DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Application for Supplemental Refund
Name of Petitioner: U.S. Intec, Inc.
Dates of Filings: August 15, 1995
Case Numbers: RK272-2439
This Decision and Order concerns an Application for Supplemental Refund filed by U.S Intec, Inc. (Intec), in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding being conducted by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) under 10 C.F.R. Part 205. Pursuant to the long-standing policy of the DOE, thousands of purchasers of petroleum products have applied for and received refunds from the crude oil overcharge funds under the jurisdiction of OHA. See Statement of Modified Restitutionary Policy to be Implemented in Crude oil Cases, 51 Fed. Ref. 27899 (August 4, 1986).
The Intec Supplemental Refund Application is based upon purchases of petroleum products made by the Permaglas Division of Evanite Fiber Corporation (Evanite) during the period August 1973 through January 1981, a period during which Evanite and Intec were not affiliated in any way. In March 1990, Intec purchased the assets of the Permaglas Division and later filed the present Supplemental Application based upon the Permaglas Divisions operations prior to the asset purchase. (1)
Resolution of this Application depends upon whether Intec acquired the right to a refund when it acquired the Evanites Permaglas Divisions assets. In cases where an entity is acquired through the unqualified purchase of a firms common equity, the purchaser stands in the shoes of the acquired entity and the entitlement to seek a refund is clearly passed to the purchaser. See Shell Oil Company/ Magnatex Corporation, 22 DOE ¶ 85,037 (1992); A.H. Smith Associates, 22 DOE ¶ 85,036 (1992) ARCO/Dick's ARCO, 20 DOE ¶ 85,389 (1990). Similarly, where an entitys
assets were transferred under an agreement that included, for example, assets and liabilities known and unknown, the right to seek a refund transfers. Id.
In this case, Intec did not purchase the common equity of Evanite. Further, there is no evidence indicating that Evanites Permaglas Division was a separate corporate entity. Nor is there any material in the record indicating that Intec acquired anything other that the assets of the Permaglas Division. As a result, the Application for Supplemental Refund should be denied.
It Is Therefore Ordered That:
(1) The Application for Supplemental Refund filed by U.S. Intec, Inc., Case No. RK272-2439, is hereby denied.
(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.
George B. Breznay
Director
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: March 31, 2003
(1)Intec was granted an initial refund of $2,835 for the Evanite Permaglas Divisions petroleum purchases on November, 11, 1991. See Evanite Fiber Corp., Permaglas Division, Case No. RF272-75900 (November 11, 1991). While we find that Intec was not the proper party to receive the refund for Evanites purchases, we will not ask that Intec repay the initial refund granted to it because the amount of time (approximately 12 years) that have elapsed since we discovered this error.