My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-08-13_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1992-08-13_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2021 8:47:31 PM
Creation date
4/30/2012 10:40:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
8/13/1992
Doc Name
Memorandum to salvage mine land & equipment
From
Bob Delaney
To
Jim Holden
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
need for reclamation. The father therefore was found to be the <br />permittee's agent and was required to perform remedial work under <br />SMCRA. <br />The relationship examined in Dix Coal has many facets <br />which do not appear in the relationship between Minerals and <br />Resources. Still, one might imagine state or federal authorities <br />arguing that Resources was dominated by Minerals as the sole <br />shareholder of Resources, that Minerals and Coal & Coke were <br />additionally linked to Resources through a corporate debt <br />structure involving cross - collateralizations and cross - <br />guarantees, and that Resources was dependent on loans from <br />Minerals and Coal & Coke in order to carry on its mining <br />operations. Does this add up to a "quasi- symbiotic" relationship <br />which justifies a finding that the corporate parent and corporate <br />sister are agents? Not in my mind, but one can understand the <br />desire of regulators and courts to tag such persons with <br />liability rather than have the burden of reclamation fall on the <br />state or federal treasury. <br />In short, if Resources and Sanwa are able to <br />subordinate reclamation claims to Sanwa's secured claim, the <br />victory will be a hollow one if state or federal authorities then <br />are permitted to assert a claim against Minerals or Coal & Coke <br />for reclamation costs. This would jeopardize the borrowers to <br />whom Sanwa is looking for repayment of Resources' loans, and <br />might cause Sanwa and Resources' corporate affiliates to conclude <br />that the cost of reclamation should be borne by Resources' <br />bankruptcy estate. I suggest further research on this issue. <br />Conclusions <br />Based on the foregoing, I believe that the following <br />best summarizes the treatment of reclamation claims in Resources' <br />bankruptcy case: <br />1. The automatic stay does not prevent the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division from exercising its regulatory powers, <br />including seeking enforcement of Resources' reclamation plan, <br />requiring Resources to increase the amount of its performance <br />bond for cause, and instituting proceedings to recover amounts <br />pledged to secure the bond. <br />2. The claims of Colorado for reclamation of <br />Resources' mine will be'entitled to administrative priority in <br />Resources' bankruptcy case. Resources' obligation to reclaim its <br />mined property will be viewed as an ongoing obligation which <br />carries over into the administration of Resources' bankruptcy <br />estate. The court will very readily perceive mine reclamation as <br />necessary to the protection of the public health and safety. <br />-10- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.