With approximately 7,000 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against it, Hercules Chemical has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The company is a manufacturer of chemicals for the plumbing industry. In ``Dispelling the Myths of Asbestos Litigation: Solutions for Common Law Courts,`` Rick Faulk discussed problems in the asbestos-driven toxic tort litigation system – a system that has led many companies to Chapter 11.

Only twice has the U.S. Supreme Court spoken directly to environmental issues in bankruptcy – until now. Today the Supreme Court ruled that certain claims can in fact be barred by a bankruptcy court's channeling injunction. The case is particularly important in light of the major corporate bankruptcies now under way in the industrial sector, where environmental costs can drive the success or failure of a restructuring.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that an environmental clean-up obligation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, even when the debtor no longer has any internal clean-up operations and would have to contract a third party to provide such services at significant cost.

In U.S. v. Apex Oil, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled 3-0 that EPA’s cleanup injunction against the corporate successor to a chemical company was not discharged in Chapter 11 because the injunction does not create a right to payment and, consequently, is not a ‘debt’ under the Bankruptcy Code.

Businesses considering filing Chapter 11 for bankruptcy protection may not necessarily be able to avoid certain environmental cleanup obligations. The underlying policy goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws are in direct conflict in that bankruptcy law seeks to promote financial rehabilitation by discharging a debtor's past obligations in order to promote financial rehabilitation while environmental law seeks to ensure that the government can order responsible parties to clean up contamination, including historical pollution caused by business predecessors.

On June 21, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in In re Evans Industries, Inc., that a purchaser of assets from a bankrupt company cannot make a claim against a holdback escrow account for expenses incurred while cleaning up hazardous waste that the bankrupt company left behind. Pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, Grief Industrial Packaging and Services purchased five facilities from Evans Industries, Incorporated.

B&D is pleased to present the next installment of our 2024 Litigation Look Ahead series. (Read part four covering Fifth Amendment takings cases here).

Key points

THE BRIEF

FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION QUARTERLY

FALL 2023

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Were There Underwriting Requirements for PPP Loans After All? The Sound-Value Requirement May Pose Risk for PPP Lenders

3

Noteworthy10

District Court Upholds New ERISA Rules on ESG Investing

10

Fourth Circuit Holds That Class-Action Waivers Must Be Addressed Before Class Certification

12

Ninth Circuit: Fees for Claims-Made Settlements Must Be Based on Actual Recovery

13

In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing