District Court, Montrose County, Colorado Court Address: 1200 North Grand Avenue Bin A

Montrose, CO 81401 Court Phone: 970-252-4300

Plaintiff: PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

v.

Defendants: INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC and INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC

And concerning:

Receiver: CORDES & COMPANY, and

Joined Party: TIMBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS TRUST

COURT USE ONLY

Case Number:

2010 CV 227

Division: 4 Courtroom: 2B

ORDER REGARDING CONTEMPT MOTION

This matter came before the Court on 10-27-11 for a hearing on a contempt

motion filed on 4-12-11 by Cordes & Company (Receiver) against Timber Products

Manufacturers Trust (Trust). A representative of the Receiver appeared with counsel, Mr.

Dempsey. A representative of the Trust appeared with counsel, Mr. Sanchez. At the

conclusion of the evidence, the Court directed the parties to file closing arguments in

writing. They have now done so.

Having now reviewed the motion, response, the applicable law, the evidence

presented, the arguments of counsel, and the history of this case in general, the Court

finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1

EFILED Document CO Montrose County District Court 7th JD Filing Date: Dec 6 2011 3:49PM MST Filing ID: 41254780 Review Clerk: N/A

This is a contempt proceeding under C.R.C.P. 107. On May 19, 2010, this Court

entered an Order Appointing Receiver (the “Receivership Order”) in the above-captioned

action placing certain assets of Intermountain Resources, LLC and Intermountain Forest

Products, LLC (collectively, “Intermountain”) in the control of Cordes & Company (the

“Receiver”), the Court-appointed receiver. Intermountain operates a lumber mill in

Montrose, Colorado. The Receiver continues to operate the lumber mill.

Timber Products Manufacturers Trust (the “Trust”) is a self-funded Multiple

Employer Welfare Arrangement (“MEWA”) pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 1101, et seq.. The Trust provides health benefits to

employers in the timber and lumber industry. Brian Davis (“Davis”) is the Health Plan

Director for the Trust. The Trust is not a fully-funded MEWA.

From 2005 to 2010, the Trust provided health benefits to Intermountain’s

employees and their families. Although licensed in and authorized to operate in the states

of Wyoming, Montana, Washington, and Oregon, the Trust has not obtained authority to

transact business in Colorado. The Trust failed to comply with any of Colorado’s

insurance licensure requirements including C.R.S. 10-3-903.5 and operated in Colorado

without authority from the Colorado Division of Insurance (“DOI”) for five years. The Trust

hired Allegiance Benefits Plan Management, Inc. (“Allegiance”) to serve as its agent and

administrator with respect to benefits provided to Intermountain and its employees.

Allegiance is a Montana corporation and has obtained authority to transact business in

Colorado. Roger Cowan (“Cowan”) is a manager of Allegiance. He is a lawyer but is not

licensed in Colorado.

2

Although the Trust admits that it has never been authorized to operate in Colorado,

the Oregon-licensed Trust nevertheless provided health benefits under its Oregon plan to

Intermountain beginning in 2005 based on its determination that Intermountain was part of

a “control group” with McDougal Brothers Investments, an Oregon-based company.

According to the Trust, Intermountain’s eligibility terminated in August 2008 when

McDougal Brothers Investments sold its interest in Intermountain and thus Intermountain

was no longer part of the McDougal Brothers “control group.” The Trust now contends

that Intermountain failed to give notice of Intermountain’s ineligibility in 2008 and misled

the Trust into providing coverage from September 2008 through April 2010. As a result,

the Trust asserts that it paid $1,209,821 in “ineligible claims and expenses" during that

period and is entitled to recover from Intermountain and/or the employees the sum of

$532,756 — the amount of benefits the Trust has paid in excess of Intermountain’s

premiums (the “Alleged Overpayment”). 1 Under the terms of the benefits plan, the

Trustees of the Trust possess the right to recover benefits paid in error.

Prior to the entry of the Receivership Order, the Trust was in the process of

evaluating Intermountain’s eligibility for coverage and had started to take steps to

terminate coverage of the Intermountain employees. For example, in early April 2010, the

Trust engaged counsel in Colorado to make an anonymous inquiry to the Colorado

1 The Trust's position is undercut by its admission that it relied on participants to "self-report" their ineligibility for coverage and that the Trust did not perform its own eligibility audits during the time it provided benefits to Intermountain. Second, the record is clear that the Trust questioned Intermountain's eligibility in 2009 yet chose to renew Intermountain's coverage for 2010 without resolving its questions regarding Intermountain's eligibility. Finally, the Trust’s assertion that Intermountain misled the Trust for more than a year generates little sympathy when the Trust operated in Colorado without legal authority for more than five years.

3

Division of Insurance (“DOI”) as to how a MEWA operating in Colorado without authority

could extract itself from the state of Colorado. During these brief communications, the DOI

advised the Trust’s counsel that a MEWA operating without authority from the DOI must

stop providing coverage in Colorado. The DOI also indicated that if an unlicensed MEWA

withdrew from Colorado without any harm to employees, the DOI would not pursue

regulatory enforcement action. Obviously seeking to avoid regulatory enforcement by the

DOI, neither the Trust nor the Trust’s counsel ever disclosed the identity of the Trust or

Intermountain to the DOI.

On April 15, 2010, the Trust sent Intermountain a “Notice of Termination of

Coverage” advising Intermountain that it was no longer eligible for coverage and that

coverage would terminate effective June 1, 2010. This Notice was sent only to

Intermountain and not to the employees. Intermountain and its employees paid the Trust

all invoiced premiums through April 2010. Due to its financial difficulties, Intermountain

made its last payment to the Trust in April 2010.

