ENFORCE22322 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Snell &Wilmer L.L.P The Clark letter attempts to support this assertion by interpreting the "license to do business" referenced at 2 C.C.R, § 407-2, Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(A)~ as encompassing a license to do "business with the United States," even if federal lands are not involved. In fact, a review of the pertinent Colorado regulations demonstrates that the "license to do business" required by this regulation refers to a license issued by the State of Colorado, and not to any license or certificate issued by the federal government. Colorado's regulations define a "surety bond" as "an indemnity agreement in a sum certain payable to the state executed by the permittee which is supported by the performance guarantee of a corporation licensed to do business as a surety in Colorado." 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 1.04(130) (emphasis supplied). Similarly, the Colorado mining regulations regarding the form, conditions and terms of a performance bond allow as one acceptable form of bond "a swety bond, in which case the bond shall be executed by the applicant and a corporation surety licensed to do business in this State.... " 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.02.4(1)(a) (emphasis supplied). Sweties and other insurers are licensed by the Colorado Insurance Commissioner pursuant to C.R.S. §101-108. Accordingly, the "license" referenced in the applicable bonding regulations refers not to a license to do "business with the United States," but rather to the license issued to Frontier by the Colorado Insurance Commissioner. Federal regulations are the same. See 30 C.F.R. §800.5(a), which defines a "surety bond" as "an indemnity agreement ...which is supported by the performance guarantee of a corporation licensed to do business as a surety in the State where the operation is located." (Emphasis added.) Frontier is licensed to do business in Colorado, and as a result, complies with 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.02.4(1)(a). III. THE NOV RESTS ON THE DMG'S ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT FRONTIER IS INCAPACITATED Powderhom respectfully submits that the DMG erred by equating the federal government's delisting of Frontier's certificate of authority with a determination that Frontier has become incapacitated. Under Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(C), the obligation to replace a surety reclamation bond arises "[u]pon the incapacity of a swety by reason of bankruptcy, insolvency or suspension or revocation of its license ...." The first condition for incapacity does not apply, since Frontier is not bankrupt, and the DMG has made no showing that Frontier is insolvent or that its license has been suspended or revoked. 'That regulation requires all bonds to contain a provision stating that the surety will give notice to the regulatory authority of "any notice received or action filed... alleging any violations of regulatory requirements which could result in suspension or revocation of the surety's license to do business." -5-