1999-04-05_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 4/5/1999
• Doc Name: Responses
• From: Burns, Figa & Will, P.C.
• To: Cheryl Linden
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

04/05/99 17:24 FAX [phone] BURNS FIGA & WILL Z008
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify requests for proposals or bids regarding
reclamation work to be done at the Coal Basin mine site by the Division received from any
source by the Creditors' Trustee, MCR or its agents or principals, or about which the Creditors'
Trustee and/or MCR, its agents or principals had knowledge. Include in your response the
specific request for proposal or bid received or known by the Trustee and/or MCR, its agents or
principals, if a request or bid is known by the Trustee and/or MCR, the extent and date of that
knowledge, the date of the request or bid, and the reclamation proposed in the bid or request.
ANSWER NO. 9: MCR has requested production of all such bids from DMG and
therefore, MCR should have copies of or should have had the opportunity to copy all such
requests for proposals or bids regarding reclamation work in Coal Basin.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State the factual and /or legal basis for third -party
plaintiffs' allegation, pleading, statement, belief, or contention in paragraph 25 of the Amended
Third -Party Complaint that the information provided to MCR and the Trustee by the Division in
response to their request for an accounting "lacks sufficient detail for Defendants to determine
the true status of funding and reclamation." Include in your response the specific information the
third -party plaintiffs believe is lacking with regard to the Divisions Accounting.
ANSWER NO. 10: The principal problem with the accounting furnished by DMG is the
fact that the accounting does not provide categories that correlate with the categories in the
Reclamation Plan and the calculations made by DMG in connection with arriving at the amount
of bonding for the Plan, nor does it adequately describe work that DMG performed.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did MCR or any other entity submit a reclamation plan
to the bankruptcy court which presided over MCR's bankruptcy proceeding in conjunction with
the liquidation plan which was ultimately confirmed by that court?
ANSWER NO. 11: The Debtor's Second Amended Plan of Liquidation, which was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court, and for which MLRB and DMG voted, specifically defines
the Reclamation Plan at IF 1.32 as meaning MLRB permit C -81 -017, submitted as required by the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, C.R.S. Title 34, Article 33. This document was thus
incorporated by reference.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: In paragraph 29 of the Amended Third -Party Complaint,
MCR and the Trustee allege that there exists "a contract entered into by, among others, DMG,
MCR and MCR's creditors who are all parties to and bound by the Liquidation Plan." Given this
allegation, does MCR and/or the Trustee intend to seek the consent of all those bound by the
alleged contract or Liquidation Plan as to any changes in reclamation to be done at the Coal
Basin site which may occur as a result of the present lawsuit? Include in your response the
specific basis for your answer.
ANSWER NO. 12: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State whether MCR and /or the Trustee believes that the
reclamation plan required by MCR's permit defines or sets forth the specific mechanics of how
7