On May 19, 2010, the Court issued an order placing certain assets of Intermountain

into receivership and appointed Cordes & Company to be the Receiver for such assets.

On May 19, 2010, the same day that the Court issued the Receivership Order, the

Trust sent a letter to Intermountain’s employees informing them that their coverage under

the Trust’s health benefits plan would terminate in approximately two weeks, effective May

31, 2010. This was the first letter Intermountain’s employees received regarding the

termination of their policy. With this letter, the Trust sent Intermountain employees a

Certificate of Group Health Plan Coverage (“Certificate of Coverage”) certifying to the

4

employee and any successor insurer that the employee’s coverage for health and

prescription benefits would terminate on May 31, 2010.

By June 7, 2010, the Trust and Allegiance knew that Intermountain was in

receivership. At this time, the Trust and Allegiance confirmed to each other in emails

between Davis and Cowan that the receivership would “create some big obstacles” to

collect the Alleged Overpayment.

On June 9, 2010, Cowan advised Davis that he was working to obtain the name of

the Receiver and was calling this Court to obtain a copy of the Receivership Order.

Moreover, on June 9, 2010, the Receiver sent a letter and a copy of the Receivership

Order via U.S. mail to all of Intermountain’s known vendors and creditors. In particular,

the Receiver sent his letter and a copy of the Receivership Order to the address of the

Trust’s office in Spokane, Washington. Davis claims that the Trust was not aware of the

Receivership Order until he received the Receiver’s July 19, 2010 letter. While conceding

that the Receiver’s June 9, 2010 letter and order was sent to the correct physical address

for the Trust, Davis testified that the Trust did not “receive” the letter in early June 2010

because it was addressed to TPM Services Inc., a separate legal entity and affiliate of the

Trust that also provided services to Intermountain. Davis’s testimony lacks credibility,

however, as Davis admitted that TPM Services, Inc. and the Trust are affiliates that share

the same office space where only 11 employees work and all the mail is opened by the

same person. Assuming normal delivery speed for first class U.S. mail, the Court finds

that the Trust had knowledge of the Receivership Order by at least June 16, 2010, a week

after the Receiver sent his letter and a copy of the Receivership Order to the Trust’s

5

offices. Even if the Trust received the Receivership Order on July 19, 2010 as the Trust

contends, the difference of dates has no impact on the Court’s decision.

By receiving the Receivership Order, the Trust was on notice that the Receivership

Order enjoined any creditor of Intermountain from engaging in any collection efforts

against Intermountain or terminating any insurance policies. Specifically, as of at least

June 16, 2010, the Trust was on notice that paragraph Q of this Court’s Receivership

Order stated:

Creditors and all other persons are hereby restrained and enjoined from commencing any action to interfere with or impede the activities and actions of the Receiver hereunder and its efforts to take exclusive control of the Receivership Assets. All persons or entities claiming to be creditors of any of the Collateral Defendants are hereby enjoined from (i) instituting or prosecuting any action, suit or proceeding against any of the Collateral Defendants or any of the Receivership assets, (ii) seeking or executing on any levy, attachment or garnishment against any of the Collateral Defendants or any of the Receivership Assets, (iii) taking or attempting to take possession of any of the Receivership Assets, and (iv) canceling any insurance policy, lease or other contract with any of the Collateral Defendants or terminating any telephone, electric, gas or other utility services to any of the Collateral defendants without first obtaining the prior approval of this Court. Any other person who becomes aware of this Order shall not interfere in any way with the possession or operation of any of the Collateral Defendants and/or Receivership Assets by the Receiver.

On June 24, 2010, the Trustees of the Trust conducted a Trustee Meeting and

discussed the Intermountain receivership, the fact that the Alleged Overpayment was an

unsecured claim and would be “hard to get,” but that the Trust may have an opportunity to

recover from Intermountain’s insurance broker’s insurance policy. Alternatively, Brian

Davis, a 21-year veteran of the Department of Labor, stated at this meeting that the Trust

may be able to “use the labor department resources to help with recovery.” The Trustees

approved a motion to authorize demand letters be sent to participants and the receiver

and to authorize Davis to approach the Department of Labor.

6

Aware of the receivership and the Receivership Order, and after certifying to the

employees that their coverage would end on May 31, 2010, the Trust nevertheless sent a

second set of letters to Intermountain’s employees on June 30, 2010, informing them that

their health and prescription benefits coverage under the Trust’s policy would be

retroactively terminated as of April 30, 2010 due to Intermountain’s failure to pay its May

2010 premium. With this letter, the Trust sent employees a second Certificate of

Coverage certifying that the employee’s coverage for health and prescription benefits

terminated on April 30, 2010 rather than May 31, 2010. On the same date, the Trust sent

out an additional set of letters to the Intermountain employees demanding that they

reimburse the Trust within 30 days for any payments the Trust paid for prescriptions filled

by the employees in May 2010. Meanwhile, the Trust denied all employee claims

submitted by the employees’ providers during the month of May 2010. Despite knowledge

of the receivership and the Receivership Order, the Trust made no effort to advise the

Receiver or the Court of this action and made no effort to seek Court approval for this

action.

