My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-04-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-04-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2021 12:37:54 AM
Creation date
5/2/2012 2:23:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
4/16/1999
Doc Name
Request for settlement statement
From
Attorney General
To
Dispute Management, Inc.
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.
/
39
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
Ultimately, however, the rockdust plant was worth <br /> substantially less than $3 million. The sale of the plant in 1994 <br /> produced about $375, 000 . <br /> Concerned with the bankruptcy of MCR, the Board filed suit <br /> against the agents of MCR pursuant to Section 34-33-123 (12) , C.R.S . <br /> The complaint requested that the agents either perform reclamation <br /> or pay for reclamation costs . The named agents were Robert <br /> Delaney, his daughter Diane Delaney, and John Reeves . Exhibit 3 , <br /> the Division' s complaint . This suit was filed in 1993 , prior to <br /> the liquidation plan being confirmed. <br /> The trial court in Eagle County dismissed the suit upon motion <br /> of the defendants . Exhibit 4, Court' s orders . The court ruled, <br /> inter alia, that at that point in time, MCR' s bankruptcy <br /> proceedings produced reclamation funds and the Division had access <br /> to those funds . In addition, the Court held that the Division was <br /> estopped from asserting that reclamation costs would exceed $3 <br /> million. <br /> The Division appealed that portion of the trial court' s ruling <br /> which held that the Division was estopped from asserting <br /> reclamation costs in excess of $3 million. In an unpublished <br /> opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court' s ruling <br /> concerning estoppel was not necessary to the dismissal of the <br /> Board' s case . Exhibit 5, Court of Appeal' s opinion. As such, the <br /> appellate court stated that the district court' s estoppel ruling <br /> would likely not be considered res judicata on the issue of <br /> reclamation costs, nor would it have collateral estoppel effect . <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.