Laserfiche WebLink
By early 1991, MCR had ceased operations (Id) . In May 1991, <br /> the plaintiff and MCR entered a settlement agreement which gave <br /> MCR the opportunity to sell the mine site and which provided that <br /> DMG would not revoke MCR' s permit if the agreement was followed <br /> (v. 1, pp. 10, 18) . The agreement set forth a reclamation <br /> schedule with which MCR was to comply in the event that it failed <br /> to sell the site (v. 1, p. 249) . The agreement further detailed <br /> tasks to be done by certain dates starting in 1992 (v. 1, pp. 10, <br /> 18 , 249) . The Mined Land Reclamation Board ( "Board") adopted the <br /> agreement as an order on May 22 , 1991 (v. 1, pp. 10, 18; see also <br /> Board order at v. 1, pp. 244-250) . <br /> According to the order, MCR was to meet with the Board in <br /> January of 1992 to show its capability to perform reclamation <br /> according to the schedule (v. 1, p. 250) . In January of 1992, <br /> the Board continued the matter, ultimately to August 1992 , to <br /> give MCR further time to negotiate a sale of the mine site (v. 1, <br /> p. 47) . <br /> One month after that Board meeting, in February 1992, MCR <br /> petitioned in bankruptcy (v. 1, pp. 10 , 18) . In July 1992, the <br /> prospective sale of the mine fell through (v. 1, p. 47; v. 2 , p. <br /> 324) . In August 1992 , the Board revoked MCR' s permit based on <br /> its inability to comply with the reclamation schedule (v. 2 , pp. <br /> 325-26) . Ultimately, the Board forfeited MCR' s bond (v. 3 , p. <br /> 38) . The proceeds obtained from the property subject to the deed <br /> of trust held as a bond were substantially less than $3 million <br /> (v. 1, P. 271) . <br /> 3 <br />