The Trust’s actions caused immediate impact on Intermountain’s employees and its

operations. Many employees had relied on the Trust’s previous letters and Certificate of

Coverage certifying that coverage would terminate May 31, 2010. The Trust’s retroactive

termination of coverage to April 30, 2010, rendered the employees uninsured for all

services performed and prescriptions filled in May 2010. Employee and Human

Resources manager H’Eloise Cunningham testified that she and other employees were

scared, nervous, and unsure of what they would do to pay for all the services and

prescriptions obtained in May 2010. Cunningham testified that employees were very

7

upset and that between 20 to 40 employees came to Intermountain’s administration offices

to ask what they were supposed to do with these medical and prescription bills from May

2010. One employee was very upset because his wife had obtained all her supplies to

treat her diabetes during the month of May 2010 and that claims for such supplies would

now be denied. The Trust’s unapproved action to retroactively terminate coverage back to

April 30, 2010 caused significant disruption among the Intermountain employees and

required the Receiver and his staff to investigate the Trust’s actions and respond to

dozens of employees’ inquiries.

On July 16, 2010, the Trust sent a letter to the Receiver demanding that

Intermountain remit $523,756, the Alleged Overpayment. Writing for the Trust, Davis’s

letter threatened the Receiver that the Trust intends to “pursue this matter vigorously,

including litigation if necessary, and reporting the matter to the United States Department

of Labor for investigation and assistance.”

On July 19, 2010, the Receiver sent Davis and the Trust a response wherein he

informed the Trust that Intermountain had been placed into receivership, and that any pre-

receivership claims against the estate would have to be submitted in accordance with the

terms of the Receivership Order. The Receiver’s letter also informed the Trust that his

letter was neither a denial nor acceptance of the Trust’s claim but, to the extent it had a

valid claim, that claim would likely be treated as an unsecured claim. The Receiver

included another copy of the Receivership Order with his letter. The Trust did not respond

to the Receiver’s July 19, 2010 letter.

Rather than follow the Receivership Order and submit its claim to the Receiver like

Intermountain’s other trade vendors, the Trust elected to pursue Davis’s “Department of

8

Labor” collection strategy to collect on its claim: i.e., create intense pressure on

Intermountain’s owners and principals to repay the Trust on its claim by provoking the U.S.

Department of Labor (“DOL”) to open an investigation against Intermountain and its

owners/principals. Admitting that the DOL would likely be more reactive to complaints

from employees rather than directly from the Trust itself, Davis and the Trust developed a

plan to spark widespread financial havoc among Intermountain’s employees to provoke

employees into filing complaints with the DOL and indirectly prompt a DOL investigation

targeting Intermountain’s owners and principals. To instigate employee complaints to the

DOL, Davis and the Trust engineered a plan to send demand letters to every healthcare

provider that received any portion of the more than $1.2 million that the Trust paid on

claims between September 2008 and May 2010. Meanwhile, the Trust would also notify

each of the current and former employees and other family participants that had obtained

health benefits from the Trust during the period from 2005 to April 2010 with separate

letters alerting them that such demands were being made to their providers. While the

Trust hoped to recover funds directly from the providers, the real purpose of the plan was

to cause such disruption with the employees that they would file complaints with the DOL,

who would, in turn, put pressure on Intermountain’s owners/ principals.

At first, the Trust’s DOL plan just started out as a threat. On August 20, 2010,

Davis sent a letter directly to Harold Rosbottom, one of the principals of Intermountain,

demanding payment of the Trust’s alleged $532,756 claim. In that letter, the Trust warned

Rosbottom that, if the Trust’s claim went unpaid, the Trust would report the matter to the

DOL. Davis’s letter further represented to Rosbottom that the Trust had “begun the

process of seeking refunds for all claims paid by the Trust from both your employees and

9

the medical providers.” However, at the time the letter was sent to Rosbottom, the Trust

had not yet sent any demand letters to employees or providers. At trial, Davis confirmed

that his statement was meant to serve as a threat in order to get Intermountain’s attention.

The Trust’s claim for the Alleged Overpayment remained unpaid. Therefore, in late

September 2010 and early October 2010, the Trust further escalated its collection efforts

and launched its collection campaign against the employees and their healthcare

providers. Again, fully aware of the receivership and the Receivership Order, and after

previously certifying to the employees that their coverage would end on May 31, 2010,

then April 30, 2010, the Trust nevertheless sent a third set of letters to employees on

September 29, 2010, informing them that their health and prescription benefits coverage

under the Trust’s policy would be retroactively terminated as of August 31, 2008. With

this letter, the Trust sent employees a third Certificate of Coverage certifying that the

employee’s coverage for health and prescription benefits terminated on August 31, 2008,

rather than May 31, 2010 or April 30, 2010.

At the same time, the Trust sent out demand letters to the employees’ healthcare

providers as well as separate letters to the employees alerting them to the demands being

made to their providers. One employee, H’Eloise Cunningham, received approximately a

dozen separate letters from the Trust during this period. Such letters advised Ms.

Cunningham that the Trust was denying approximately $13,000 in claims submitted by her

providers between September 2008 and April 2010 arising primarily from her week-long

stay at a Delta hospital to recover from a heart attack. At least one of Ms. Cunningham’s

providers paid the Trust’s demand. That provider then sought payment on their 2008

invoice from Ms. Cunningham. When she failed to immediately pay it, the provider

10

assigned the invoice to a collection agency to pursue collection from Ms. Cunningham and

a negative report about Ms. Cunningham’s failure to pay the invoice was sent to credit

reporting agencies. In response, Cunningham spent several hours investigating the

identity of the claim and provider, speaking with the provider’s office by phone, and writing

a detailed response to the letter from the provider’s collection agency. Testifying also as

the Human Resources Manager for Intermountain and the receivership, Ms. Cunningham

testified all employees received the same types of letters from the Trust.

Despite knowledge of the receivership and the Receivership Order, the Trust made

no effort to advise the Receiver or the Court of these actions and made no effort to seek

Court approval for these actions.

