appears from this that a wide variety of revenue-generating activities, including owning and leasing property, would cause a company to be considered “in business” within the meaning of the Act. There is no indication that Congress meant to define certain phrases within the definition of “in business,” such as “business activity,” narrowly. Doing so would undermine the overall broad meaning of the statute, allowing companies to escape liability under the Act by framing their revenue-generating activities as “passive” business activities. The legislative intent to construe “in business” broadly counsels us instead to consider the ownership of revenue-generating property, investments, and other assets as “business activity” within the meaning of the Coal Act. See Lindsey, 90 F.3d at 692 (<HOLDING>); Dist. 29, 179 F.3d at 145 (holding that a
holding that a company that derived revenue from leasing its property was in business for purposes for the coal act holding that it is apparent that this act is not a revenue bill within the contemplation of said section of the constitution fpr the reason that the revenue to be derived therefrom is merely an incident to the main object of the bill and that its general purpose was not that of raising revenue id  5 holding that the district court could not exercise general jurisdiction over the simcom defendants where defendants derived 136 of its revenue from the forum state but were not registered to do business in massachusetts and had no massachusettsbased employees holding that a company that generated revenue from the sale of its assets remained in business holding that a company that entered into liquidation remains in business for purposes of the act