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.
When a company that has been designated a responsible party for environmental cleanup costs files for bankruptcy protection, the ramifications of the filing are not limited to a determination of whether the remediation costs are dischargeable claims. Another important issue is the circumstances under which contribution claims asserted by parties coliable with the debtor will be allowed or disallowed in the bankruptcy case. This question was the subject of rulings handed down early in 2011 by the New York bankruptcy court presiding over the chapter 11 cases of Lyondell Chemical Co.
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.
Summary
In a 5 page decision signed May 4, 2011, Judge Walsh of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that a proceeding initiated by a Debtor, seeking contribution relating to environmental claims is non-core. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background
As revealed in a recent bankruptcy case, purchasers of contaminated property need to have a very clear understanding of their contractual remedies before proceeding with self-help. The case (In re Evans Industries, Inc., No.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed decisions of the bankruptcy court and a federal district court that the purchaser of a bankrupt company’s assets cannot recover the costs of environmental remediation from an escrow account established as part of the purchase agreement.In re Evans Indus. Inc., No. 10-30387 (5th Cir. 6/21/11) (unpublished).
Introduction