When the Trust began sending these letters, it was well aware that many of the

providers would refuse to voluntarily remit funds to the Trust. Instead, the real purpose of

sending out these letters was to use Intermountain’s employees as a collection tool.2

Along with sending out the letters, the Trust, through Allegiance, trained its call center

employees on how to respond to the inquiries and complaints from employees and

providers. The Trust’s call center employees were instructed to inform employees and

providers that their policy was retroactively terminated due to the fault of their employer,

and that the employee or provider should file a complaint against Intermountain with the

2 The evidence at trial reflects that the Trust employed a shotgun approach to collection whereby it sent out demand letters to essentially all the providers that received any payments between September 2008 and April 2010 (totaling approximately $1.2 million)to collect its Alleged Overpayment of $532,756 (payments made in benefits in excess of premiums received). The Trust’s plan was ill-conceived and reckless in that the Trust had not developed a plan for how it would account for or otherwise reconcile reimbursements received from its stop-loss providers or funds it received from various providers serving several employees.

11

DOL. The call center employees even provided instructions on how to file a complaint,

including supplying the employees and providers with phone numbers to the DOL.

The Trust’s plan to spark panic and anger among the employees by sending

collection letters into the employees and providers worked. Immediately after the Trust

sent out its collection letters, the Receiver and the administrative staff of the lumber mill

were inundated with employees coming into the mill’s administrative office with copies of

the many letters they had received and expressing anger over the loss of benefits back to

2008. Cunningham testified that at least 75% of the employees do not speak English and

that they were unclear about what the Trust was doing and the possible impact the Trust’s

actions would have on them and their families.

Due to the numerous complaints and the enormous disruption on the receivership’s

operations caused by the Trust’s collection letters, the Receiver immediately sent a letter

to the Trust on October 5, 2010, demanding that the Trust rescind the demand letters it

had recently sent to providers. The Receiver noted in his letter that the Trust’s demand

letters to providers was nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the receivership and

collect on its alleged claim via Intermountain’s employees. The Receiver advised the

Trust that as providers received the Trust’s demands, the providers would in turn contact

the employees demanding repayment from them. The Receiver advised that the Trust’s

actions were causing his employees to be harassed and threatened with negative

consequences to their personal credit reports.

Meanwhile, given the numerous employee complaints and the fact that many of the

employees did not speak English, and to minimize the negative impacts the Trust’s letters

were having on the mill’s operations, the Receiver and his administrative staff were

12

required to develop and carry out a campaign to neutralize the impact of the Trust’s

actions. For example, Ms. Cunningham and other administrative staff devoted significant

time to gathering the letters received by employees and researching the contact

information for the providers targeted by the Trust as such information was not included in

the Trust’s letters. Ms. Cunningham and others in the administrative office spent several

days researching contact information through the phone book and began making calls to

providers advising them that the Receiver disputed the Trust’s actions and that the

Receiver requested that the provider hold the issue in abeyance pending resolution of the

matter in the receivership court. Many providers requested additional backup information

and Ms. Cunningham, the Receiver, and others in the administrative office dedicated

many hours to preparing and sending information packets to numerous providers on

behalf of the employees. In addition, Ms. Cunningham and the Receiver have responded

to and continue to respond to numerous telephone inquiries from employees, former

employees, family members of employees, providers, investigators and others to provide

periodic status updates about the situation. Ms. Cunningham and the Receiver have also

been required to devote significant time and resources to participate in the multiple phases

of this contempt proceeding.

By letter dated October 19, 2010, the Trust responded to the Receiver’s October 5,

2010 letter and refused to rescind the letters. Instead, the Trust concluded its response by

“warning” and threatening the receiver that the Trust would take legal action against any

person interfering with the Trust’s collection efforts.

Ignoring the Receiver’s October 5, 2010 demand to stop collection efforts against

providers and the employees, the Trust continued to escalate its collection campaign by

13

sending a second round demand letters in November 2010. In December 2010, the Trust

followed up with a third round of even more aggressive demand letters to providers. Many

providers complied with the Trust’s demand and reimbursed the previously paid claims to

the Trust. After repaying the Trust, such providers then sent bills to the employees for the

amount remitted to the Trust. As a result, many employees were receiving medical bills

for services provided during the period from September 2008 to April 2010. In some

instances, the unpaid medical bills were sent to collections, and many employees’ credit

reports were negatively affected.

On December 13, 2010, the Receiver’s newly engaged counsel sent a letter to

Davis and the Trust reiterating the Receiver’s demand that the Trust comply with

Paragraph Q of the Receivership Order and rescind its demand letters to the employees’

providers. The Trust ignored the Receiver’s letter.

During the first few months of 2011, the Trust continued to prosecute its collection

campaign against the employees and their providers. On April 12, 2011, the Receiver filed

a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Timber Products Manufacturers Trust Should Not

be Held in Contempt of Court for Violation of the Order Appointing Receiver (the

“Contempt Motion”). Specifically, the Receiver claimed that the Trust violated the

Receivership Order by terminating Intermountain’s health-benefits policy in violation of the

Receivership Order and engaging in a collection campaign to collect two years’ worth of

previously paid insurance claims as a way to circumvent the terms of the Receivership

Order.

The Court issued its Order to Show Cause and Citation for Contempt on April 15,

2011. On May 9, 2011, the Trust filed a response asserting that the Trust was not subject

14

to the personal jurisdiction of this Court and that the Receivership Order was preempted

by ERISA. The Court held an advisement hearing on May 11, 2011. The Court permitted

the parties to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery and scheduled a preliminary

evidentiary hearing on the Trust’s request to dismiss the contempt proceeding on the

grounds that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Trust. On June 30, 2011, the

Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Trust’s challenge to personal jurisdiction.

