Resource consents and environmental risks can affect the value of an insolvent company's assets, and can give rise to civil or criminal liability.
This Brief Counsel examines:
- when resource consents require transfer to a new owner, and
- potential liabilities that insolvency practitioners may face.
Types of consents
Five types of consent are available under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA):
On October 28th, 2013 the Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”) and the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace Canada (“Northstar”) reached a $4.75 million settlement for the remediation of a property owned by Northstar in Cambridge, Ontario.
The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.
The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.
The judgment of the Commercial Court in WASA and AGF v Lexington shows that a “follow settlements” clause in a reinsurance contract will not obviate the need for the reinsured to demonstrate that an inwards settlement falls within the terms and conditions of its outwards reinsurance. Partner Michael Mendelowitz reviews the judgment.
In re Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc., 2009 WL 4270799 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2009).
This suit involved Petitioner AmeriPride Services Inc. (“AmeriPride”)’s motion for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to 8 Del. C.
In a decision that may create a significant roadblock for companies saddled with environmental clean-up liability to continue as a going concern, the Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. Apex Oil Company, Inc., 579 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2009) affirmed a district court injunction requiring the clean-up of a contaminated site in Illinois under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) despite the company's bankruptcy. On September 27, 2010, the Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss whether to grant review of the Apex decision.
Introduction
Appointment of a receiver is a flexible remedy for solving serious business problems in distressed projects while reducing delay and risk. A receivership can provide (in addition to reliable management of a property approaching foreclosure) court supervision and certainty without the delay and expense of bankruptcy.
When a company saddled with potential environmental liabilities seeks bankruptcy protection, the goals of Chapter 11—giving the reorganized debtor a “fresh start” and fairly treating similarly situated creditors—can conflict with the goals of environmental laws, such as ensuring that the “polluter pays.” Courts have long struggled to reconcile this tension.