s capitalization;

(iv) expressed concern regarding: (a) the unavailability of historical financial information on the CM & W; (b) the considerable time a workout of the loan might take; and (e) potential competition from trucks and other railroads;

(v)recognized that although they were providing virtually all of CM & W’s capitalization, they were compensated for this risk via the rights they obtained through an equity position with the Debtor’s parent of over sixty percent (60%).

' (vi) employed and consulted one rail consultant, Mr. Harry Meislahn; examined and reviewed a traffic study conducted by DNS Associates, a financial forecast prepared by Arthur Andersen & Company, and traffic studies and forecasts made by Woodside Consulting Group;

(vii) recognized that because CM & W was a newly formed entity, a potential existed for unanticipated problems, including cash shortfalls, traffic diversions and cost overruns;

(viii) recognized that CM & W would be exposed to competition from other railroads and other modes of transportation, that over-the-road trucks represented the greatest competition due to their speed and competitive rates, and that the continuing consolidation of the railroad industry could reduce the number of “friendly” railroad connections and increase traffic diversions away from the CM & W;

(ix) recognized that the CM & W track structure from Joliet to St. Louis was in need of repair and rehabilitation, the cost of which would be at least $7,000,000.00 over five years, and that CM & W expected to invest $30,000,000.00 in track .rehabilitation;

(x) recognized that historical financial numbers corresponding to the CM & W line were not available because the IC had kept its operating records on a consolidated basis which could not be broken down by line segment, and that the limited traffic data was provided to the Lenders was for 1984, but not for 1986 or 1987;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 B.R. 344, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1511, 1988 WL 94544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chicago-missouri-western-railway-co-ilnb-1988.