After receiving testimony of witnesses and admitting numerous documents as evidence,

the Court made oral findings and conclusions at the end of the hearing which are

incorporated herein by reference. In sum, the Court found that the Receiver presented

overwhelming evidence that the Trust had significant contacts with Colorado. Noting that

it wasn’t even a close call, the Court held that it had both specific and general jurisdiction

over the Trust.

The Trust’s collection campaign continues to cause harm to the employees,

Intermountain, and to the Receiver and its staff. The Receiver representative and Ms.

Cunningham testified that they continue to learn of instances where employees are being

impacted by the Trust’s collection campaign. Just days before the October 27, 2011

hearing, Ms. Cunningham discovered that a garnishment order on an employee’s wages

arose from the Trust’s collection of funds from the employee’s healthcare provider.

Employees have taken time to research and submit formal complaints to the Colorado

Division of Insurance. Nine employees recently traveled several hours to and from Grand

Junction in an effort to meet with the Commissioner of the Colorado Department of

Insurance to follow up on their complaints. In addition, Receiver and its staff continue to

devote time and energy responding to numerous written end telephonic inquiries about the

15

Trust’s collection campaign from employees, former employees, family members of

employees, providers, provider’s collection agents, as well as the investigations that have

been commenced by the Colorado Division of Insurance and the U.S. Department of

Labor. The Receiver has also continued to devote significant time to the prosecution of

this contempt proceeding and has incurred and paid substantial legal bills to prosecute the

Contempt Motion.

Raymond Akers, the Supervisor of Corporate Affairs for the Colorado Division of

Insurance, testified that a MEWA may operate in Colorado provided that it obtains a letter

of authority from the Division of Insurance and that it comply with annual reporting

requirements imposed by statute and regulations. Mr. Akers testified that the purpose of

these and other requirements on MEWAs is to make sure the MEWA is financially sound,

that it is offering benefits in compliance with Colorado statutes, and that the MEWA’s

operations do not cause any harm to the consumer. To prevent the possibility of any harm

to the consumer, Akers testified that the DOI requires that any contract that a MEWA has

with a provider would have a “hold harmless” provision stating that the provider could not

pursue collection against the policy holder. As a further protection for consumers, Akers

testified that the DOI requires MEWAs to give policy holders advance notice of any

decision to discontinue coverage in Colorado so that consumers can replace their

coverage.

Because the Trust was providing benefits to Colorado residents, Akers testified that

the Trust is subject to regulation by the DOI. Akers testified that Colorado’s insurance

statutes presume that any entity that provides health benefits in Colorado to be subject to

the regulation of the DOI unless the entity can show an exemption. Akers testified that the

16

Trust had never sought an exemption. Likewise, the Trust did not disclose to DOI that it

intended to seek reimbursement from providers. Akers further testified that the DOI’s

position is that ERISA does not preempt the DOI’s requirements or regulation of MEWAs

such as the Trust.

Akers confirmed that the DOI had received nine written complaints from

Intermountain employees arising from the Trust’s collection campaign and that the DOI

was investigating the complaints. Had the Trust disclosed to the DOI in April 2010 that it

planned to retroactively terminate benefits to 2008 and seek recovery of two years’ worth

of payments from providers, Akers testified that the DOI would not have permitted the

Trust to carry out such a plan. Akers testified that the DOI would have advised the Trust

that such a plan would not be acceptable as such plan would harm consumers, and that

the DOI would pursue any and all legal action against such action. Akers advised the

Court that given the Trust’s actions since April 2010, the DOI is investigating legal action

against the Trust but the Insurance Commissioner has not yet authorized the Attorney

General’s (A.G.) office to commence an action. The DOI, Akers and the A.G. seem to be

waiting for the outcome of this case before deciding whether to take action. This inaction

puts an unfair burden on the Receiver, the employees of Intermountain and the providers

to effectively pursue enforcement of Colorado insurance regulations.

The issue before the Court is limited to whether the Trust violated the Receivership

Order. The Court does not make any findings or conclusions as to Intermountain’s

eligibility for coverage under the Trust’s plan or the Trust’s entitlement to recover the

Alleged Overpayment as such issues are controlled by the plan documents, ERISA, and

Colorado’s insurance laws and regulations.

17

A person who resists or interferes with any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree,

or command of court can be held in contempt. White v. Adamek, 907 P.2d 735, 737

(Colo. App. 1995). Contempt for failure of a party to comply with a court’s order, which

failure takes place outside of the courtroom, constitutes “indirect contempt.” C.R.C.P.

107(a)(3); see also Martinez v. Affordable Housing Network, Inc., 109 P.3d 983 (Colo.

App. 2004).

A court may enter either punitive and/or remedial sanctions under C.R.C.P. 107.

Remedial sanctions are “[s]anctions intended to force compliance with a lawful order or to

compel performance of an act within the person’s power or present ability to perform.”

C.R.C.P. 107(a)(5). In this case, the Receiver requests the imposition of remedial

sanctions against the Trust. A party seeking remedial sanctions must establish that the

offending party:

1) did not comply with a lawful order of the court;

2) knew of the order; and

3) has the present ability to comply with the order.

In re Marriage of Cyr and Kay, 186 P.3d 88, 92 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). Additionally, proof

of willfulness is not required in order for a court to impose remedial contempt sanctions.

Id. The Trust does not challenge the validity of the Receivership Order and has not

requested any modification or relief from the order.

