Laserfiche WebLink
FROM :NRTURRL RESOURCES SEC. 303 866 3SSS 1995,12-11 10a58 #667 P.05113 <br /> administrative expense priority for its response costs from the debtor's estate under CERCLA); <br /> In re Stevens, 68 S.R. 774, 783 (D.Maine 1987) (state entitled to administrative expense priority <br /> for costs it incurred in removing waste from property of the estate); In re Di tri as Co ., 66 <br /> E.R. 382, 386 (Bankruptcy D.Mass. 1986) (funds expended by the state to clean up debtor's <br /> contaminated property, which had little or no value without cleanup, would be entitled to a first- <br /> priority administrative claim). Here, Pitkin.Iron was providing remediation and reclamation <br /> services pursuant to NOVs issued by the,,State or the other reclamation requirements set by <br /> DMG. If Pitlan Iron had not performed these services, the State may have been entitled to do <br /> so and dwa claim an administrative expense for the sane services. <br /> Had the NOVs issued by DMG gone unabated, DMG could then have issued fires and <br /> penalties which also may have been payable as an administrative expense. Collier states that <br /> administrative expenses "also may include those necessary to abate violation of state and federal <br /> environmental regulations, and fines and penalties resulting from violations of state and federal <br /> environmental regulations_" 3 Collier_on BaaUatcv, 1 503.04, Page 503-21 22, 1995 <br /> (footnotes omitted). See, also, U.S. of Interior v ME=an re Elldns Enerey , 761 F.2d <br /> 168 (4th Cix. 1985). <br /> DMG has been aware for years of Pitldn iron's relationship with MCR and the type of <br /> work Piddn Iron was performing through numerous court filings, including the cash collateral <br /> motions. (See Exhibit C to First Cash Collateral Motion filed February 25, 1993; See Exhibit <br /> A to Second Cash Collateral A+Modm filed May 17, 1993; and page 3 to Third Cash Collateral <br /> Motion filed October 19,1993). Disclosure Statement(p. 4 and 25-26) and Liquidating Plan H <br /> 2.10 and 4.7 approved by Cows. Despite this information and its intimate involvement with and <br /> knowledge of the Debtor's affairs, including the participation of PRIdn Iron in the remediation <br /> and reclamation, DMG alleges no facts, much less presents any evidence in its Supplemental <br /> Objection that the services provided by Fitkin Iron for which it seeks allowance of its <br /> administrative claim are anything other than both actual and necessary as required by 11 U.S. <br /> C. § 503(b)(1)(A). At the hearing in this matter now scheduled for January y9,'1996,'Pitkin Imn <br /> anticipates offering substantial evidence demonstrating that the services for which Pitkin Iron <br /> requests administrative expense priority were actually performed, were necessary for the <br /> preservation of the estate and, in fact, resulted in a substantial benefit in allowing real estate of <br /> 4 <br />