The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

W.R. Grace agreed to pay $250 million to the federal government for costs related to the investigation and remediation of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana. W.R. Grace, a global supplier of specialty chemicals, owned and operated a vermiculite mine and vermiculite processing facilities in Libby from 1963 to 1990. The company and 61 affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy in April 2001. The settlement resolves a bankruptcy claim filed by the federal government to recover funds necessary to cleanup contaminated schools, homes, and businesses in Libby.

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.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

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.

Asarco LLC v. Goodwin, 756 F.3d 191 (2nd Cir. 2014) –

A reorganized company (Asarco) sought contribution for payment of environmental claims from beneficiaries of trusts created under John D. Rockefeller’s will. The district court dismissed the claims, and Asarco appealed to the 2d Circuit.

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.

Since Nortel Networks Corporation and a number of related companies (together, “Nortel”), initiated a reorganization under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) over two years ago, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (the “MOE”) has sought to hold Nortel responsible to remediate environmental contamination remaining on properties once or currently owned by Nortel. Nortel has maintained that its responsibility for the environmental contamination should not be prioritized ahead of its other obligations.