Monarch Environment...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Monarch Environmental

Page 1 / 3
 
janeinstx
(@janeinstx)
Trusted Member

Interesting read

http://viconsortium.com/business/company-says-offers-better-hovensa-deal-shut-bidding-process/

Quote
Topic starter Posted : November 7, 2014 8:03 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

I wonder who Lazard Asset Management, the brokerage firm, is and why they didn't wish to engage with Monarch?

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 7, 2014 9:15 pm
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Expert

Google them. Or go back a year and read about them in the local on line papers.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 7, 2014 9:31 pm
Rowdy802
(@Rowdy802)
Trusted Member

I wonder who Lazard Asset Management, the brokerage firm, is and why they didn't wish to engage with Monarch?

It is a broker company that specializes in the sale, etc., of industrial sites all over the world... I've heard of them in the news many times... The recently were involved in the sale of a refinery in the USA...

As for Monarch, I've heard of them before... They showed interest in acquiring the site before it was shut down... But Hess simply wanted a storage facility and was not interested in selling the site...

On an interview, John Hess made it sound like they were listening to another interested party... I posted a copy/paste of that on the "G.O.A.T." thread... Monarch appears to be a much more solid bet than a company that was just put together for a one time deal...

This whole thing is way darker and gloomy than the recent weather that has hit us...

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 7, 2014 11:27 pm
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member

Here's an excerpt of the linked article http://viconsortium.com/business/company-says-offers-better-hovensa-deal-shut-bidding-process/:

Company Says It Offers Better HOVENSA Deal But Was Shut Out Of Bidding Process (Part 1)

"In an exclusive telephone interview with VI Consortium on Wednesday, the five principals of Monarch Energy Partners, whose parent company is Woodstown, New Jersey-based Monarch Environmental, Inc., revealed the uphill battle they have faced in their quest to be considered as a viable buyer of the HOVENSA refinery, and say the deal they offer is far better than what Atlantic Basin Refinery (ABR VI) has on the table."

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 10:55 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

If it's a better deal why wouldn't the brokerage firm have considered them? Can the VI government force the brokerage firm and Hovensa to consider them or do they have the final say as to who purchases?

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 11:13 am
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member

In the article http://viconsortium.com/business/company-says-offers-better-hovensa-deal-shut-bidding-process/, Albert Armstrong of Monarch speculates that there is a hidden agenda to tear down the refinery and make it a resort.

“There are other groups I know, just like this group [Monarch], that have worked and worked and proved they have the funding, they have the ability,” Armstrong said, adding that he believes “the plan by design was for this plant never to come back up.”

To that, he added, “If you look at the document the governor has approved, if [ABR VI] don’t do the refinery, then they have to clean it up and make it look real pretty.”

In fact, Armstrong suggested there may be an alternative plan at play in allowing ABR VI to be the sole entity to make it through the bidding process, noting a connection between ABR VI and local real estate investors, Renaissance.

“The people at Renaissance, I think, they’re looking at tearing [HOVENSA] down, selling it off, and trying to develop that land for some type of resort,” he said. “I don’t think those guys will ever bring that plant up. Ever.”

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 11:30 am
Novanut
(@novanut)
Trusted Member

Can you say: 'Kickbacks'?

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 1:29 pm
JohnnyU
(@JohnnyU)
Advanced Member

LOFL a resort

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 1:52 pm
ms411
(@ms411)
Expert

I brought this to the attention of one of the senators.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 2:02 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Good. It should be brought to all of their attention.
Giving them a week to ratify the agreement is a joke.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 2:40 pm
ms411
(@ms411)
Expert

Hopefully I'll see more senators so I can show them.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 2:55 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

I am so sick and tired of all these behind the scenes, back door deals and the lack of transparency, ethics and honesty. The deals made with those that have no track records, financial backing and in some cases outright criminal histories.

Dejongh has been a busy boy, what with this Hovensa maybe not such a good deal, the Summers End mega marina deal that Coral Bay residents completely oppose and got passed by 2 czm members, the Golden Resort project in Stx in a wetlands area and now this Mandahl Bay mega hotel/marina project in Stt which the devoleloper gets to lease 500 acres for $1000 a month, that locals have fought against being developed for years. Just how many tourists do we need?
I doubt many of us would be able to afford to have lunch muchless stay at one of these resorts.

Pave paradise and put up a parking lot!
Make sure it's a trash strewn and environmentally damaged one! Cripes!

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 3:39 pm
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Expert

Wow, you guys take the word of one person and run with it.
Did you even check to see if this guy is possibly lying?

