Laserfiche WebLink
~~ . <br />i .• <br /> 1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />'i <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4. <br />S <br />6 <br />7 <br />e <br />9 <br />10 <br />it <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />Z1 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />the filing. The Departsaeat of Labor ban not ands any attsmpt <br />to address or refute this uqusseat. 11ad the Debtors believe <br />that the Departsteat of Labor eaaaot address that argument. <br />1leeordingly, the Debtors bsliwe that the Depaztmsnt of <br />Labor's claim is not a claia for tscise tries ~rithia the <br />saeaaiag of Stctioa S07(a)(7)(E). <br />!or the masons I haw oatliaed, the Debtors <br />believe that the Department of Labors elaim which asserts <br />entitlement to priority should be disallowd insofar as iL <br />asserts a claim for priority beeause, first of all, the <br />Department of Labor should be collaterally tstopped from <br />snaking this ugumenta vhieh has already been fully litigated <br />in other cases raising azact -- these tract sad identical <br />ugumenta. Secondly, this is not a -- this priority right is <br />not one which the Department of Labor is tntitled to ba <br />subrogated to and ie precluded Hader Section b07(d) from <br />asserting a priority right. <br />Secondly, ,this claim for reimbursess~eat is not a tar <br />claim. <br />end thirdly, this is not a ta: within the siaaaing <br />of Section S07(a)(7)(C) oz as sicise ter: pithier tbe,araaing <br />of section S07(E). <br />TEE OODRTs ?bank Ton, Conasel. <br />are tbare nay other pas-tits who pish to spsak in <br />favor of the notion for sm®ary jndgmeat. 1lr. Naterman? <br />