My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-07-29_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-07-29_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2021 5:01:24 PM
Creation date
5/1/2012 9:37:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/29/1993
Doc Name
Letter Regarding Review Plan of Liquidation
From
Fairfield and Wood PC
To
Holden & Jessop PC
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.
/
17
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
FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, PC. <br />ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW <br />James Holden <br />July 30, 1993 <br />Page 5 <br />Section 6.5 -- It should be made clear that if there has been <br />any cost so far associated with preservation and /or assumption of <br />the Mid - Continent Quarry lease, and if there is any such cost in <br />the future, all of those costs are to be paid or reimbursed by the <br />Reclamation Trust. Also, even though the M &E Contract is going to <br />the Creditors' Trust, the Reclamation Trust is getting $1.5 million <br />off the top from sales of assets, including equipment sales. There <br />have been considerable costs associated with the M &E Contract, and <br />if arbitration and other matters proceed there will be more costs. <br />As now drafted, all of those costs are borne by the Creditors' <br />Trust even though the Reclamation Trust gets cash off the top. The <br />Reclamation Trust should be charged some share of these costs. <br />Section 6.6 -- CCIA has said that it will vote for the Plan <br />only if the Debtor removes its objection to the CCIA claims. Some <br />provision therefore needs to be made so stating. Also, do you <br />believe that 30 days after the Effective Date is enough time to <br />prepare objections to claims? <br />Section 7.1 -- The phrase "such holder's claims" in the sixth <br />line from the bottom refers back to claims by Class 9 creditors. <br />The use of that phrase in this place, however, is meant to refer to <br />the claims of Sanwa, Minerals, and so forth. This needs to be <br />clarified. <br />Section 7.6 -- Please add a section preserving for the <br />Creditors' Trust all avoiding actions. <br />Section 8.1 -- I think that the lead -in phrase needs to be re- <br />written in order to make sense. <br />Disclosure Statement: <br />First, a number of the comments from the Plan will have to be <br />carried over to their appropriate references in the Disclosure <br />Statement as well. <br />Second, I would suggest on page ii setting the typeface for <br />the sentence about the Debtor's recommendation in bold, along with <br />the last paragraph about returning ballots. <br />Please add page references in the Table of Contents. <br />Page 1, Paragraph B -- the words "the next" are duplicated in <br />the third line down. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.