My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL43723
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL43723
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:12:33 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 12:36:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
US BANKRUPTCY COURT DMG OBJECTION TO THE LENDERS MOTION FOR ADEQUATE PROTECTION AND FOR RELIEF
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />is considerable value for the Lenders in the other estates in <br />this jointly administered bankruptcy case, no significant <br />value will remain in the Powderhorn estate to pay for <br />reclamation and environmental remediation. <br />Debtors cannot abandon property where that property poses <br />an imminent and identifiable hazard to the public health or <br />safety. See, Midlantic National Bank v. Ne~.a Jersey Department <br />of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 507 (1986); <br />Pennsylvania v. Conroy, 24 F.3d 568, 569 (3d Cir. 1994). In <br />some courts, there can be no abandonment if the site violates <br />applicable environmental laws, regardless of whether the site <br />presents an imminent and identifiable hazard to public health <br />and safety. See, In re Wall Tube & Metal Products, Inc., 831 <br />F.2d 118, 122 (6th Cir. 1987); In re Peerless Plating Co., 70 <br />B.R. 943, 996-97 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.1987) (a trustee may not <br />abandon a site in contravention of environmental law unless <br />the environmental law is so onerous as to interfere with the <br />bankruptcy adjudication, the law is not reasonably designed to <br />protect against identified hazards, or the violation caused by <br />abandonment would be speculative and indeterminate); In re <br />Stevens, 68 B.R. 779, 783-89 (Bankr.D.Me.1987); In re Mowbra <br />Engineering Co., 67 B.R. 34, 35 (Bankr.M.D.Ala.1986). <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.