UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
ASHLAND DIVISION
IN RE:
HNRC
DISSOLUTION CO., f/k/a
Horizon
Natural Resources
Company, et al. CASE
NO. 02-14261
DEBTOR
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lexington Coal Company, LLC
(“Lexington Coal”), one of the purchasers of assets of the former Debtors,
filed an Objection to Claims for Royalty Payments (Doc. # 5718) in regard to a
number of royalty claims (“the Disputed Claims”). Lexington Coal states that the Disputed Claims assert Class 3
Other Secured Claims pursuant to Section 4.3(b) of the Plans in force in this
case, or Administrative Expense Claims, or both. Lexington Coal contends that the Disputed Claims are
unsupportable as Other Secured Claims and/or as Administrative Expense Claims
and asks the court to disallow them.
Lexington Coal maintains that no claimant provided collateral documents
to support a secured claim and that claims for administrative expense priority
treatment are not supported by a demonstration that these expenses constituted
a direct and substantial benefit to the estates.
Finally, Lexington Coal asserts that
all cure claims that were to be paid were listed on the Cure Schedules or Cure
Claims Notice. Without such listing
there is no claim, and none of the claimants had any cure claim listed in the
Cure Claims Notice. All the claims
addressed in the Objection have been resolved except for Claim No. 1702 of
Enterprise Mining Company, LLC (“Enterprise”) and Claim No. 20699 of Sovereign
Pocahontas Company (“Sovereign”).
1. Enterprise Mining Company, Inc. -
Claim No. 1702
Lexington Coal prepared a chart
setting out the Disputed Claims.
Enterprise’s claim is characterized as a secured claim in the amount of
$171,800.64 and in the “Notes” section of the chart, the following is stated:
“Pursuant to answer in Adversary Proceeding No. 02-1482 (Doc. No. 4) (sic), the
underlying lease was assumed. Therefore,
this claim should be paid. No
collateral documentation provided.” In
Adversary Proceeding No. 04-1482, the Liquidating Trustee filed a preference
action against Coastal Coal Company, Inc., Enterprise’s predecessor in
interest. The answer filed in that
action asserted as an affirmative defense that a lease agreement between
Coastal and one of the former Debtors was assumed and assigned per the terms of
the Sale Order entered herein on September 16, 2004. The adversary proceeding was dismissed by an agreed order entered
on January 18, 2005.
Enterprise’s Response to Objection
to Claims for Royalty Payments (Doc. # 6209) states that its claim for
$171,800.64 is an unsecured claim, consisting of an unpaid minimum royalty of
$70,000.00 and unpaid taxes in the amount of $101,600.84. The additional $200.00 is represented to be
an erroneous amount. Enterprise further
states that it has been paid the $70,000.00 minimum royalty, pursuant to the
assumption and assignment of the lease, and that it has received further
payment of unpaid taxes in the total amount of $4,064.71. Enterprise maintains that it is therefore
entitled to payment of its unsecured claim for taxes in the amount of
$97,535.93 which includes pre-petition and post-petition amounts, although
Enterprise does not apportion the amount.
Enterprise asks the court to award it an administrative expense and/or
cure claim in the amount of $97,535.93.
This request is unsupported by documents or even reference to documents
that may entitle Enterprise to an administrative expense.
Lexington Coal’s objection to
Enterprise’s claim on the basis of its being a secured claim appears to be
moot, since Enterprise has characterized its claim as unsecured. As concerns a claim for administrative expense,
the court must agree with Lexington Coal that there is no support for the
allowance of an administrative expense in regard to this claim. There is nothing in the record of this case
to indicate that Enterprise filed an application for allowance of an
administrative expense, nor has Enterprise proffered any evidence concerning
the tax debt as an actual, necessary cost and expense of preserving the estate
as required by Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(1)(A). The court will therefore disallow Enterprise’s claim for an
administrative expense.
2. Sovereign Pocahontas Company - Claim
No. 20699
Lexington Coal’s chart characterizes
Sovereign’s claim in the amount of $44,351.77 as administrative and in the
Notes section it states: “The only support provided is a July 1, 2003 letter
that refers to litigation. There is no
proof the litigation involves a post petition claim or that it was necessary to
the reorganization.” Sovereign’s
detailed response (Doc. # 5989) sets out the history of its dealings with
various entities including First Century Bank, N.A. (“First Century”), East
Kentucky Energy, one of the former Debtors, and A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc.,
and the execution of various documents collectively referred to as “the
Contract,” concerning a portion of the so-called “Closterman Property” in West
Virginia.
Sovereign filed its Application for
Administrative Expense on December 29, 2004 (Doc. #5260). Sovereign’s claim form sets out the basis of
the claim as “Lease obligations/property taxes,” referring to the payment of
property taxes for 2002 that East Kentucky Energy had failed to pay. Under the Contract, Sovereign was liable to
First Century for any obligation East Kentucky Energy failed to fulfill under
the Lease, including the payment of property taxes. First Century sued Sovereign in June 2003 in Mercer County, West
Virginia to recover these unpaid property taxes. Sovereign paid First Century $44,351.77 in July 2003. This court held in a Memorandum Opinion
entered on March 4, 2005 (Doc. #5625) that it was East Kentucky Energy’s intent
to assume the Contract documents and then assign the same to International Coal
Group, LLC and Lexington Coal.
The claim form goes on to provide:
“Documentation supporting the administrative claim is attached. Claimant will provide additional
documentation upon request and reserves the right to amend, supplement, and/or
recharacterize this claim pending further action in this matter, including
disposition of any adversary proceeding and/or contested matter in which
Claimant may be involved.” Attached to
the claim are a copy of a letter from Sovereign’s president to counsel for
First Century accompanying a check for $44,351.77 and a copy of the check. Sovereign represents that there is an
ongoing dispute between itself and First Century with regard to the amount
claimed.
Sovereign also maintains that
“[p]ayment of these property taxes is an undisputed cure obligation of the
Estate,” based on the requirement of Bankruptcy Code section 365(b)(1)(A) that
a debtor either cure or provide adequate assurance of a future ability to cure
any defaults in an executory contract or unexpired lease before the debtor can
assume or assign the contract or lease.
Further, pursuant to section 365(d)(3), a debtor is obligated “to timely
perform all the obligations of the debtor, except those specified in section
365(b)(2), arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired
lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected,
nothwithstanding section 503(b)(1) of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3).
Sovereign requests that the court
determine the merits of Lexington Coal’s objection to its administrative
expense claim in the context of Adversary Proceeding 05-1013, Sovereign
Pocahontas Company v. Lexington Coal Company, LLC, et al., which it has
recently filed based on Lexington Coal’s objection, the disputed cure claim
procedures, an April 6, 2005 lawsuit filed by First Century in West Virginia,
and the court’s jurisdiction over the parties and the claims administration
process. In view of the complexity and
interrelationship of issues and parties, it appears to the court that
Sovereign’s request is well taken, and the court will defer a decision on the
allowance of Sovereign’s claim pending a decision in Adversary Proceeding
05-1013.
It is therefore ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1) The claim of Enterprise Mining Company,
LLC for an administrative expense is hereby DISALLOWED; and
2) Determination of allowance of the claim
of Sovereign Pocahontas Company for an administrative expense is deferred
pending a decision in Adversary Proceeding 05-1013.
Copies to:
Gregory R.
Schaaf, Esq.
Robert J.
Brown, Esq.
Laura Day
DelCotto, Esq.