My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-12-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-12-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/31/2021 11:07:21 AM
Creation date
4/30/2012 10:58:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
12/9/1993
Doc Name
Concerns about amended liquidation plan
From
Department of Law
To
James B. 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.
/
3
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
James B. Holden <br /> Page 2 <br /> Continent has failed to meet its obligation under the plan. The <br /> principal reason for the money in the trust is to meet Mid- <br /> Continent's obligation to reclaim. Once the liquidation plan is <br /> approved, the Division will be primarily responsible for ensuring <br /> that reclamation is accomplished. Accordingly, since the Divi- <br /> sion is stepping in for Mid-Continent to ensure that reclamation <br /> is performed, the Division must have control of the funds, rather <br /> than having the Division acquire necessary funds through a <br /> trustee. <br /> In a previous conversation, you opined that the money in the <br /> trust was not the Division's money since it was not the direct <br /> result of a reclamation bond given for this site. However, that <br /> fact is irrelevant. A reclamation bond is only to ensure that <br /> reclamation will be performed. An operator's liability for <br /> reclamation continues to exist even if the bond is insufficient <br /> to cover reclamation costs. Indeed, Rule 3.04.2 (6) , Regulations <br /> for Coal Mining, 2 CCR 407-2, makes clear that this is the case. <br /> That rule reads as follows: <br /> If the amount of the bond is insufficient to pay <br /> for the full cost of reclamation, the permittee <br /> shall be liable for the balance. The Division <br /> may complete necessary reclamation to the extent <br /> the forfeited funds permit and recover from the <br /> permittee, by means of civil proceedings and <br /> remedies all reclamation costs in excess of the <br /> forfeited amount to complete the remaining recla- <br /> mation. <br /> Accordingly, the funds in the trust should belong to the Divi- <br /> sion. I suggest that the funds not go into a trust but be placed <br /> in an special account to be held by the state treasurer so that <br /> the Division would then have the ability to draw on the account <br /> for reclamation purposes. The Division would be willing to <br /> report to Mid-Continent or the bankruptcy court on the progress <br /> being made on reclamation of the mine site pursuant to the ap- <br /> proved reclamation plan. <br /> 2 . In the amended liquidation plan, the effective date has been <br /> changed from 30 days following the entry of final order to the <br /> later of 30 days following the entry of final order or the first <br /> business day on which the debtor has funds to make cash payments. <br /> This language needs to be limited to a specific time deadline. I <br /> suggest that "but in no event later than one year from the entry <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.