Financial- COPS (Official Statement/Drafts)

Home Browse Search

From: "Edward Einowski" <eeinowski@stoel.com> To: GroupWise 4 1.SMTP("sclem@easystreet.com"),GWM1.M-... Date: 12/1/98 4:17pm Subject: Re: November 24th Documents--Comments I call your attention to the langauge on page 11 of the Preliminary Official Statement, which was drafted "en mass" by the parties on a conference call last week as the POS was trying to go to print. I believe Mike Hansen's reading of that language is correct (viz. that if either the County or the District determines not to proceed, then the Certficate are subject to mandatory prepayment to the extent of funds available to the Trustee). Is the underwriter agreeable to changing that language along the following lines (add language in boldface; deleted language in italics): "If, on or before July 1, 1999: (a) the County exercises its right under Section 2 of the Development Agreement to not proceed with the construction of the Courthouse Square Project; or (b) (1) [the County orJ the Transit District exercises its right under Section 2 of the Development Agreement to not proceed with the construction of the Courthouse Square Project; and (2) the County has elected not to proceed with the construction of the Courthouse Square Project without the participation of the Transit District; then the principal components . . . .etc." If this works for the underwriter and MBIA and S&P have no objections, I see no problem in making this sort of change. Please advise. »> "Scott Clements" <sclem@easystreet.com> 12/Ol 3:43 PM »> Ed, I believe both the POS and the Financing and Trust Agreement accommodate the full range of development options described in the Intergovernmental Agreement. My understanding is that during our Working Group conference call we collectively aqreed to set a date by which the County must exercise the extraordinary call OR must leave the bonds outstanding until the first optional call. In-so-far as I am aware, we did nothing to redefine the development options available to the County under the Intergovernmental Agreement. Do you read this otherwise, if so let's clarify it post haste!! Best, Scott From: Edward Einowski <eeinowski@stoel.com> To: MHANSEN@OPENGOVT.OPEN.ORG Cc: nancy_watkins@ccmail.prusec.com; sclem@easystreet.com; BWASSON@MAIL.OPEN.ORG Subject: Re: November 24th Documents--Comments Date: Tuesday, December O1, 1998 12:52 PM Scott and Nancy: please read this e-mail as it calls for responses from