The Receiver asserts that the Trust is in violation of the Court’s Order Appointing

Receiver because: 1) it terminated Intermountain’s health care plan after entry of the

Receivership Order without prior approval of this Court; 2) it twice backdated its effective

termination of Intermountain’s health plan after this Court’s entry of the Receivership Order

without prior approval of the Court; and 3) it is engaging in collection efforts that are

18

interfering with the activities of the Receiver because it is intentionally trying to circumvent

the Receivership Order by improperly requiring repayment from the healthcare providers

as a way to avoid compliance with the Receivership Order.

The Court concludes that the Trust is not in contempt of Court for terminating

Intermountain’s health care plan after entry of the Receivership Order without prior

approval of this Court. It is undisputed that Intermountain stopped paying premiums for

the health care plan after April, 2010. Although the Receivership Order prohibited

termination of insurance coverage without Court approval, the Trust provided

Intermountain with Notice of Termination of Coverage approximately one month prior to

the entry of the Order Appointing Receiver. The intent of the order was to prevent

disruption to the ongoing operations of Intermountain. Prohibiting termination of insurance

coverage assumed that Intermountain was willing and able to pay for such coverage. It

would not be fair, and the Court probably does not have the authority to order anyone to

provide a service or product to Intermountain free of charge simply because Intermountain

was in receivership. When the Receiver took control of Intermountain, the Receiver

essentially stepped into the shoes of Intermountain. Neither Intermountain nor the

Receiver can reasonably expect to be provided insurance coverage without paying for it.

Had the matter come before the Court, the Court likely would have approved the Trust’s

request to terminate coverage, subject to the Trust’s compliance with the requirements

and policies of the Colorado DOI.

Likewise, the Court concludes that the Trust is not in contempt of Court for

terminating Intermountain’s health care plan retroactively. Had the Trust simply

terminated the plan retroactively and withdrawn from the State of Colorado as represented

19

to the DOI, then there would have been no harm to employees of Intermountain and no

significant disruption of the Intermountain operations. It was not the retroactive

termination of the health care plan that caused the problems, but rather the efforts to claim

reimbursements for providers.

The Court concludes that the Trust is in contempt of Court for engaging in

collection efforts by seeking reimbursements from providers who provided services to

employees of Intermountain and were initially paid under the health care plan. This action

by the Trust interfered with the activities and actions of the Receiver in taking control of

and operating Intermountain. The action taken by the Trust in this regard was disruptive to

the ongoing operation of Intermountain and contrary to the Receivership Order. The

action was an attempt to circumvent the Receivership Order.

The lawful order that the Trust violated is this Court’s Order Appointing Receiver

that was filed on May 19, 2010 (the “Receivership Order”). Specifically, the Trust is in

violation of paragraph Q of the Receivership Order.

The Trust’s conduct and collection campaign violated Paragraph Q of the

Receivership Order because the Trust interfered with the Receiver’s operation of the

receivership assets. The Receivership Order is akin to the automatic stay in a bankruptcy

proceeding in that both serve as a temporary injunction preventing creditors from

attempting to collect from the debtor without first obtaining court approval. In the

bankruptcy context, interfering with and exploiting a debtor’s employees as a way to

indirectly attempt to collect a debt is a violation of the automatic stay. See In re A and C

Electric Co, Inc., 188 B. R. 975, 980–81 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995) (holding that a union’s letter

to the debtor’s employees stating that they would lose their benefits if they continued to

20

work for the debtor was an indirect attempt to collect a debt and a violation of the

automatic stay). In this case, the Trust’s collection campaign and related conduct

impermissibly interfered with the Receiver’s operation of the lumber mill (the Receivership

Assets). The evidence and findings above clearly establish that the Trust’s collection

campaign accomplished the Trust’s goal of inflicting substantial and continuing financial

hardship and distraction among the employees. In addition, the Trust’s collection

campaign has distracted the Receiver and his staff with the obligation to spend a

considerable amount of time addressing complaints from employees and healthcare

providers as well as toward the prosecution of this action and response to investigations

being conducted by the Colorado DOI and the U.S. Department of Labor. Accordingly, the

Court finds and concludes that the Trust has violated and failed to comply with the

Receivership Order.

As set forth in the findings above, the Court concludes that the Trust was aware of

the Receivership Order at the times it violated the Receivership Order.

Finally, the Trust has the ability to comply with the Receivership Order. The Trust

has the ability to cease its collection campaign and to rescind all of the demand letters it

sent to the healthcare providers. Additionally, the Trust has assets in excess of $1 million

and therefore can afford to disgorge the funds it collected from the healthcare providers

and cover costs associated with restoring employee credit reports that were negatively

impacted.

In addition to the findings and conclusions made above, the Court finds and

concludes that the Trust is simply being greedy. The Trust is trying to saddle innocent

health care providers and employees with the burden of poor business decisions made by

21

the Trust. Had the Trust actually collected more in premiums than it paid out in claims

during the same disputed period, the Trust likely would not be offering to return the

difference. The Trust played fast and loose with Colorado insurance laws and regulation.

This Court should not allow the Trust to take action which would have been prohibited had

the Trust complied with proper procedures and regulations of Colorado insurance law..

The Trust’s sole objective was to collect its Alleged Overpayment and it did not care

whether its collection efforts violated the Receivership Order, caused any impact on the

Receiver’s operation of the mill, or whether its efforts imposed harm on the mill’s current

and former employees and their families or numerous healthcare providers in Montrose

County and Colorado. The Trust demonstrated its contempt for Colorado’s insurance laws

and Colorado’s Division of Insurance. For five years, the Trust operated in Colorado

without ever obtaining required approval from the Colorado DOI and failed to file any of the

annual records required by Colorado’s insurance statutes. When dealing with the

Colorado DOI, the Trust hid its identity to evade enforcement activity and failed to ever

disclose its collection campaign to the DOI before launching its campaign. In sum, the

Trust has operated in Colorado with an overall disregard of and contempt for Colorado’s

insurance laws, Colorado’s regulatory bodies and courts, and Colorado’s residents and

healthcare providers.

