DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioners, V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petitioners, V No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA COMBINED BENE- FIT FUND AND UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1992 BENEFIT PLAN, Petitioners, v. ANDRÉ M. TOFFEL, AS CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR NEW WEI, INC. (F/K/A WALTER ENERGY, INC.), ET AL. Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRYAN KILLIAN Counsel of Record STEPHANIE SCHUSTER MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 373–6191 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit held that the tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)) does not withdraw jurisdiction over a debtor’s effort to use Section 1114(g) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 1114(g)) to restrain the assessment of “premiums” for the Combined Fund and for the 1992 Plan, two healthcare benefit plans created under the Coal Indus- try Retiree Health Benefit Act (“Coal Act”) (26 U.S.C. ch. 99). The Eleventh Circuit’s decision warrants fur- ther review. Its holding that a court may restrain the assessment of Combined Fund premiums deepens a circuit split over the scope of an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act created and applied by the Court in South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). And its holding that 1992 Plan premiums are not “any tax” protected by the Anti-Injunction Act opens a 3–1 split. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the South Carolina v. Regan exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applies only in this Court and, if not, whether it applies only to litigants chal- lenging the validity of a tax. 2. Whether 1992 Plan premiums are “any tax” for purposes of federal statutes like the Anti-Injunction Act. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The Petitioners are the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and the United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan, which are pri- vate plans established under the Coal Act and main- tained by their boards of trustees. The Respondents are the following entities who were appellees in the proceeding below: • André M. Toffel, the Chapter 7 trustee for the fol- lowing debtors: o New WEI, Inc. (f/k/a Walter Energy, Inc.); o Atlantic Development and Capital, LLC; o Atlantic Leaseco, LLC; o Blue Creek Coal Sales, Inc.; o Blue Creek Energy, Inc.; o New WEI 7, Inc. (f/k/a J.W. Walter, Inc.); o Jefferson Warrior Railroad Company, Inc.; o New WEI 2, LLC (f/k/a Jim Walter Homes, LLC); o New WEI 13, Inc. (f/k/a Jim Walter Resources, Inc.); o Maple Coal Co., LLC; o Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company; o SP Machine, Inc.; o Taft Coal Sales & Associates, Inc.; o Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc.; o V Manufacturing Company; o New WEI 19, LLC (f/k/a Walter Black Warrior Basin LLC); o New WEI 18, Inc. (f/k/a Walter Coke, Inc.); o New WEI 22, LLC (f/k/a Walter Energy Hold- ings, LLC); o New WEI 20, LLC (f/k/a Walter Exploration & Production LLC); iii o New WEI 1, Inc. (f/k/a Walter Home Improve- ment, Inc.); o New WEI 6 Company (f/k/a Walter Land Com- pany); o New WEI 16, Inc. (f/k/a Walter Minerals, Inc.); and o New WEI 21, LLC (f/k/a Water Natural Gas, LLC). • Warrior Met Coal, Inc., a publicly traded company that was formed by the debtors’ first lien creditors and acquired the debtors’ operations; and • the Steering Committee of First Lien Holders, whose members are o Apollo Global Management LLC; o Ares Management LLC; o Caspian Capital LP; o Fidelity Investments; o Franklin Mutual Advisers LLC; o GSO Capital Partners LP; and o KKR Credit Advisors (US) LLC. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OPINIONS BELOW ............................................... 1 JURISDICTION ..................................................... 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ............. 1 STATEMENT .......................................................... 2 I. Statutory Background ..................................... 3 A. Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code ............ 4 B. The Coal Act .................................................... 5 II. Case Background ............................................. 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 13 I. This Court’s Review Is Necessary To Settle How Lower Courts Should Apply The South Carolina v. Regan Exception, If At All. ......... 13 II. This Court’s Review Is Necessary To Resolve Whether 1992 Plan Premiums Are “Any Tax” Under The AIA. ............................ 20 III. The Questions Presented In This Case Are Important, And This Case Is An Excellent Vehicle For Answering Them. ....................... 24 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 27 PETITION APPENDIX Eleventh Circuit Opinion (12/27/18) ...... Pet. App. 1 District Court Opinion (5/18/16) .......... Pet. App. 69 Bankruptcy Court Opinion (12/30/15) .. Pet. App. 101 Statutory Addendum .......................... Pet. App. 176 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Adventure Res. Inc. v. Holland, 137 F.3d 786 (4th Cir. 1998) ................................ 21 Aloe Energy Corp. v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 648 (3d Cir. 2000) .................................. 24 In re Am. Bicycle Ass’n, 895 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................. 