ShareThis Page

Allenport deal collapses

Joe Napsha
| Friday, Jan. 8, 2010

Severstal North America's deal to sell a closed Allenport steel mill has fallen through, mostly because the prospective buyer's lack of money, the steelmaker said Thursday.

Severstal's negotiations with the buyer William "Russ" Kingston of Chino Hills, Calif., ended last month and the company is looking at its options, spokeswoman Bette Kovach said. Kovach declined to describe those options.

The plant was shut down by previous owner Esmark Inc. in May 2008. Severstal, based in Dearborn, Mich., acquired it in June 2008 when it bought Esmark.

"We have not seen a plan from Mr. Kingston that is seen as meeting the needs or the desires of Severstal North America," Kovach said. While there were a "variety" of reasons for the collapse of the negotiations, a lack of financing was the primary reason, she said.

Kingston said yesterday that he is still trying to secure financing. He hopes to have a final word by Jan. 15. He previously said he had investors through his North American Trading Co.

Kingston has said he hopes to spend $400 million to modernize the plant to produce cold rolled sheet steel that is coated with a thin layer of stainless steel. Without special equipment, it is not worth buying the plant, he said.

He hoped to create about 90 jobs initially, then build the work force to 250 employees over several years.

Kingston did not reach an agreement with the United Steelworkers, which represented about 235 workers at the plant when it closed.

Rick Bergstedt, president of the United Steelworkers Local 1187 at Allenport, and David McCall, head of USW talks with Severstal, could not be reached for comment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me