The Trust argues that as a self-funded ERISA Multiple Employer Welfare

Arrangement that is licensed to conduct insurance business in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho,

Washington, and Oregon, and given the Trust’s status as a MEWA created under ERISA,

the Contempt Motion should be dismissed because the Receivership Order is preempted

by ERISA. The Court disagrees.

22

Presented as an affirmative defense to the Contempt Motion, the Trust has the

burden of establishing its defense. While there is no dispute that the Trust’s Plan

Document is subject to the provisions of ERISA, that fact does not alter the conclusion that

the Trust is subject to the Receivership Order and this Court’s finding of contempt.

Subject to certain exceptions, ERISA provides that its provisions “shall supersede

any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit

plan described in section 4(a) and not exempt under section 4(b).” 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).

While ERISA’s preemptive scope can be broad, “it is certainly not boundless.”

Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v. Cipal Mutual Life Insurance Co., 170 F.3d 985, 990 (10th

Cir. 1999). The Tenth Circuit has identified four causes of action that “relate to” a benefit

plan for purposes of ERISA preemption, which are:

1) laws regulating the type of benefits or terms of ERISA plans;

2) laws creating reporting, disclosure, funding or vesting requirements for

such plans;

3) laws providing rules for calculating the amount of benefits to be paid under

such plans; and

4) laws and common-law rules providing remedies for misconduct growing out

of the administration of such plans.

Woodworker’s Supply, 170 F.3d at 990.

At the same time, the Tenth Circuit has held:

ERISA does not preempt all state law claims. It has no bearing on those which do not affect the relations among the principal ERISA entities, the employer, the plan, the plan fiduciaries and the beneficiaries' as such. As

23

a corollary, actions that affect the relations between one or more of these plan entities and an outside party similarly escape preemption.

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Preemption does not apply in this case because the claim at issue has been

asserted by the Receiver. The Receiver represents the receivership estate which is a

separate legal entity from Intermountain. The receivership estate is not one of the ERISA

plan entities. The Receivership Order as well as the Receiver’s claim that the Trust

violated the Receivership Order affects the relations between the outside Receiver and the

Trust. Accordingly, under the Tenth Circuit’s application of ERISA preemption provisions,

neither the Receivership Order nor the Receiver’s claim that the Trust violated the Order is

preempted by ERISA.

Additionally, the Tenth Circuit has stated:

[I]f a state-law claim has only a tenuous, remote, or peripheral connection with the plan, as is true of most laws of general applicability, it is not preempted. Claims that solely impact a plan economically generally fall within this latter category. Indeed, [a]s long as a state law does not affect the structure, the administration, or the type of benefits provided by an ERISA plan, the mere fact that the law has some economic impact on the plan does not require that the law be invalidated.

David P. Coldesina, D.D.S., P.C., Employee Profit Sharing Plan and Trust v. Estate of

Simper, 407 F.3d 1126, 1136 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

One court that applied this principal to a receivership case found only a tenuous

relationship and determined that ERISA does not preempt receivership laws. See Credit

Managers Assoc. v. Kennesaw Life Accident Ins. Co., 25 F.3d 743, 752 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“Because California receivership law has, at most, only a tenuous relationship with the

ERISA actions . . . the state law is not preempted.” (internal citations omitted)).

24

The Receiver’s Contempt Motion is not preempted by ERISA because the

Contempt Motion does not fall within one of the four categories listed above. While the

Contempt Motion certainly has a connection to a MEWA plan, the connection is peripheral

at best. The Court’s ruling in this contempt proceeding is not altering, affecting, or

regulating the terms of the Trust’s ERISA-based plan; rather this contempt proceeding is

premised on the Trust’s failure to abide by the mandates of this Court’s Receivership

Order. Moreover, the remedies outlined in this order are designed to remedy the damages

resulting from the Trust’s contempt of the Receivership Order, and the remedies are not

directed at any misconduct by the Trust in its administration of the Intermountain plan.

The Receivership Order is akin to a law of general applicability, all persons, to the

extent they are creditors of Intermountain, are subject to the Receivership Order. The

Trust’s status as an ERISA-based trust does not give it immunity over all state laws of

general applicability. In this situation, the Trust is in contempt of this Court’s Receivership

Order because it did not first seek the approval of this Court before it engaged in its

collection campaign.

Even if the Contempt Motion does fall within one of the four categories above, the

Contempt Motion is still not preempted because it falls within one of the enumerated

exceptions to 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). ERISA’s preemption clause includes a savings clause

that provides: “Except as provided in subsection (B), nothing in this title shall be construed

to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance,

banking, or securities.” 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A). Subsection B of the savings clause,

known as the “deemer clause” provides that a state law cannot deem a ERISA trust to be

an insurance company. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(B).

25

However, an analysis of the deemer clause is not required for the Contempt

Motion because ERISA’s preemption clause also provides an exemption to the deemer

clause that authorizes states to regulate non-fully insured MEWAs pursuant to state

insurance laws, as long as those laws are not inconsistent with ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §

1144(b)(6)(A)(ii); see also Fuller v. Norton, 86 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 1996). Specifically, the

Tenth Circuit has held that non-fully insured MEWAs are subject to Colorado’s state

insurance regulations to the extent the MEWA is conducting insurance business in

Colorado. See Fuller, 86 F.3d at 1024.

