In re Sunshine Precious Metals

142 B.R. 921, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1120, 1992 WL 174360
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho
DecidedJune 11, 1992
DocketBankruptcy No. 92-00749
StatusPublished

This text of 142 B.R. 921 (In re Sunshine Precious Metals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Sunshine Precious Metals, 142 B.R. 921, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1120, 1992 WL 174360 (Idaho 1992).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ALFRED C. HAGAN, Chief Judge.

At issue is the motion of the Unsecured Creditors Committee, joined in by Continental Bank and West One Bank, to prohibit the debtor from using cash collateral and an alternative motion to provide adequate protection. The relevant cash collateral is the silver currently being produced by the debtor’s mining operation in Shoshone County, Idaho, in which the owners of eight silver index bond issues hold interests. The creditors’ interests in the silver production derive from the bond indentures which define the security interests securing the bonds.1

[923]*923The debtor offers several defenses to the motion. The debtor first argues that since the date of the “annual production period”, under the terms of the indentures, would not begin until April 1, 1992, the security-interests of the bondholders would be limited to raw ore and concentrates produced after that date. Thus, the debtor contends, the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 552(a) vitiate the security interests as a result of the debtor’s chapter 11 filing.

Second, the debtor argues the motion to prohibit use of cash collateral is premature. Since the formula for computing the amount of production attributable to the various security interest requires the lesser of the annual production percentage or the yearly entitlement, the amount of production due each holder of security interest will not be known until after a twelve month period. Moreover, the debtor contends, ore and concentrates produced after April 1,1992 will take four months to reach the state of refined silver.

Third, the debtor argues the granting of the motion would foreclose it from using 32% of the silver production. Since the cost of production of silver is less than the market value of the production there would be revenues from which the operation of the mine could continue. The debtor proposes either: (1) a delay in the decision on this issue, or (2) an adequate protection order segregating ore, or concentrates produced on or after April 1, 1992. Under the proposed adequate protection order, the debtor would continue to refine the segregated ore and concentrates but would agree not to sell the segregated materials until either confirmation of the debtor’s plan or August 1, 1992. This adequate protection option would allow Sunshine to operate the mine until at least July 1, 1992.

As concerns the cash collateral issue, none of the debtor’s arguments are convincing. The security interests were not terminated under 11 U.S.C. § 552(a), but were continued by the provision of 11 U.S.C. § 552(b) since the security interest extends to the profits, proceeds and products of the minerals, mineral rights or deposits, and/or silver reserves.2

The security interests extend to the raw ore and concentrates from which the silver production evolves, according to the plain wording of the indenture documents. Even though the silver production apportionment is based on annual percentages, security interest still exists in the silver production.

Since the security instruments impose no operating or production factors or restrictions on the production allotments, the production costs cannot be considered in the context of the determination of the extent of the bondholders cash collateral. The factor of the cost of producing the silver is not relevant to the fact the allotted silver production is the cash collateral of the bondholders. The cost factors of production of the silver, however, may be relevant to issues of adequate protection.

It is thus determined the silver production of the debtor is subject to the security interests of the bondholders. It at [924]*924least appears, at this stage of the proceeding, the debtor is using 32% of the silver production for operating costs, which asset is the cash collateral of the bondholders. The debtor, however, is entitled to further hearing on the issues of the relationship between the cost of production and the extent of the cash collateral, and, generally, the extent of the cash collateral use, and the furnishing of adequate protection to the bondholders. For those purposes, adequate protection will be considered at the hearing set for June 23, 1992 in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, otherwise the motion to prohibit the use of cash collateral will be granted at that time.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 B.R. 921, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1120, 1992 WL 174360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sunshine-precious-metals-idb-1992.