In re apco liquidating trust

07-Dec-2019 12:34 by 3 Comments

In re apco liquidating trust - updating sky box software

The “Schedule of Preserved Litigation Claims” specifically reserved claims against other PRPS for contribution for environmental damages. ASARCO brought two claims: 1) a direct contribution claim under CERCLA § 113(f), codified at 42 U.

Gerber held that environmental contribution claims remain contingent, and must be disallowed, until the coliable creditor actually pays for the cleanup or otherwise expends funds on account of the claim.

The Supreme Court held that a private party may recover funds it expends for environmental cleanup from other parties liable for the cleanup not only under § 113(f) of CERCLA, which provides for contribution among potentially responsible parties (PRPs) targeted by the government, but also under § 107(a) of CERCLA, which permits parties to recover the costs of voluntary cleanups. ARC then sought to recover some of its costs by suing the U. The district court agreed and granted the government’s motion to dismiss, but the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that a PRP may assert a direct cost recovery claim under § 107(a).

2331, involved the interpretation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The government moved to dismiss, arguing that ARC was a PRP and, as such, was not authorized to assert a claim under § 107(a).

Atlantic Research Corporation (ARC) voluntarily cleaned up a government-owned property it had contaminated while retrofitting rocket motors for the U. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit’s decision.

Section 107(a) of CERCLA defines four categories of PRPs that are liable for, among other things, “(A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with the national contingency plan” and “(B) any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan.” The issue before the Supreme Court in was whether PRPs fall within the scope of the phrase “any other person” under § 107(a)(4)(B) of CERCLA and are entitled to bring suit under that provision.

“Faced with what could be hundreds of post-bankruptcy claims by PRPs, the former debtor would need to be able to demonstrate that each and every such CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) claim somehow was discharged or settled during its bankruptcy.

As a practical matter, that burden is not sustainable, and it is highly unlikely that all such claims could be recognized and discharged in a bankruptcy,” the company said in its brief.Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MCKAY and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. Brys of Integer Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Stephen A. Carolyn Mc Intosh of Patton Boggs LLP, Denver, CO, (Christa Lee Rock of Patton Boggs LLP; Jonathan H. The plaintiff, ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), appeals the district court's dismissal of its complaint. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) brought a CERCLA action against debtor-ASARCO, which was still pending when debtor-ASARCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 9, 2005, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. of Mc Guire Woods, LLP, Richmond, VA, (Gregory Evans and Laura G. C., Denver, CO, on the briefs), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Kaufman of Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, Denver, CO, with her on the brief), for Defendants–Appellees. Debtor–ASARCO, Union Pacific, and Pepsi all operated at the site, allegedly contributing to the release of hazardous substances there. ASARCO sought contribution from Union Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Corporation (collectively “Union Pacific”), Pepsi–Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., and Bottling Group, LLC (collectively “Pepsi”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). § 9613); that post-bankruptcy ASARCO was not a subrogee of pre-bankruptcy ASARCO; and that ASARCO could not bring a subrogation claim. In 2006, the EPA filed proofs of claim in debtor-ASARCO's bankruptcy case, seeking recovery of its expenses for cleaning up the Vasquez Site. The district court ruled that ASARCO's direct contribution claim was time-barred under CERCLA § 113 (42 U. In 2009, debtor-ASARCO moved for approval of a settlement in which it agreed to pay “over

As a practical matter, that burden is not sustainable, and it is highly unlikely that all such claims could be recognized and discharged in a bankruptcy,” the company said in its brief.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MCKAY and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. Brys of Integer Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Stephen A. Carolyn Mc Intosh of Patton Boggs LLP, Denver, CO, (Christa Lee Rock of Patton Boggs LLP; Jonathan H. The plaintiff, ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), appeals the district court's dismissal of its complaint. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) brought a CERCLA action against debtor-ASARCO, which was still pending when debtor-ASARCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 9, 2005, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

of Mc Guire Woods, LLP, Richmond, VA, (Gregory Evans and Laura G. C., Denver, CO, on the briefs), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Kaufman of Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, Denver, CO, with her on the brief), for Defendants–Appellees. Debtor–ASARCO, Union Pacific, and Pepsi all operated at the site, allegedly contributing to the release of hazardous substances there.

ASARCO sought contribution from Union Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Corporation (collectively “Union Pacific”), Pepsi–Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., and Bottling Group, LLC (collectively “Pepsi”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). § 9613); that post-bankruptcy ASARCO was not a subrogee of pre-bankruptcy ASARCO; and that ASARCO could not bring a subrogation claim. In 2006, the EPA filed proofs of claim in debtor-ASARCO's bankruptcy case, seeking recovery of its expenses for cleaning up the Vasquez Site.

The district court ruled that ASARCO's direct contribution claim was time-barred under CERCLA § 113 (42 U. In 2009, debtor-ASARCO moved for approval of a settlement in which it agreed to pay “over $1.5 million to resolve its CERCLA liabilities at the Vasquez Site (‘Vasquez Site Settlement’).” App'x at 15. The agreement was “not conditioned upon confirmation of any particular plan of reorganization.” Id. On June 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlement agreements. The bankruptcy court analyzed the settlements under the standard of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019, which considered whether the settlements were “fair, equitable, and in the best interest of the estate.” Id. The bankruptcy court then evaluated whether the agreements were “reasonable, fair, and consistent with [CERCLA's] statutory aims.” Id. The court concluded that the settlements also met this standard. “ASARCO LLC” was defined as “a Delaware limited liability company and one of the Debtors herein .” Id. “ASARCO Protected Parties” included the debtors and Reorganized ASARCO. “Reorganized ASARCO” was defined as “ASARCO and/or any of its successors, successors-in-interest, and assigns ․ on or after the Effective Date.” Id. It defined the “Effective Date” of the bankruptcy plan as “the first Business Day upon which all of the conditions to occurrence of the Effective Date contained in Article 9.1 of the Parent's Plan have been satisfied․” Id. The bankruptcy plan stated that all environmental unsecured claims, including the Vasquez Site claim, would be paid in full on the effective date. In response, ASARCO withdrew its reliance on CERCLA § 112. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement on June 5, 2009, and it was effective on that day by its own terms.

