In re apco liquidating trust

The site was operated by Anderson-Prichard Oil Corporation and APCO Oil Corporation as an oil refinery from 1920 until approximately 1978, and then in a limited capacity by Oklahoma Refining Company until 1987.

In 1990, EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List.

United States of America, United States General Services Administration, United States Environmental Protection Agency, State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Defendants. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") opposes the petition and resists production of certain documents on the basis of the deliberative process privilege.

Mc Millian, Liquidating Trustee for the Apco Liquidation Trust and Apco Missing Stockholder Trust ("Liquidating Trustee"), petitions to enforce a subpoena he issued to Shaw Environmental, Inc. The privilege protects governmental agencies' internal communications that are deliberative in nature but not those that are "purely factual." EPA v.

Both the decisions clarify that an environmental cleanup contribution will remain continent, and subject to disallowance under section 502(e)(1)(B), to the extent the creditor has not made an actual payment or expended funds on account of the claim prior to the hearing on allowance or disallowance.

APCO Liquidating Trust is a successor in interest to APCO Oil Corporation.

The documents the EPA continues to withhold from the Liquidating Trustee comprise Shaw employees' technical drawings, draft documents and email messages relating to its recommendation.

In response to the subpoena, Shaw initially tendered copies of the documents only to the EPA and USACOE.

in re apco liquidating trust-14in re apco liquidating trust-79in re apco liquidating trust-46

APCO Oil Corporation was voluntarily dissolved by its shareholders on September 29, 1978.EPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACOE"). Shaw analyzed the site and recommended a cleanup plan to the EPA and USACOE. To disallow a claim under this section, a debtor must prove all three prongs.The policy behind the statute is to protect the bankruptcy estate against the risk of double payment on claims; without it, a debtor could be liable to both the primary creditor (an environmental agency) and co-liable parties seeking contribution. The private parties filed proofs of claim asserting contribution claims for past and future estimated costs.On January 4, 2011 and January 13, 2011, respectively, the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York issued bench rulings in the chapter 11 cases, certain debtors and private parties were named as PRPs for past and estimated future response costs for environmental cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. Since the PRP’s contribution claim against the debtors had arguably accrued under CERCLA, the PRP asserted that no portion of its claim remained contingent. 1991), was controlling authority in the Second Circuit for the proposition that contribution claims under CERCLA are contingent until costs for remediation work are actually expended or paid. The bankruptcy court cited to its reasoning in the September 2010 decision, which the bankruptcy court held had a very limited application.

495

Leave a Reply