My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL34781
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL34781
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:05 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:03:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977376
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/11/1993
Doc Name
OBJECTION BY CF&I STEEL CORP TO APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION DATED 01-15-
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
received treatment, as yell as other relevant evidence. <br />. It is the intent of section fi(b) that there be nc <br />recovery under its provisions by either a third party <br />administrator or any other parson unless reversal o! <br />the claim would otherwise be permitted ybQ~ _ <br /> <br />Section 3(b) protects the retiree by directing the <br />debtor to reimburse the administrator from funds in the <br />estate where a legal sight to reverse aYists. Ii, <br />however, the administrator does not have this <br />contractual right to reverse payment, the claim will be <br />treated in the bankruptcy plan along with the claims of <br />similar--usually general unsecured--creditors. <br />Because of section 3(b), there is no valid reason <br />for a third party administrator to attempt to reverse <br />any claim. For each claim, all the administrator has <br />to do is prove to the court that it has the contractual <br />right to reverse. <br />134 Cong. Rec. H 3,489-91 (daily ed. May 23, 1988)(emphasis <br />added). It is this kind of reimbursement claim by third party <br />administrators that vas contemplated by section 1114, not the <br />type of reimbursement claim asserted by the DOL. <br />Consistent with the legislative history, all of the races <br />that deal with section 1114 involve plans, lands, or programs, <br />under which the debtor in question had contractually obligated <br />itself to perform. Indeed, in In re Mew York Rock Trao Coro., <br />8. The Trust land differs signiticantly from the sell-insured <br />health care plans described by Congrscsman ldvards inasmuch as <br />under those plans there vas no aechanism quarantseinq payment <br />made by the third-party administrator; thus, depending on the <br />contracts in question, if the employer does not pay the third <br />party administrator, it would hews no recourse against anyone <br />except the retiree. On the other hand, in this case, both <br />Senboard and 1lmerican Insurance contractually assumed the <br />obligation to pay the DOL up to the limits o! their Bond and the <br />DOL has no recourse against the Post-Petition Black Lung Benefits <br />Beneficiaries under the 81ack Lung Benefits l-ct. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.