Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4~ <br />1 <br />i <br />S <br />i <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />6ectioa 5o7(a)(7)(C) or as s:case taz, as that term i• <br />defined reader Section 507(a)(7)(L). Therefore, the Debtors <br />believe that the Depart eat of Labor's claim is not etatitled <br />to pziority. <br />'i'ha Departsieat of Labor !a thin sass ban admitted <br />that its claim is a claim for saisbursssieat Hadar 3~~ OSC <br />Section 934(b)(1). The DepartsKat of Labor also bus admitted <br />that no part of its claim is for napaid coal azcise to:es. <br />The Department of Labor similarly bas not disputed i:hat its <br />claim for reimbursement is subrogated to the claims of the <br />former coal miners and snrviviag dependents vho are entitled <br />to receive black lung benefits. <br />Mith these facts is shad, I ~rould like to turn to a <br />nose detailed discussion of the last three arguments which <br />I've raised. <br />Brat, with respect to the subrogation arguseat, <br />the Debtors aaiataia that the Department of Labor in n.ot <br />entitled to priority based oa general principles of <br />subrogation. >rs I aaationed, the Mpartsaat of Laboz bas not <br />dispntsd that its claim is based oa subrogation siglhts. <br />8ovevsr, to the srteat ascsssaiy, the Debtors ragn~~~t that <br />the Court sake a liadiag that as a natter of law, tlhe <br />Departsieat of Labor's claim is a class based on sab;roglatioa <br />rights Hader 20 CPR Section 725.602, rhich'speeific,all.p <br />states that if payments have been mde by the Trost lumd the <br />7 <br /> <br />