If they were a contractor at Hovensa, they would have a VI license.
Did anyone check and see if that was true?

How about you Rowdy? Ever heard of these guys?
Notice they don't name anyone they hired or worked under so we
can verify if he is telling the truth?

Maybe they failed the vetting process done by Lazard because they
are shifty, have criminal records, and have bailed on contracts and
have too many cases pending in court right now?

No, let's all just jump to conclusions without one single fact to back yourself up.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 6:54 pm
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member

CruzanIron says: "Wow, you guys take the word of one person and run with it.
Did you even check to see if this guy is possibly lying?"

Five people were interviewed for the article, not one person. And presumably VI Consortium follows journalism standards to prevent running a false story.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 7:55 pm
LiquidFluoride
(@LiquidFluoride)
Trusted Member

Five people were interviewed for the article, not one person. And presumably VI Consortium follows journalism standards to prevent running a false story.

I've heard some not-so-good things about Consortium... granted, it was from Avis reporters...

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 8:58 pm
CarlHartmann
(@CarlHartmann)
Advanced Member

2005 WL 975411 - Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Robert J. SHRADER; and Monarch Environmental, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
SIANA & VAUGHAN, LLP; Siana, Bellwoar & Mcandrew, LLP; Vaughan, Duffy & Connor, LLP; Stephen Siana, Esquire; Joseph E. Vaughan, Esquire; Andrew J. Bellwoar, Esquire, Defendants,
v.
ALL AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.; Joseph Mcafee; and Kevin Conaway, Third Party Defendants.
No. Civ.A. 03-3510. | April 25, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Patrick T. Henigan, Law Offices of Patrick T. Henigan, Conshohocken, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Jeffrey P. Lewis, Mc Kissock & Hoffman, PC., West Chester, PA; Albert P. Massey, Jr., Scott E. Yaw, Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd., Malvern, PA; and Arthur W. Lefco, Jason B. Schaeffer, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
DUBOIS, J.

I. INTRODUCTION
*1 Plaintiffs, Robert J. Shrader and Monarch Environmental, Inc. (“Monarch”), filed an action on June 5, 2003 in this Court against several law firms and attorneys who initiated and pursued a lawsuit against them in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts claims of wrongful use of civil proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351 et seq., intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8341 et seq.

Presently before the Court is defendants’ joint Summary Judgment Motion and defendant Vaughan’s individual Motion for Summary Judgment.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants’ Motions.
1
The Court notes that Vaughan’s name is included in both his individual motion and defendants’ joint motion. Unlike the joint motion, Vaughan’s individual motion addresses plaintiffs’ defamation claim in which he and Siana and Vaughan are the only defendants.
II. FACTS
Plaintiff Shrader is the president and sole shareholder of co-plaintiff Monarch, a company which provides environmental remediation services. (Compl. at ¶¶ 1-2). Defendants are Siana & Vaughan, LLP (“Siana & Vaughan”), Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP, Vaughan, Duffy & Connors, LLP, Stephen Siana, Esq., Joseph E. Vaughan, Esq., and Andrew J. Bellwoar, Esq., the law firms and attorneys who allegedly initiated and pursued the underlying action against plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (“Chester County action” or “underlying action”). Third party defendants Kevin Conaway and Joseph McAfee are shareholders and managers of third party defendant All American Environmental Services, Inc. (“All American”).2 (Vaughan et al. Third Party Compl. at ¶¶ 1-3).
2
On February 27, 2004, Defendants Vaughan and Vaughan, Duffy & Connor, LLP filed a Third Party Complaint against All American, Conaway and McAfee. On March 1, 2004, Defendants Bellwoar, Siana, Siana & Vaughan, LLP, and Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP also filed a Third Party Complaint against All American, Conaway and McAfee. On May 15 and May 19, 2005, the Court entered a default against each of these third party defendants, respectively.

Monarch was a client of All American prior to June 1999. (Compl. at ¶¶ 10-11). In the summer and fall of 1998, Shrader, on behalf of Monarch, and Conaway and McAfee, on behalf of All American, discussed a merger which would have created a new entity called EMTAE, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13). According to Conaway and McAfee, the parties entered into an agreement to form EMTAE. (Def. Vaughan Mot., Ex. C) (Conaway Dep. at 71-73). In or about February 1999, All American moved into Monarch’s facility. (Id. at ¶ 14). Shortly thereafter, a dispute arose concerning overdue payments for services Monarch performed for All American and other matters related to the companies’ business dealings. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-18). On June 22, 1999, Shrader and Monarch’s attorney, Patrick Henigan, sent a letter to Conaway, McAfee and All American demanding payment and threatening to file a criminal complaint. (Def. Vaughan Mot., Ex. B) (Shrader Dep. at 80).

