Common use of Additional Litigation to Defend Storm Recovery Property Clause in Contracts

Additional Litigation to Defend Storm Recovery Property. In addition to the above, the Servicer shall, at its own expense, institute any action or proceeding necessary to compel performance by the Council or the State of Louisiana of any of their respective obligations or duties under the Storm Recovery Securitization Law, the Issuer Advice Letter or the Financing Order or any True-Up Adjustment or Tariff with respect to the Storm Recovery Property and the Storm Recovery Charges, including in particular Ordering Paragraph 4 in the Financing Order providing that “[i]n the event that there is a fundamental change in the manner of regulation of public utilities, and parties other than the servicer are authorized to bill xxx collect the storm recovery charges, the storm recovery charge shall be billed, collected and remitted to the servicer in a manner that will not cause any of the then current credit ratings of the storm recovery bonds to be suspended, withdrawn or downgraded.” In any proceedings related to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the City to acquire a portion of ENO’s electric distribution facilities, the Servicer shall assert that the court ordering such expropriation must treat the City as a successor to ENO under the Storm Recovery Securitization Law and the Financing Order, that customers formerly served by ENO must remain responsible for payment of the Storm Recovery Charges, and that any contrary position asserted by the City violates the Council Pledge.

Additional Litigation to Defend Storm Recovery Property. In addition to the above, the Servicer shall, at its own expense, institute any action or proceeding necessary to compel performance by the Council or the State of Louisiana of any of their respective obligations or duties under the Storm Recovery Securitization Law, the Issuer Advice Letter or the Financing Order or any True-Up Adjustment or Tariff with respect to the Storm Recovery Property and the Storm Recovery Charges, including in particular Ordering Paragraph 4 in the Financing Order providing that “[i]n the event that there is a fundamental change in the manner of regulation of public utilities, and parties other than the servicer are authorized to bill xxx xxxx and collect the storm recovery charges, the storm recovery charge shall be billed, collected and remitted to the servicer in a manner that will not cause any of the then current credit ratings of the storm recovery bonds to be suspended, withdrawn or downgraded.” In any proceedings related to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the City to acquire a portion of ENO’s electric distribution facilities, the Servicer shall assert that the court ordering such expropriation must treat the City as a successor to ENO under the Storm Recovery Securitization Law and the Financing Order, that customers formerly served by ENO must remain responsible for payment of the Storm Recovery Charges, and that any contrary position asserted by the City violates the Council Pledge.

Additional Litigation to Defend Storm Recovery Property. In addition to the above, the Servicer shall, at its own expense, institute any action or proceeding necessary to compel performance by the Council or the State of Louisiana of any of their respective obligations or duties under the Storm Recovery Securitization Law, the Issuer Advice Letter or the Financing Order or any True-Up Adjustment or Tariff with respect to the Storm Recovery Property and the Storm Recovery Charges, including in particular Ordering Paragraph 4 in the Financing Order providing that “[i]n the event that there is a fundamental change in the manner of regulation of public utilities, and parties other than the servicer are authorized to bill xxx xxxx and collect the storm recovery charges, the storm recovery charge shall be billed, collected and remitted to the servicer in a manner that will not cause any of the then current credit ratings of the storm recovery bonds to be suspended, withdrawn or downgraded.” In any proceedings related to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the City to acquire a portion of ENO’s electric distribution facilities, the Servicer shall assert that the court ordering such expropriation must treat the City as a successor to ENO under the Storm Recovery Securitization Law and the Financing Order, that customers formerly served by ENO must remain responsible for payment of the Storm Recovery Charges, and that any contrary position asserted by the City violates the Council Pledge.. (f)