Laserfiche WebLink
FROM :NATURAL RESOURCES SEC. 303 866 3GS8 1995,12-11 10,S9 #667 P.07/13 <br /> hearing, the work performed directly benefited the Debtor because it allowed property of the <br /> estate to be sold and provided significant funds to the Debtor. The work also directly benefited <br /> the objecting party, DMG, in two ways: (1) Pitldn Iron provided services which allowed for <br /> abatement of various NOVs issued by DMG resulting in protection of the environment (the goal <br /> which is contemplated by the NOVs)and(2)provided funding for Class 5 and 6 claimants which <br /> include DMG. <br /> M. Response to Specific Issuca Raja by DMG. <br /> It is apparent that DMG is unable to see the forest for the trees. Rather than even allege <br /> that Pitldn Iron's work hag not been actual or necessary, DMG raises a host of irrelevant points <br /> and professes an inability to understand the extensive material provided by Pitkin Iron to justify <br /> its claim. <br /> DMG states in its Supplemental Objection that Pitkin Iron has already been paid more <br /> than $600,000 through cash collateral authorizations and now requests over$200,000 implying <br /> that Pitldn Iron has simply been paid enough. The relevant inquiry, of course, is whether Pitldn r I <br /> Iron performed actual and necessary services for the benefit of the estate in the amount of the `' r <br /> 1 yam' <br /> requested$203,096.21. As will be demonstrated at the hearing, those charges are legitimate and �''`=;st <br /> do not represent charges for which payment has been made pursuant to the previous cash <br /> collateral motions. <br /> DMG then complains that Pitkin Iron is a company closely associated with the Debtor. <br /> However, for purposes of§ 503(b)(1)(A), such an inquiry is irrelevant. Section 503(b)(1)(A), <br /> on its face, contains nothing that would mandate such a consideration. Further, the only case <br /> cited by DMG in this regard, Matter of Missionary fptist Foun 'on of-America, 712 F.2d <br /> 206 (10th Cir. 1983) is not on point. That case discusses equitable subordination under § 510. <br /> That section is wholly unapplicable to this case and as Matter of Mimdonarvaptist oundation <br /> of America points out, generally requires some sort of wrongdoing on the part of the creditor, <br /> for example; fraud, illegality, breach of fiduciary duty, undercapitalization, or use of the debtor <br /> as an alter ego. 712 F.2d at 212. Again, DMG has made no allegation nor presented any <br /> evidence of any issues such as this. <br /> 6 <br />