1117387 Ontario Inc., by court order in October 2003, was placed under receivership for defaulting on payment of a mortgage. In October 2008, the Court was asked to approve the receiver’s third report and the proposed sale of the mortgaged lands. A complicating factor was that the mortgaged lands were subject to environmental contamination as a result of a neighbouring oil and gas facility.

The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.

The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.

The judgment of the Commercial Court in WASA and AGF v Lexington shows that a “follow settlements” clause in a reinsurance contract will not obviate the need for the reinsured to demonstrate that an inwards settlement falls within the terms and conditions of its outwards reinsurance. Partner Michael Mendelowitz reviews the judgment.

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.  

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.

Introduction

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

Energy production in the United States is at an all-time high. In 2013, an average of 7.5 million barrels of oil were pumped every day, which bested the previous production record (2012) by one million barrels. Domestic oil production has increased every year from 2011 to 2013. By comparison, between 1971 and 2011, oil production in the United States decreased 29 of the 40 years. Regardless of whether this level of domestic production can be sustained for the long term, elevated domestic oil production is a reality for the near future.