General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge: Carlyle Group 'calling the shots' with Montana water company
Source: Missoulian
The Carlyle Group appeared to be "calling the shots" when it came to at least one proposed transaction with Mountain Water Co., Judge Karen Townsend said Thursday.
In Missoula County District Court, the judge heard global equity firm Carlyle's arguments that it should be dismissed from the eminent domain case the city filed against it and the water company.
Townsend did not issue a ruling Thursday.
... The eminent domain trial is set for March 18. In the end, the city aims to gain ownership of its drinking water system.
Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/judge-carlyle-calling-the-shots-with-mountain-water-co/article_3405a8d5-40d7-5d2d-aba5-b5144f74ee76.html
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)In Missoula County District Court, the judge heard global equity firm Carlyle's arguments that it should be dismissed from the eminent domain case the city filed against it and the water company...the judge quizzed lawyer Bill Mercer on his claim that Carlyle Infrastructure Partners should not be a defendant in the case. Carlyle earlier made a similar claim, and the judge ruled against it.
Mercer argued the city can't point to any property "not a truck, not a pipe, nothing" that Carlyle owns in Missoula. Rather, he said, Mountain Water is the named owner of the assets and water rights the city wants.
"If the city is successful, it would be Mountain that gets paid. Carlyle won't get paid anything," said Mercer, of Holland and Hart in Billings.
Said Townsend: "So Carlyle is not expecting to get any money for Mountain Water from the sale of this? Really?"
Carlyle has argued it should not be party to the lawsuit because it's not a property owner in Montana, but is instead an "upstream owner."
Mountain Water is owned by Park Water in California, and those utilities along with a third in California comprise Western Water Holdings of Carlyle Infrastructure.
In response to the judge, Mercer pointed to Mountain's parent company in California.
"Again, Park Water owns those three utilities. So if this condemnation was successful, then that money would go to Park," he said.
Said Townsend: "Then, it would go on up a line to you, right?"
Mercer stumbled in response, but he eventually agreed.
"It certainly, I'm not going to deny, it's sort of. Yeah, I mean, that's right. It's like any other corporate structure," Mercer said.
However, he reiterated the argument that an upstream, equity owner is distinct from a property owner.
The eminent domain trial is set for March 18. In the end, the city aims to gain ownership of its drinking water system.
FormerOstrich
(2,702 posts)I wish I knew more about the details or had more time to find more of the details. Unfortunately, it seems my current employer thinks all my time belongs to them. But I digress...
The eminent domain trial is set for March 18. In the end, the city aims to gain ownership of its drinking water system.
I hope the city prevails. From what I read, I think the judge has Carlyle's number.