16 Ambort v. United States, 392 F.2d 1138 (10th Cir. 2004) ............................ 16 Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (2003) .......................................... 6, 24 Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) .......................................... 4, 24 Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974) ........................... 13, 14, 17, 20 Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) ........................................ 16, 20 California v. Arizona, 440 U.S. 59 (1979) ................................................ 15 In re Chateaugay Corp., 53 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 1995) .................................... 21 In re Chateaugay Corp., 64 B.R. 990 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ................................... 4 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717 (D.C. Cir 2011) ............................... 19 Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948) .............................................. 24 Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakama Indian Nation v. ATF, 843 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................ 17 Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1996) ................................ 3, 4, 23, 24 Eastern Enterprises v. Chater, 110 F.3d 150 (1st Cir. 1997) ................................. 23 Elect. Welfare Tr. Fund v. United States, 907 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2018) ................................ 20 Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976) .............................................. 21 Hotze v. Burwell, 784 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................ 22 Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1985) ................................ 16 Judicial Watch v. Rossotti, 317 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2003) .......................... 16, 18 In re LaSalle Rolling Mills, Inc., 832 F.2d 390 (7th Cir. 1987) .......................... 17, 18 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Laughlin v. IRS, 912 F.2d 197 (8th Cir. 1990) ................................ 17 In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co., 99 F.3d 573 (4th Cir. 1996) ................ 18, 20, 21, 23 Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) .............................................. 15 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) .............................................. 22 Nat’l Tr. for Historic Pres. in the U.S. v. FDIC, 21 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir 1994) ................................. 16 New Neighborhoods, Inc. v. W.V. Workers’ Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714 (4th Cir. 1989) ................................ 22 In re Pac. Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................ 25 In re Pan Am. Paper Mills, Inc., 618 F.2d 159 (1st Cir. 1980) ................................. 22 Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589 (1931) .............................................. 17 Pittston Co. v. United States, 199 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 1999) .......................... 21, 23 RYO Mach., LLC v. Dep’t of Treasury, 696 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 2012) ................................ 17 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984) .......................................passim In re Sunnyside Coal Co., 146 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 1998) ............................ 21 UMWA Combined Benefit Fund v. Walter Energy, Inc., 551 B.R. 631 (N.D. Ala. 2016) .......................... 9, 10 Unity Real Estate Co. v. Hudson, 178 F.3d 649 (3d Cir. 1999) .................................. 21 Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005) .............................................. 15 Z Street v. Koskinen, 791 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................ 19 STATUTES 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) ......................................................... 8 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) ..................................................... 26 11 U.S.C. § 503(b) ...................................................... 25 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B) ............................................. 21 11 U.S.C. § 1114 ........................................................... 1 11 U.S.C. § 1114(a) ...................................................... 5 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e)(1) .................................................. 5 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 11 U.S.C. § 1114(f)(1)(A) .............................................. 5 11 U.S.C. § 1114(g)(1) .................................................. 5 11 U.S.C. § 1114(g)(2) .................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Tuscaloosa County, Alabama Civil Division