Accordingly, the fact that by this Order, the Court is enjoining the Trust from

engaging in its collection campaign against the Intermountain employees and their

healthcare providers does not create an ERISA preemption issue. In this case, the Trust

has admitted that it is not fully insured. As a non-fully insured MEWA operating in

Colorado, the Trust is subject to Colorado’s insurance laws and the regulatory authority of

the Colorado DOI and does not receive the full benefit of ERISA’s preemption provisions.

Accordingly, even the underlying issues of whether the Trust has a valid claim against the

receivership estate and/or is allowed to engage in its current collection efforts (assuming it

first obtains Court approval) are not preempted by ERISA. Those issues must be

determined in accordance with Colorado’s insurance laws, including its consumer

protection provisions. Therefore, the Receiver’s Contempt Motion and the remedial

sanctions sought therein are not preempted by ERISA.

26

ORDER

Based on the Court’s findings and conclusions set forth above that the Trust has

violated and is in contempt of the Receivership Order, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Receiver’s request for remedial sanctions under C.R.C.P.

107(d)(2) to purge the contempt is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court imposes a fine and/or jail sentence, the

amount of which and/or the length of which will be determined at a future hearing if and

when the Court is made aware of a failure to comply with the balance of this Order which

provides the Trust a way to purge the sanctions; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Trust, its agents, employees and all others acting in

concert with the Trust are hereby ENJOINED from taking any further collection efforts

against the healthcare providers or any other person that received payment on claims

submitted to the Trust by or on behalf of Intermountain participants from August 31, 2008

to the present; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Trust shall:

a. submit any claim regarding the Alleged Overpayment to the Receiver to be

administered with all other creditor claims against the receivership estate;

b. within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Order, (1) send a letter rescinding

its demand for repayment of claims in a form approved by the Receiver to each and every

healthcare provider to which the Trust sent demands for reimbursement of claims paid

from August 31, 2008 to the present, and (2) provide a copy of all such letters to the

Receiver and each affected employee or participant;

27

c. within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Order, provide the Receiver and

the Court with a detailed accounting of each payment received by the Trust as a result of

any letters sent from and after May 19, 2010 to providers and employees or other

participants demanding repayment or reimbursement for claims paid from August 31, 2008

to the present (identifying the amount received from each provider or participant and the

contact information of the individual or entity that returned each payment);

d. within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Order, disgorge to the Receiver

all funds returned to the Trust by providers, employees or other participants in response to

the Trust’s demands for reimbursement of claims paid from August 31, 2008 to the

present. The Receiver shall hold the funds disgorged by the Trust in a separate bank

account for the benefit of the providers and/or employees or participants.

The Court hereby appoints the Receiver to serve as the Receiver over such funds

and directs the Receiver to take any necessary actions to properly reconcile and return

such funds to the provider or employee or participant such that the provider and the

employees are restored to the same position they were in as of the entry of the

Receivership Order on May 19, 2010. The Trust shall fully cooperate with the Receiver in

fulfilling this task. The Receiver shall keep records of all payments made to providers,

employees or participants. The Trust shall advance $15,000 to the Receiver as an

advance retainer for the Receiver’s reasonable fees and expenses (and legal fees)

incurred in fulfilling the requirements of this Order. The Court directs the Receiver to use

its best efforts to fulfill the requirements of this Order by January 31, 2012 and directs that

the Receiver shall provide the Court with a status report and accounting by January 31,

2012. The Receiver may submit to the Court and the Trust regular monthly invoices for

28

fees and expenses incurred in fulfilling the requirements of this Order. If the Trust does

not file a written objection to the invoice within fifteen (15) business days of service of the

invoice, the Receiver may draw on the retainer to satisfy the invoice. If the Trust files an

objection, the Receiver may file a response within fifteen (15) business days and the Court

will enter an order resolving any issues. Once the Receiver provides notice to the Court

that it has completed the work required by this Order, any unused portion of the retainer

shall be refunded to the Trust. In the event the retainer is insufficient, the Trust shall

remain responsible for the payment of the Receiver’s fees and expenses relating to this

Order and the Receiver may apply to the Court for an order requiring the Trust to replenish

the retainer.

e. if either the Colorado Division of Insurance or the Department of Labor take

any action against the Trust while the Receiver is performing its obligations under this

Order, the Receiver shall notify the Court of such actions within ten (10) business days of

receiving notice of such actions. To the extent any actions taken by either the Colorado

Division of Insurance or the Department of Labor overlap with the Receiver’s obligations

under this Order, the Receiver shall cooperate and coordinate with either or both

agencies, including but not limited to, seeking a modification of this Order.

f. within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Order, provide the Receiver with

a letter executed by the Trust, in a form approved by the Receiver, advising providers and

credit agencies of this proceeding and directing such providers and agencies to remove or

withdraw any negative credit information reported on any Intermountain participant’s credit

report arising or resulting from the Trust’s demand letters.

29

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver is entitled to an award of its

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the Contempt Motion. The Receiver

shall submit an application for its fees and costs pursuant to the procedure set forth in

C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-22 within 15 days. The normal response and reply time shall follow.

Any objection to the attorney fees requested shall be specific, including whether the

objection is to the hourly rate being charged and/or the number of hours devoted to the

contempt proceeding.

FINALLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure of the Trust to comply with this

Order shall be brought to the attention of the Court by motion of the Receiver requesting

that the matter be set for a hearing to impose the remedial sanctions for failure to purge.

Likewise, final compliance with this Order shall be brought to the attention of the Court by

motion of the Receiver requesting that the contempt citation be dismissed.

Signed this 6th day of Dec., 2011.

By the Court:

________________________________ James Schum—District Court Judge

30