Bankruptcy mediation talks continue

Mediation talks were scheduled to continue today in Southern California between lawyers who represent the Town of Mammoth and Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Holman appointed a judicial mediator to push the two adversaries toward some possible settlement. Meanwhile in Mammoth Lakes, the Town Council planned to hold special closed sessions Monday and Tuesday, apparently to react to mediation developments.

On July 2nd, the Town of Mammoth filed a petition for bankruptcy protection. MLLA’s attorney, Dan Brockett, said his client would fight Mammoth’s eligibility for bankruptcy. He claims the Town dealt with MLLA in bad faith and is not actually insolvent. Mammoth officials have said the Town can not pay the $43 million MLLA lawsuit debt, making them bankrupt.

In court papers that objected to a quick resolution of Mammoth’s bankruptcy eligibility, MLLA lawyers said the Town failed to respond to an MLLA offer, had a documented $5 million per year in “discretionary money”, and made no payment to MLLA. These same documents claim Mammoth has “an axe to grind” because of MLLA’s repeated court victories.

Town officials say that Mammoth has major money problems in addition to the MLLA debt and could not pay MLLA and continue to operate necessary government services.

It is these differences in view that are likely on the negotiating table this week. Officials had said that MLLA also wants more information from Mammoth. Assistant Town Manager Marianna Marysheva-Martinez said that they want information related to insolvency and a good faith process. She said MLLA also wants to examine if Mammoth’s debt reduction plan is “the best.”

Mammoth is scheduled to appear before Judge Holman again in federal bankruptcy court August 29 for a status conference.


, , , ,

2 Responses to Bankruptcy mediation talks continue

  1. Tourbillon August 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    “We won’t contest your mistaken belief that we’re walking around with $5M in spare change in our pockets if you’ll agree to settle for $5M a year for the next two years. Agree and we’ll do whatever it takes to raise the cash.”

    Simple, easy to understand, will probably be liked by neither side which means it’s probably a fair settlement. MLLA can’t have spent $10M in legal fees yet, so they make a profit (probably more than they would have made on the original deal) while the Town takes it on the chin for two years, then is clear. If I were MLLA I’d much rather have $10M in two years than $40M dribbled out over eighty years. If I were TOML I’d much rather bleed hard for two years than have a huge debt out of bankruptcy hanging like an albatross around my reputation for the next several decades.

    • Problem Solved August 6, 2012 at 6:45 pm #


      I think that offer is more than fair.

      But MLLA refused $23,000,000.( $23 million ) for a $5 million dollar investment.

      Good luck !!!



Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design