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: ) Chapter 11 ) WALTER ENERGY, INC., et al., ) Case No.: 15-02741-TOM11 ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY AS TO THE DEBTOR WALTER ENERGY, INC COMES now Jewel Chaney, (“Chaney”), and moves the Court pursuant to 11 USC § 362(d)(1) for Relief from Stay to permit Chaney to mediate her civil lawsuit, viz Jewel Chaney, et al v. Jim Walter Resources, et al Case Number 63-CV-2011-900963.00.1 In support of this Motion, Chaney represents as follows: 1. Chaney filed a wrongful lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama on November 18, 2011 against the Debtor, Walter and other Defendants. A copy of this Complaint is appended as Exhibit “A”; 2. Substantial discovery has been conducted in the state court action and dispositive motions have been filed by various of the parties; 3. The parties agreed to mediate and on June 26, 2015, the civil action was continued to allow the parties to do so. A copy of that order is appended as Exhibit “B”; 4. The parties selected Brad Walsh to mediate the case and the case was scheduled for mediation on August 27, 2015; 1 At this time, Chaney is not requesting relief from stay to prosecute her claims against the Debtor, Walter Energy Inc. (Walter) in state court. Instead, Chaney simply seeks relief to mediate. Case 15-02741-TOM11 Doc 799 Filed 09/28/15 Entered 09/28/15 17:24:39 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 87 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Walter Energy Will Make Interest Payments, Continue Discussions with Debtholders
    Walter Energy Will Make Interest Payments, Continue Discussions With Debtholders BIRMINGHAM, AL--(Marketwired - May 7, 2015) - Walter Energy, Inc. (NYSE: WLT), a leading, publicly traded "pure-play" producer of metallurgical ("met") coal for the global steel industry, today announced that on May 15 it will be making interest payments under its indenture agreements with holders of its 9.5% Senior Secured Notes due in 2019 and the 8.5% Senior Notes due in 2021. The Company previously had exercised the 30-day payment grace period as it worked with its debtholders to explore alternatives to recapitalize its balance sheet in light of what has been a challenging met coal pricing environment. The Company will continue to engage in such discussions. Walter Energy noted it does not have a current liquidity issue, as it had approximately $435 million of cash and investments as of March 31, 2015. It will continue to deliver high quality met coal to customers and meet its other obligations as it works with its debtholders to address the Company's capital structure. About Walter Energy Walter Energy is a leading, publicly traded "pure-play" metallurgical coal producer for the global steel industry with strategic access to steel producers in Europe, Asia and South America. The Company also produces thermal coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. Walter Energy employs approximately 2,700 employees, with operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. For more information about Walter Energy, please visit www.walterenergy.com. Safe Harbor Statement Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this release are forward-looking and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and may involve a number of risks and uncertainties.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): February 16, 2016 (February 12, 2016) Walter Energy, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 001-13711 13-3429953 (State or other jurisdiction Commission File No. (I.R.S. Employer of incorporation) Identification No.) 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 1700 Birmingham, Alabama 35244 (205) 745-2000 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices) N/A (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure. As previously disclosed, on July 15, 2015, Walter Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Walter Energy” or the “Company”), and certain of the Company’s wholly owned domestic subsidiaries, filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the “Bankruptcy Court”).
    [Show full text]
  • WALTER CANADA GROUP's BOOK of EVIDENCE (Volume 2)
    NO. S-1510120 VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES'CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND I N THE MATTER OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF WALTER ENERGY CANADA HOLDINGS, INC. AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS LISTED ON SCHEDULE "A" PETITIONERS WALTER CANADA GROUP'S BOOK OF EVIDENCE (Volume 2) DLA PIPER (CANADA)LLP Mary I.A. Buttery & 2800 Park Place H. Lance Williams 666 Burrard Street (DLA Piper (Canada) LLP) Vancouver, BC V6C 2Z7 - and - Marc Wasserman, Attention: Mary I.A. Buttery and Patrick Riesterer & Mary Paterson H. Lance Williams (Osier, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP) 604.687.9444 Tel: Counsel for the Petitioners Fax: 604.687.1612 NO. S1510120 VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES'CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT, S.B.C. c. 2002, c. 57, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE AND ARRANGEMENT OF WALTER ENERGY CANADA HOLDINGS,INC., AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS LISTED IN SCHEDULE "A" TO THE INITIAL ORDER PETITIONERS WALTER CANADA GROUP'S BOOK OF EVIDENCE TAB Document VOL I: Pleadings 1 Walter Canada Group's Statement of Uncontested Facts 2 Amended Notice of Civil Claim (1974 Plan) 3 Amended Response to Civil Claim (Walter Canada Group) 4 Amended Response to Civil Claim (United Steelworkers) 5 Response to Civil Claim (the Monitor) 6 Reply to United Steelworkers (1974 Plan) VOL II: Decisions and Walter Energy Documents Filed in this CCAA Proceeding 7 Reasons for Judgment of Madam Justice Fitzpatrick dated January 26, 2016 8 Reasons for Judgment of Madam Justice Fitzpatrick dated September 23, 2016 9 1st Affidavit of William G.
