Commission Minutes | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Friday, July 27, 2001; 1:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Cactus Conference Room
Pierre, South Dakota
MINUTES OF THE AD HOC MEETING
Chairman Jim Burg called the meeting to order by telephone. Present were Commissioner Pam Nelson; Commission Advisor Greg Rislov; Commission Counsel Rolayne Wiest; Staff Attorneys Karen Cremer and Kelly Frazier; Executive Director Debra Elofson; Utility Analyst Michele Farris; Assistant Executive Director Sue Cichos; Summer Legal Intern Sarah Sharp; and Administrative Secretary Mary Giddings.
Joining the meeting by telephone were Bob Helmbrecht, Alvin Scott, Scott Perrenoud, Bill Perrenoud, Tim Jensen, and Deb Sittig.
1. GD01-001 IN THE MATTER OF THE GRAIN DEALER'S AND PUBLIC WAREHOUSE LICENSES OF FREEMAN FERTILIZER CO., INC. DBA MCCOOK FEED AND FERTILIZER. (Transportation/Warehouse Director: Bob Knadle. Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
Commissioner Nelson moved that the Commission make the following recommendations to circuit court:
1) The grain bank and open storage claimants should receive an amount equal to the number of bushels of grain multiplied by the price for the grain when it was sold, less a pro rata share of the storage and handling costs;
2) Home Federal Savings Bank has a perfected security interest in the grain which was sold to McCook and thus, should receive the remainder of the proceeds of the grain, less its pro rata share for storage and handling costs;
3) The cash sale and priced unpaid grain claimants should receive a pro rata share of the $50,000 grain dealer's bond;
4) State law specifically prohibits the use of bond money for voluntary credit sale contracts, thus, the claimants who signed deferred payment contracts and delayed price contracts are not eligible to receive any bond proceeds. In addition, as stated earlier, Home Federal has a valid perfected interest in the grain which was sold to McCook, and, thus, there are no grain proceeds remaining for the claimants who signed deferred payment contracts and delayed price contracts. I recognize that the claimants who signed deferred payment contracts and delayed price contracts have raised issues regarding the rescission or the setting aside of those contracts based on fraud or failure of consideration. However, I believe that these issues go beyond the scope of the Commission's authority as a receiver in this matter. The Court's order granting receivership required the Commission to schedule a hearing for the purpose of making a proposal to the Court regarding the disposition of the inventory and the bonds. It does not contemplate that the Commission, in its role as a receiver, would consider the rescission or setting aside of contracts. However, the claimants may certainly make arguments to the Circuit Court regarding these issues, and the Circuit Court may find it is proper to consider these issues. Chairman Burg seconded. Motion passed 2-0.
Mary R. Giddings