Laserfiche WebLink
repeatedly states that it is not in control of reclamation and that <br /> the Division makes the calls as to reclamation. MCR' s position in <br /> its renewal application is inconsistent with the position it is <br /> taking in this lawsuit . MCR and the Trustee attempt to eliminate <br /> MCR' s responsibilities under the water quality permit by alleging <br /> that the Division has reclamation control, yet in this lawsuit, <br /> they allege that reclamation is set under the liquidation plan. <br /> Again, they cannot have it both ways . <br /> In any event, only the health department has the authority to <br /> resolve water quality permit issues; the Division has no such <br /> authority. Further, the court should allow the health department <br /> to act on MCR' s application since such action would likely moot MCR <br /> and the Trustee' s claim for a declaratory judgment . <br /> Division' s Counterclaim against MCR and/or Trustee <br /> The Division has counterclaimed for an accounting from the <br /> Trustee and/or MCR which provides in full detail the basis for cash <br /> and credits they are claiming against funds allocated to <br /> reclamation under the liquidation plan. As mentioned earlier, the <br /> liquidation plan provides that the Division is to receive $3 <br /> million less certain amounts for cash and for credits for <br /> demolition work performed by Machinery and Equipment Co. and for <br /> reclamation done pursuant to cash collateral orders issued by the <br /> bankruptcy court . <br /> MCR and the Trustee allege they are entitled to cash or <br /> credits in the sum of $2 , 384 , 112 . 81 under the liquidation plan. If <br /> accurate, this would mean that the Division is still owed <br /> 21 <br />