Victoria's Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the risk that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified, and the need for liquidators to be mindful where the company holds contaminated property.

Liquidators have more certainty about their ability to disclaim the environmental liabilities and responsibilities of a company in liquidation.

The High Court has refused to grant the Queensland State Government (Qld Government) special leave to appeal the Queensland Court of Appeal’s March 2018 decision in favour of the liquidators of Linc Energy, concerning the liquidators’ obligations to cause Linc Energy to comply with an Environmental Protection Order (EPO).

Dans un arrêt du 31 janvier 2019, la Cour suprême ordonne qu’une société pétrolière faillie s'acquitte d’abord de ses obligations de remise en état des puits de pétrole abandonnés, avant de procéder à tout paiement en faveur de ses créanciers. Une décision qui suscite des réactions opposées d’un bout à l’autre du pays, puisque, d’une part, elle donne clairement préséance à la protection de l’environnement en cas de faillite, mais que, d’autre part, elle risque d’influencer les décisions d’affaires dans des industries où des risques environnementaux sont en jeu.

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND

In Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., 2012 SCC 67, the Supreme Court of Canada was called upon to consider whether orders issued by a regulatory body with respect to environmental remediation work are “provable claims” in a proceeding commenced under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-36 (the “CCAA”).

SCC Docket No. 33797, Leave granted 25 November 2010

Bankruptcy and Insolvency—Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act—Provincial Obligations

On November 25, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Abitibibowater Inc., et al.

China is one of the largest manufacturers and consumers of iron and steel products.   The steel industry in China has developed over several decades into the biggest in the world. China accounts for nearly 50% of world steel production. It has been driven by rapid modernization of its economy, construction, infrastructure and manufacturing industries.

This question arose in Queensland recently in Linc Energy Ltd (in liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection.  The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing the company not to comply with an environmental protection order that required the company to maintain equipment that the liquidators had disclaimed.

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.