Briefings
A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.
Background – Emissions Trading Fraud
The Scottish Government has been ahead of the rest of the UK in its attempts to introduce methods which are designed to change behaviour and encourage people to operate in buildings in a more energy efficient manner.
The Assessment of Energy Performance of Non-domestic Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2016 came into effect on 1 September and are aimed at effecting those behavioural changes.
A. United States v. Delfasco, Inc., 409 B.R. 704 (D. Del. July 15, 2009).
This suit involved a motion to withdraw from Bankruptcy Court to District Court. Defendant/Debtor Delfasco, Inc. (“Delfasco”) filed for Chapter 11 protection under the Bankruptcy Code following the EPA’s issuance of a RCRA Order requiring Delfasco to install and maintain mitigation systems for trichloroethylene that it discovered on its property. The United States, on behalf of the EPA, filed an Adversary Complaint against Delfasco, followed by this motion to withdraw.
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.
On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig located off the coast of Louisiana killed eleven crewmen and set off what is now considered the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. As a result, BP p.l.c. (“BP”), the parent company of the British Petroleum multinational corporation, faces mounting liabilities related to the damages caused by the disaster and hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed in numerous U.S. state and federal courts.
In re 15375 Memorial Corporation, et al, 430 BR 142 (Bankr D Del May 17, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
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.
Last week the Supreme Court exercised its option to do nothing about a Seventh Circuit decision allowing the federal government to cram a $150 million remediation obligation onto a chapter 11 successor corporation – all because the feds chose to proceed under RCRA (the federal hazardous waste statute) rather than CERCLA (the Superfund cleanup statute). Smart tactics by the feds.
Introduction
- Introduction
Congress enacted the current Bankruptcy Code, Sections 101 through 1502 of Title Eleven of the United States Code (as amended, the “Bankruptcy Code”), in 1978, and it took effect late in 1979. Many important federal environmental statutes were enacted around the same time, e.g., Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. Thus, Congress did not fully consider environmental liability schemes when it created the bankruptcy code.