    [Show full text]
  • Metallurgical Coal 2012 Overview (U.S
    2012 ANNUAL REPORT METALLURGICAL COAL 2012 OVERVIEW (U.S. Dollars) Walter Energy is a leading, publicly traded “pure-play” metallurgical coal producer for the global steel industry with strategic access to high-growth steel markets in Asia, South America and Europe. The company also produces thermal coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. OPERATIONAL STATISTICS Revenue: $2.4 Billion Adjusted Net Income(1): $31 Million Net Loss Per Share: $16.96 Adjusted EBITDA(2): $412 Million Quarterly Dividend Per Share: $0.125 Metallurgical Coal Sales: 10.4 Million Metric Tons (“MMT”) Thermal Coal Sales: 3.3 MMTs Employees: 4,100 HIGHLIGHTS • Achieved record metallurgical coal production of 11.7* MMTs • Improved cash cost per ton of production of met coal by six percent • Enhanced liquidity and extended debt maturities by issuing $500 million of senior notes due in 2020 • Reduced the total reportable injury rate by 26 percent compared to 2011 • Received awards including the Sentinels of Safety Award from the National Mining Association, the Edward Prior Safety Award from the Province of British Columbia and a Surface Mine Reclamation Award co-sponsored by the West Virginia Coal Association and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection • Established a new senior management team to accelerate progress (1) Defined and reconciled on page 8 of this document. (2) Defined and reconciled on page 79 in the 2012 Form 10-K. * Inclusive of an approximate 200,000 Metric Tons (“MT”) favorable impact from the re-alignment of methodology for accounting for production between the U.S. and Canada performed in the third quarter 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Wardell Armstrong Coal Extraction Impact Report , File Type
    WELSH GOVERNMENT Coal Extraction in Wales The Existing Impact Evidence September 2019 Wardell Armstrong Tudor House, 16 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9LJ, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)29 2072 9191 www.wardell-armstrong.com DATE ISSUED: September 2019 JOB NUMBER: CA11589 REPORT NUMBER: 0001 VERSION: 3 STATUS: Final WELSH GOVERNMENT Coal Extraction in Wales The Existing Impact Evidence September 2019 PREPARED BY: Alexandra Mitchell Environmental and Social Specialist Dave Brignall Director REVIEWED BY: Neil Hughes Technical Director APPROVED BY: Jon Fox Director This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong LLP accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell Armstrong LLP. ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES Wardell Armstrong is the trading name of Wardell Armstrong LLP, Registered in England No. OC307138. LAND AND PROPERTY Registered office: Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING MINERAL ESTATES UK Offices: Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greater Manchester, Central Manchester, London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, and Truro. International Offices: Almaty and Moscow
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine Safety Cases
    REDUCING THE GROWING BACKLOG OF CONTESTED MINE SAFETY CASES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 23, 2010 Serial No. 111–45 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor ( Available on the Internet: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 54–828 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman John Kline, Minnesota, Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Rube´n Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington Rau´ l M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California Phil Hare, Illinois David P.
