Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Quagmire of Obligations
Pending in bankruptcy court in Corpus Christi, TX, is In re ASARCO, LLC, et al., the largest environmental bankruptcy case ever filed. Founded in 1899, ASARCO had diverse mining, smelting, and refining operations across the country. Unfortunately, ASARCO's 108 years of operation left a legacy of environmental liability spanning roughly 94 sites in 21 states. As a result, the United States, 16 states, and 73 private potentially responsible persons (PRPs) asserted more than $6 billion in environmental claims against ASARCO's bankruptcy estate.
At present, ASARCO is concluding the estimation of such claims for purposes of allowance (not just for plan voting or feasibility) at more than 30 sites. The estimation proceedings involve numerous unsettled issues arising at the intersection of the Bankruptcy Code and environmental law, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Bankruptcy Code is premised on granting the debtor a discharge of its pre-bankruptcy obligations while CERCLA was enacted to ensure PRPs are held accountable for the cleanup of contaminated property. When a PRP becomes a debtor, courts struggle to reconcile the competing objectives of these comprehensive statutes.
This article provides an overview of four significant areas of contention. It starts with a brief summary of CERCLA to serve as a foundation for the discussion of bankruptcy issues that follows. It then addresses the scope of the debtor's liability for cleanup costs, discharge of the debtor's obligations to clean up contaminated property, abandonment of contaminated property, and treatment of contingent PRP reimbursement and contribution claims.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?