Laserfiche WebLink
1993, the Division alleged that the defendants, as the purported <br />agents of Resources, had violated, failed, or refused to comply <br />with the May 22, 1991 Board Order and the Schedule contained <br />therein by failing to reclaim the mine, and that such a failure <br />"resulted in a condition at the mine site that poses a danger to <br />the health or safety of the public." Amended Complaint, 1 14. In <br />its amended complaint, the Division, relying on C.R.D. S 34 - 33- <br />123(12) (1993 supp.) requested that the Court either 1) order <br />the defendants, as purported agents of Resources, to complete the <br />reclamation of the mine site pursuant to the Schedule in the May <br />22, 1991 Board Order, or, in the alternative, 2) enter a money <br />judgment for the cost of reclamation against the defendants. <br />Amended Complaint, at pp. 5-G. On October 12, 1993, the <br />defendants answered the amended complaint. <br />Meanwhile, Resources was involved in proceedings before the <br />bankruptcy court in Denver, Colorado. On April 11, 1994, the <br />bankruptcy court confirmed Resources' liquidation plan. The plan <br />requires that 69% of the liquidation proceeds be paid to the <br />Division to fund a reclamation account to be dedicated to the <br />'This statutory subsection, part of the Colorado Surface Coal <br />Mining Reclamation Act, provides, "The board or office may request <br />the attorney general to institute a civil action for relief, <br />including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, <br />or any other appropriate order in the district court of the state <br />. . . whenever such permittee or an agent of such permittee <br />violates or fails or refuses to comply with any order or decision <br />issued by the board . . . under this article . . ." <br />-5- <br />L0'd 992## WH60:0T S66T 4 7T Jdd 9E£OTtZ R0£ T :01 Ivanl.pu:WO?ld <br />