My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (181)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (181)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 8:46:00 AM
Creation date
10/19/2012 10:19:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) Court Appeals
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.
/
172
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
that Resources had assets of $4, 708,500 and total liabilities of <br /> $54, 952,510. Resource's bankruptcy proceedings are still pend- <br /> ing. The Division filed a proof of claim based on the recla- <br /> mation bond issued by Resources to ensure reclamation. A confir- <br /> mation hearing on the proposed liquidation plan was held on April <br /> 11, 1994, and the plan was confirmed. This liquidation plan pro- <br /> vides for funding of the reclamation bond. That is, the intent <br /> of the plan is to give the Division reclamation value up to the <br /> amount specified in the reclamation bond. However, the money to <br /> fund the bond is contingent on sale of the estate's property. <br /> Consequently, even if the liquidation plan is confirmed, it is <br /> unknown whether the sales will go through or whether they will be <br /> sufficient to cover the costs of reclamation. As a result of the <br /> uncertainty of the availability of funds for reclamation caused <br /> by Resources' bankruptcy, the present suit was filed. <br /> ARGUMENT <br /> A. THE DEFENDANTS FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGENT AS THAT <br /> TERM IS USED IN SECTION 34-33-124 (12) , C.R.S. (1984 & 1993 <br /> Supp. ) . <br /> The defendants first claim that the statute under which the <br /> present suit was brought only states when a cause of action may <br /> be filed but not against whom, and that since the board orders in <br /> this case were issued to Resources and not to the defendants, the <br /> defendants cannot be responsible for any failure to comply with <br /> the orders. The defendants' argument fails. The plain language <br /> of the statute authorizes a suit against the permittee or its <br /> agent, and case law supports this interpretation. <br /> Section 34-33-123 (12) , C.R.S. (1984) , provides in pertinent <br /> part as follows: <br /> The Board or office may request the attorney gen- <br /> eral to institute a civil action for relief, in- <br /> cluding a permanent injunction, temporary injunc- <br /> tion, restraining order, or any other appropriate <br /> order . . . whenever {the} permittee or an agent of <br /> such permittee violates or fails or refuses to <br /> comply with any order or decision issued by the <br /> board or office. . . . Such court shall have the <br /> jurisdiction to provide such relief as may be ap- <br /> propriate. . . . Any relief granted by the court to <br /> enforce an order based on a violation or failure <br /> or refusal to comply with any order . . . shall <br /> continue in effect until the completion or final <br /> termination of all proceedings for review of such <br /> -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.