In re apco liquidating trust Myanmar sex chat dating site

With regard to the contingency requirement, the bankruptcy court rejected the claimants' argument that their claims were not contingent because liability (the obligation to pay cleanup costs) had been fixed by entry of the consent orders.

The parties further agreed that the claims in issue are for reimbursement, since the claimants seek payment from EPI for costs to be incurred and their claims arise under CERCLA § 113(f), which provides for an express right of contribution.The claimants contend that the bankruptcy court erred in applying a straightforward reading of § 502(e)(1)(B).They argue that by disallowing their claims, the bankruptcy court failed to apply the exception adopted by most courts that a creditor's contingent claim for direct environmental response costs is not subject to disallowance under § 502(e)(1)(B).In response, the Rasmussen claimants entered into a consent decree and the Springfield Township claimants entered into an Administrative Order with the EPA under which they became obligated to clean up the sites.EPI was not a party to either the decree or the order. The claimants filed essentially identical proofs of claim against EPI based on the following facts: (1) the claimants were jointly and severally liable under CERCLA § 107(a)(3) for the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste allegedly disposed of at the sites; (2) the claimants have entered into an agreement with the government to perform the cleanup; and (3) the claimants seek contribution payments from EPI for past and future response costs.

Leave a Reply