My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-04-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-04-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2021 12:36:58 PM
Creation date
5/3/2012 9:33:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
4/26/1999
Doc Name
3rd party plaintiff's response
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
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
r <br /> negotiated and agreed upon between MCR and DMG subsequent to the initial approval of the <br /> permit. In response to interrogatories submitted by MCR to DMG in this matter, DMG has stated <br /> that the Reclamation Plan for Coal Basin includes the entire eleven volume set as well as additional <br /> subsequent amendments. See DMG responses to Interrogatories 2 and 3, attached as Exhibit A. To <br /> suggest that this massive amount of material should have been submitted to the bankruptcy court, <br /> much less requesting that the bankruptcy judge review the information and make a determination as <br /> to the adequacy of the Reclamation Plan, is Unrealistic. Obviously, the bankruptcy court has no <br /> time, interest or expertise to make such a review and evaluation. What is significant about the <br /> Liquidation Plan, and its reference to the Reclamation Plan, is the fact that the Liquidation Plan was <br /> the subject to extensive negotiations between DMG and MCR. In fact, after submitting its Second <br /> Amended Plan of Reorganization, MCR agreed to three additional amendments to that Liquidation <br /> Plan at the insistence of DMG. See, for example, March 24, 1994 letter from Assistant Attorney <br /> General Cheryl Linden to MCR's bankruptcy counsel, James Holden (copy attached as Exhibit B) <br /> requesting changes to MCR's Liquidation Plan. The Second Amended Liquidation Plan, which <br /> was finally confirmed by the bankruptcy court, is attached as Exhibit C, and the three amendments <br /> requested by DMG are attached as Exhibits D, E and F, respectively. The bankruptcy court's orde <br /> confirming the Second Amended Plan of Liquidation as amended is attached as Exhibit G. <br /> An additional irony of DMG's position is that the Reclamation Plan itself was neg <br /> long before the bankruptcy was ever filed and in fact, the office of Mined Land Reclama' <br /> statutory duty to ensure that reclamation plans in all mining permits are adequate <br /> statutory requirements. C.R.S. § 34-33-111 & 114(2)(b). Further, DNIG' <br /> Interrogatory 2 (Exhibit A) sho%,N•s quite clearly that DMG knows and Lind <br /> Reclamation Plan is. Further, the applicable statutes and regulations requ, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.