Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation And Tax Recovery topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County directs outside counsel to pursue recovery paths in Paradox bankruptcy; declines settlement offer in Masson election challenge

2414421 · February 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

San Miguel County commissioners directed counsel on Feb. 26 to pursue recovery actions in the Paradox bankruptcy and declined a settlement proposal in the Masson election contest, following executive‑session briefings.

The Board of County Commissioners received executive‑session updates on two ongoing legal matters and directed staff on next steps.

Paradox bankruptcy and tax recovery: County staff briefed the board on unpaid property‑tax claims related to Paradox Upstream and Paradox Midstream operations. The county previously expected to recover unpaid taxes in bankruptcy proceedings but said the county’s former bankruptcy counsel failed to pursue the county’s interests. Commissioners directed the county attorney to retain outside counsel to send a demand letter to the former law firm seeking compensation for losses the county attributes to deficient representation. Commissioners also directed outside bankruptcy counsel to send a demand to the bank holding sale proceeds from the Paradox bankruptcy, requesting recovery of the county’s unpaid tax claims. No privileged litigation strategy details are being disclosed publicly; commissioners said staff will report back after counsel advances the demand process.

Masson election contest settlement offer: The board also discussed a settlement offer submitted by plaintiff Emily Masson in the contest regarding Measure 3A. The offer proposed that each side pay its own attorney fees, and that the defendant contestee parties admit that Measure 3A was solely a tax matter and not a long‑term debt request under Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20. County counsel advised the board that those two characterization points were not in dispute by the contestee parties; the primary objective of Masson’s offer appears to have been to prevent a future fee award against Masson. After discussion, the board declined to accept the proposed settlement language and instructed counsel not to sign; in practice the board allowed the offer to lapse by not accepting it within the offered time frame.

Ending: Commissioners provided direction to counsel to pursue demand letters in the Paradox bankruptcy matter and to decline the settlement offer in the Masson litigation. Counsel will return with updates as outside counsel engages and as legal steps progress.