|
FROM ;NATURRL RESOURCES SEC. 303 866 3SS8 1996,12-11 11:01 #667 P.11/13
<br /> DMG then mischaracterizes Pitldn Iron's documentation by stating that Piddn Iron claims
<br /> it has been paid $348,573.57 in 1992 through cash collateral authorizations and $186,472.52
<br /> through August 1993, plus over, $85,000 in addition to the above figures after August 1993 , h
<br /> totallsng over $631,000. However, Fitkin Iron has never stated or taken the position that 1992
<br /> payments were made pursuant to cash collateral motions and orders of 1993. The numbers ?,' ,,-
<br /> provided on page 1 of Section tof-the-sW)mitted-materials i.ndicats sums received in 1992 and
<br /> through August 1993. ,'I.'he,-subsegisent,.paynients-of:approximaU- y $85,0(Y) were applied to the f
<br /> sum of money owed as of September 1, 1993, which was $72,677.00. At the same time,
<br /> charges continued to accumulate throughout September and thereafter. `
<br /> ,r
<br /> DMG then states that because the liquidation plan was confirmed on April 11, 1994, .
<br /> goods or services performed after that date should not be allowed as administrative expenses
<br /> because the estate ceases to exist as of the date of confirmation. However, in this case, although
<br /> the plan itself was confirmed on April 11, 1994, the effective date of the plan was July 13,
<br /> 1994, Section M(D)(1) of the Debtor's Disclosure Statement stated that the effective date shall OLD'
<br /> be thirty days after the order confirming the plan becomes final and non-appealable. See, also
<br /> Debtor's Second Amended Flan of Liquidation § 1.14. Because of an appeal filed after this r ,.
<br /> Court's Order confirming the plan, the plan became final and unappealable following settlement v1-c �'-
<br /> of the appeal on June 13, 1994 and, therefore, the effective date is July 13, 1994. The cases
<br /> r 7�
<br /> cited by DMG do not discuss situations when the plan was confirmed on one date but did not r
<br /> become effective until a later date. In In re Texas International-Co,, 940 F.2d 1539 (i0th Cir.
<br /> 1991) ((an unpublished opinion, a copy of which is attached pursuant to Tenth Circuit General
<br /> Order dated November 29, 1993), the court held that the debtor was not the "reorganized
<br /> debtor" for purposes of § 1127(b) during the period between plan confirmation and the plan's
<br /> effective_date__5Ce, alb,-In re Weber, 936 F.2d 584 (10th Cir. 1991) (an unpublished opinion,
<br /> a copy of-which'9s:.attached), and Occidental Petroleum Corn v Walker-, 289 F.2d 1, 5 (iOth
<br /> Cir. 1961) (order confirming reorganization was "a step in the administration of the estate.*)
<br /> In this case, the estate continued until the plan's effective date and administrative claims could
<br /> be asserted through July 13, 1994.
<br /> DMG then raises the issue that some of the equipment rented-was only on a standby basis
<br /> and therefore charges for such equipment cannot be obtained'as an administrative expense,citing
<br /> 10
<br />
|