Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />"i 1 <br /> 2 <br /> 3 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />e <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />ZO <br />Z1 <br />Z2 <br />Z3 <br />24 <br />25 <br />S <br />load shall ba subrogatsd to the rights of the baasficiaries <br />and the 6scratary of Labor asy`azercise the subrogation <br />rights. Tbns, the Dsbtora beliwe that the DOL cannot and <br />has sot dispntsd that its elaiss era sobrogatioa-based <br />clalsa. <br />Radar gaaeral priaciplsa of sabrogatioa isv a <br />somber of cases stead for the proposition which bas bsaa <br />cited is the Debtors' s~amoraadum, a subrogss caaaot assert <br />rights greater than those which could bs asserted by the <br />•ubrogor. Since forcer coal ainers and surviving dspendents <br />entitled to black long benefits caaaot assert say greater <br />claim against CPii than a general nnaecursd claim, the <br />Debtor believe that the Departseat of Labor caaaot -- <br />likewise caanat assert say grsatar elms than a gsasral <br />unsecured claim. <br />Even if those forcer coal aiaers sad surviving <br />dependents wre satitled to assert priority claims Hader <br />Ssetioa 507(a)(7), Section S07(d) of the Daakrnptey Code <br />specifically praclndes the Dspartseat of 7.abor area assartiag <br />those same sights to priority as a sabrogoz. <br />lased em facts asarly identical to the facts is <br />this case, the court is the Elne Diamond Case also determined <br />that the Dapartmeat of Labor ran sot ~atitlsd to a alms for <br />priority Hades Section S07(a)(7) dns to tb~ fact that its <br />claims for reimbursement acre based on subrogation rights as <br />