Laserfiche WebLink
This case is comparable to a decision from the District of New Jersey, where <br />the court found that there was no imminent threat .ta public health and safety when the <br />public had been adequately warned of the dangers of a contaminated public water system. <br />Anthony Ferrante & Sons, 119 B.R. at 45. In Ferrante, the court reasoned that since the <br />public had adequate notice (over 2 years) that the water from the system was unsafe for <br />consumption, the system's customers "possessed the means to protect themselves against any <br />health hazard, and that fact sharply distinguishes this case from Midlantic." Ia: at 49-50. In <br />Midlanric, the public was unaware of the danger and lacked the necessary means to protect <br />itself from the potential large scale contamination of water by waste oil containing a highly <br />toadc carcinogen. <br />Abandonment of the Quarry under § 554(a) may even provide increased <br />safeguards for the public. The forfeiture of the $186,000 in financial warranties provided <br />by CF&I will provide Colorado with a significant sum of money for demolition of the <br />buildings that present the most pressing threat to public safety. Abandonment will not <br />aggravate the e~dsting conditions or create peril at the Quarry. New Jersey Dept of Envtf. <br />Protection v. North American Producer Acquisition, Corp., 137 B.R. 8 (D.N.J. <br />1992)(banlauptcy court required to make specific finding that trustee's abandonment would <br />not aggravate a harm to the public). <br />Colorado argues that CF&I may not abandon the Quarry where <br />unencumbered asseu are available to perform reclamation. Whether CF&I's estate has <br />unencumbered funds is irrelevant to a determination of whether abandonment is permissible <br />where Colorado failed to carry its burden of proving imminent and identifiable harm to <br /> <br />