Soon thereafter, defendant Siana & Vaughan began representing All American and its “shareholders and managers,” Conaway and McAfee, in connection with the dispute between Monarch and All American. (Compl. at ¶¶ 19-20). On June 24, 1999, at an initial meeting with Joseph E. Vaughan, Esq. and Steven Siana, Esq.,3 Conaway and McAfee detailed Monarch’s demand for payment and their belief that Shrader and Monarch owed them funds associated with the formation of EMTAE. (Conaway Dep. 71-74). Plaintiffs aver that, at this meeting, Vaughan called Shrader a “scumbag” who had stolen money from Vaughan years ago in previous business dealings, and “tried to paint the picture to [Conaway] that [Shrader] was the type of person that ... was going to do the same thing to [Conaway].” (Shrader Dep. at 121-123). Conaway, in his deposition, confirmed that Vaughan made these remarks. (Def. Vaughan Mot., Ex. C) (Conaway Dep. 79-81, 134-135). On the basis of this initial meeting, Siana & Vaughan advised Conaway and McAfee to file an action against Shrader and Monarch and then prepared a complaint. (Id. at 73-81, 135-36). * * * *

See also:

https://www.google.com/maps/ @28.0062426,-82.1461555,3a,75y,286.74h,69.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swf56hpkn5kbe2tef1nbFew!2e0!6m1!1e1

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 8, 2014 11:52 pm
Novanut
(@novanut)
Trusted Member

Just did a quick search for Monarch Environmental, Monarch Energy Partners. Didn't come up with anything close to the story in the VIC. Don't know about the lawsuit above.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 11:09 am
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member

VI Consortium has published parts 2 and 3 of the series:

http://viconsortium.com/featured/monarch-energy-partners-we-expect-to-employ-upwards-of-1500-1600-people-total-part-2/

Monarch Energy Partners: We Expect To Employ Upwards of 1,500-1,600 People Total (Part 2)

http://viconsortium.com/business/abr-vi-not-paying-taxes-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-vi-residents-monarch-energy-partners-say-part-3/

ABR VI Not Paying Taxes Is A "Slap In The Face" To VI Residents, Monarch Energy Partners Say (Part 3)

"Shrader and Hardy will be on St. Croix on Monday, attending a Committee of the Whole meeting on HOVENSA, where they will testify. The meeting commences at 4 p.m. and is open to the public.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 11:29 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

If we can believe anything that we read, this appears to be a better deal with what's been published so far in the articles in viconsortium.
Looks like the Senate will get to hear them out. That is sure to be interesting.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 12:57 pm
janeinstx
(@janeinstx)
Trusted Member

.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : November 9, 2014 2:12 pm
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Expert

So they have $350 million? That's half of what they need in just the cost of catalysts and chemicals to run the FCC unit. That's before they buy the crude. Where is that money going to come from? They need a sum total of about 2 billion to start and run at 300,000 barrels per day. And that is after they pay Hess the asking price.

Sounds like someone is crying over spilled milk...

Lazard turned them down because they didn't have the financing.

I hope Lazard is allowed to give their side of the story.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 2:28 pm
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member

Here is Monarch's business plan: http://viconsortium.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MONARCH-ENERGY.pdf

"FINANCING

Given the diversity of Monarch Energy and PMG Venture, and the working knowledge of what it will take to bring the refinery back online, we have the resources and experience to acquire and operate the facility and return it to profitability. We have $1.5 Billion dollar cash-credit facility for acquisition, operation and clean up. We have had preliminary discussions with multiple banking institutions that we have relationships with to establish additional lines of credit for crude oil supply. We have secured a commitment for 10 million barrels of crude per month (non US). We have other substantial assets available to acquire and operate the facility if deemed necessary after our due diligence phase."

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 2:40 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

I hope we hear all sides.

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 2:41 pm
singlefin
(@singlefin)
Trusted Member

Hold on a minute.
A company wants to buy the old refinery to tear it down and build a Hotel?

There are huge amounts of open, undeveloped land all over the island. Why would anyone chose to spend millions (maybe billions) tearing it down, cleaning it up, not to mention having to meet all the enviormental requirements they would have to meet, along with the aggravation of dealing with piles of other legal and governmental regulations, not to mention taking years (probably decades) to do it?

Unless that planned Hotel has a casino capable of earning the combined take of every Hotel /Casino on the Las Vegas strip every night, this is ridiculous!

ReplyQuote
Posted : November 9, 2014 3:07 pm
Page 1 / 3
Close Menu