Laserfiche WebLink
The Division has no objection, however, to holding the hearings on the NOVs <br />simultaneously at the May meeting of the Board. <br />I. <br />The Frontier Bond remains in effect. <br />Powderhor argues that Coal regulations only require a bond to remain in effect and <br />that the status of surety bond is irrelevant except in limited circumstances. <br />Powderhom then argues that just because the Department of Treasury and the <br />Colorado Commissioner of Insurance have revoked Frontier's licenses to do business <br />with the federal government and the State of Colorado, respectively, Powderhom is <br />still in compliance with regulatory requirements based on the Frontier bond. <br />Powderhorn's argument is meritless and places form over substance. The <br />Frontier-Powderhor Bond may now be essentially worthless, given Frontier's <br />financial condition. Without a valid, compliant bond, the taxpayers of Colorado aze <br />left unprotected against this bankrupt operator. Powderhom is plainly out of <br />regulatory compliance, and the Frontier-Powderhom Bond should be forfeited. Only <br />if the Frontier-Powderhom Bond is promptly forfeited can the Division and Board: <br />(a) increase their chances of eventually recovering any money out of Frontier's likely <br />New York state-court receivership, and (b) get a meaningful seat at the bankruptcy <br />negotiating table. <br />Powderhom is out of regulatory compliance for solid regulatory reasons. As <br />the Division stated in its first response, the Division agrees that the Frontier bond <br />7 <br />