Section 502(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code disallows certain contingent claims asserted by codebtors for contribution or reimbursement.

||

As a practical matter, that burden is not sustainable, and it is highly unlikely that all such claims could be recognized and discharged in a bankruptcy,” the company said in its brief.Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MCKAY and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. Brys of Integer Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Stephen A. Carolyn Mc Intosh of Patton Boggs LLP, Denver, CO, (Christa Lee Rock of Patton Boggs LLP; Jonathan H. The plaintiff, ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), appeals the district court's dismissal of its complaint. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) brought a CERCLA action against debtor-ASARCO, which was still pending when debtor-ASARCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 9, 2005, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. of Mc Guire Woods, LLP, Richmond, VA, (Gregory Evans and Laura G. C., Denver, CO, on the briefs), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Kaufman of Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, Denver, CO, with her on the brief), for Defendants–Appellees. Debtor–ASARCO, Union Pacific, and Pepsi all operated at the site, allegedly contributing to the release of hazardous substances there. ASARCO sought contribution from Union Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Corporation (collectively “Union Pacific”), Pepsi–Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., and Bottling Group, LLC (collectively “Pepsi”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). § 9613); that post-bankruptcy ASARCO was not a subrogee of pre-bankruptcy ASARCO; and that ASARCO could not bring a subrogation claim. In 2006, the EPA filed proofs of claim in debtor-ASARCO's bankruptcy case, seeking recovery of its expenses for cleaning up the Vasquez Site. The district court ruled that ASARCO's direct contribution claim was time-barred under CERCLA § 113 (42 U. In 2009, debtor-ASARCO moved for approval of a settlement in which it agreed to pay “over $1.5 million to resolve its CERCLA liabilities at the Vasquez Site (‘Vasquez Site Settlement’).” App'x at 15. The agreement was “not conditioned upon confirmation of any particular plan of reorganization.” Id. On June 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlement agreements. The bankruptcy court analyzed the settlements under the standard of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019, which considered whether the settlements were “fair, equitable, and in the best interest of the estate.” Id. The bankruptcy court then evaluated whether the agreements were “reasonable, fair, and consistent with [CERCLA's] statutory aims.” Id. The court concluded that the settlements also met this standard. “ASARCO LLC” was defined as “a Delaware limited liability company and one of the Debtors herein .” Id. “ASARCO Protected Parties” included the debtors and Reorganized ASARCO. “Reorganized ASARCO” was defined as “ASARCO and/or any of its successors, successors-in-interest, and assigns ․ on or after the Effective Date.” Id. It defined the “Effective Date” of the bankruptcy plan as “the first Business Day upon which all of the conditions to occurrence of the Effective Date contained in Article 9.1 of the Parent's Plan have been satisfied․” Id. The bankruptcy plan stated that all environmental unsecured claims, including the Vasquez Site claim, would be paid in full on the effective date. In response, ASARCO withdrew its reliance on CERCLA § 112. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement on June 5, 2009, and it was effective on that day by its own terms. Section 502(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code disallows certain contingent claims asserted by codebtors for contribution or reimbursement.

.5 million to resolve its CERCLA liabilities at the Vasquez Site (‘Vasquez Site Settlement’).” App'x at 15. The agreement was “not conditioned upon confirmation of any particular plan of reorganization.” Id. On June 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlement agreements. The bankruptcy court analyzed the settlements under the standard of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019, which considered whether the settlements were “fair, equitable, and in the best interest of the estate.” Id. The bankruptcy court then evaluated whether the agreements were “reasonable, fair, and consistent with [CERCLA's] statutory aims.” Id. The court concluded that the settlements also met this standard. “ASARCO LLC” was defined as “a Delaware limited liability company and one of the Debtors herein .” Id. “ASARCO Protected Parties” included the debtors and Reorganized ASARCO. “Reorganized ASARCO” was defined as “ASARCO and/or any of its successors, successors-in-interest, and assigns ․ on or after the Effective Date.” Id. It defined the “Effective Date” of the bankruptcy plan as “the first Business Day upon which all of the conditions to occurrence of the Effective Date contained in Article 9.1 of the Parent's Plan have been satisfied․” Id. The bankruptcy plan stated that all environmental unsecured claims, including the Vasquez Site claim, would be paid in full on the effective date. In response, ASARCO withdrew its reliance on CERCLA § 112. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement on June 5, 2009, and it was effective on that day by its own terms. Section 502(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code disallows certain contingent claims asserted by codebtors for contribution or reimbursement.

  1. Random free sex chat txt 06-Jan-2020 06:46

    Our dating service is the online dating site created to help you meet jacksonville singles online.

  2. tela tequila dating 02-Jan-2020 21:55

    I am an independent certified massage therapist based in Bucharest.

  3. Lady chatterley s lover 100 free xxx 25-Jan-2020 17:03

    His acting career began in the Focus Theatre before he joined London's Royal Court Theatre in 1979.