    [Show full text]
  • British Columbia Coal Industry Overview 2012 Part 2
    BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 2012 British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas British Columbia Geological Survey Information Circular 2013-2 BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 2012 Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas British Columbia Geological Survey INTRODUCTION British Columbia, completed Phase 2 of an ongoing equipment upgrade. Annual capacity at Westshore has increased from 23.5 to 33 million tonnes in the past 5 Production tonnages, exploration expenditures, and tenure applications all reached record levels. The estimated total damaged in December 2012, when a bulk carrier crashed coal output was over 30 million tonnes, which accounted through a conveyor system, reducing loading capacity by for about $5.1 billion of the 7.4 billion in production 50%. Westshore expects repairs to be fully completed by revenues from all mines in the province. Major markets for the end of March 2013. Also servicing southeastern British Columbia coal include Asian countries, notably coalfields, as well as the Quinsam mine on Vancouver Japan, China, South Korea and India, and countries in Island, Neptune Bulk Terminals in North Vancouver South America and Europe. Looking forward, new mine received approval from Port Metro Vancouver early in proposals are being evaluated, and several port facilities 2013 to increase annual coal export capacity from 9 million are planning to increase export capacity. to 18 million tonnes. Coal from mines in the northeastern part of the province is transported by rail to the Ridley This booklet provides a snapshot of the coal industry in Terminals near Prince Rupert. Ridley Terminals, which is a British Columbia, including sections on trends, resources, Crown-owned asset, plans to increase annual capacity from mining, exploration, the tenure system, sources of 12 to 24 million tonnes, to handle anticipated increased information, and contacts in government and industry.
    [Show full text]
  • WALTER ENERGY, INC., Et Al.,1 Case No
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 WALTER ENERGY, INC., et al.,1 Case No. 15-_____(___) Debtors. Joint Administration Requested DECLARATION OF WILLIAM G. HARVEY IN SUPPORT OF FIRST DAY MOTIONS 1. My name is William G. Harvey. I am over the age of 21 years. I am the Chief Financial Officer of Walter Energy, Inc. (“Walter Energy” and together with its U.S. subsidiaries who have filed for chapter 11 relief, the “Debtors” or “Walter US,” and together with all of its subsidiaries, the “Company”). I have served in that capacity since July 9, 2012. Accordingly, I am familiar with the day-to-day operations of the Company, its business and financial affairs, books and records. 2. From 2007 to 2012, I served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Resolute Forest Products Inc. (formerly AbitibiBowater Inc.), a global forest products company 1 The Debtors in these cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: Walter Energy, Inc. (9953); Atlantic Development and Capital, LLC (8121); Atlantic Leaseco, LLC (5308); Blue Creek Coal Sales, Inc. (6986); Blue Creek Energy, Inc. (0986); J.W. Walter, Inc. (0648); Jefferson Warrior Railroad Company, Inc. (3200); Jim Walter Homes, LLC (4589); Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (1186); Maple Coal Co., LLC (6791); Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company (4884); SP Machine, Inc. (9945); Taft Coal Sales & Associates, Inc. (8731); Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc. (4869); V Manufacturing Company (9790); Walter Black Warrior Basin LLC (5973); Walter Coke, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • WALTER ENERGY, INC., Et Al., Debtor
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 WALTER ENERGY, INC., et al.,1 Case No. 15-02741-TOM11 Debtors. Jointly Administered MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEBTORS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER (I) AUTHORIZING THE DEBTORS TO (A) REJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, (B) IMPLEMENT FINAL LABOR PROPOSALS, AND (C) TERMINATE RETIREE BENEFITS; AND (II) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF This case came before the Court for hearing on December 15 and 16, 2015 on Debtors’ Motion for an Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Reject Collective Bargaining Agreements, (B) Implement Final Labor Proposals, and (C) Terminate Retiree Benefits; and (II) Granting Related Relief; and Establishing Other Deadlines (hereafter “1113/1114 Motion”) [Doc. No. 1094] dated November 23, 2015, and objections to the 1113/1114 Motion filed by the United Mine Workers of America (hereafter “UMWA”) [Doc. No. 1189] and the United Mine workers of America 1974 Pension Plan and Trust and its Trustees, United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan and its Trustees, United Mine Workers of America 1993 Pension Plan and Trust and its Trustees, United Mine Workers of America 2012 Retiree Bonus Account 1 The Debtors in these cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: Walter Energy, Inc. (9953); Atlantic Development and Capital, LLC (8121); Atlantic Leaseco, LLC (5308); Blue Creek Coal Sales, Inc. (6986); Blue Creek Energy, Inc. (0986); J.W. Walter, Inc. (0648); Jefferson Warrior Railroad Company, Inc. (3200); Jim Walter Homes, LLC (4589); Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (1186); Maple Coal Co., LLC (6791); Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company (4884); SP Machine, Inc.
    [Show full text]