Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Neill v. City of New York

Decision Date27 January 1986
Docket NumberNos. 84-801,84-805,s. 84-801
Citation88 L.Ed.2d 859,474 U.S. 494,106 S.Ct. 755,13 B.C.D. 1262
PartiesMIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. Thomas J. O'NEILL, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Quanta Resources Corporation, Debtor, Petitioner v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Quanta Resources Corp. (Quanta) processed waste oil at facilities located in New York and New Jersey. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) discovered that Quanta had violated a provision of the operating permit for the New Jersey facility by accepting oil contaminated with a toxic carcinogen. During negotiations with NJDEP for the cleanup of the New Jersey site, Quanta filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and after NJDEP had issued an order requiring cleanup, Quanta converted the action to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7. An investigation of the New York facility then revealed that Quanta had also accepted similarly contaminated oil at that site. The trustee notified the creditors and the Bankruptcy Court that he intended to abandon the property under § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which authorizes a trustee to "abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate." The City and the State of New York objected, contending that abandonment would threaten the public's health and safety, and would violate state and federal environmental law. The Bankruptcy Court approved the abandonment, and, after the District Court affirmed, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Meanwhile, the Bankruptcy Court also approved the trustee's proposed abandonment of the New Jersey facility over NJDEP's objection, and NJDEP took a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals. In separate judgments, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court erred in permitting abandonment.

Held: A trustee in bankruptcy may not abandon property in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards. Congress did not intend for § 554(a) to pre-empt all state and local laws. A bankruptcy court does not have the power to authorize an abandonment without formulat- ing conditions that will adequately protect the public's health and safety. Pp. 500-507.

(a) Before the 1978 revisions of the Bankruptcy Code, which codified in § 554 the judicially developed rule of abandonment, the trustee's abandonment power had been limited by a judicially developed doctrine intended to protect legitimate state and federal interests. In codifying the rule of abandonment, Congress also presumably included the corollary that a trustee could not exercise his abandonment power in violation of certain state and federal laws. Pp. 500-501.

(b) Neither this Court's decisions nor Congress has granted a trustee in bankruptcy powers that would lend support to a right to abandon property in contravention of state or local laws designed to protect public health or safety. Where the Bankruptcy Code has conferred other special powers upon the trustee and where there was no common-law limitation on such powers, Congress has expressly provided that the trustee's efforts to marshal and distribute the estate's assets must yield to governmental interests in public health and safety. It cannot be assumed that Congress, having placed such limitations upon other aspects of trustees' operations, intended to discard the well-established judicial restriction on the abandonment power. Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 959(b), which commands the trustee to "manage and operate the property in his possession . . . according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State," provides additional evidence that Congress did not intend for the Bankruptcy Code to pre-empt all state laws. Pp. 502-505.

(c) Additional support for restricting the abandonment power is found in repeated congressional emphasis, in other statutes, on the goal of protecting the environment against toxic pollution. Pp. 505-506.

739 F.2d 912 and 739 F.2d 927, affirmed.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 507.

William F. McEnroe, Newark, N.J., for petitioner in No. 84-805.

A. Dennis Terrell, Morristown, N.J., for petitioner in No. 84-801.

Robert Hermann, Albany, N.Y., for respondents in No. 84-805.

Mary Carol Jacobson, Trenton, N.J., for respondent in No. 84-801.

Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

These petitions for certiorari, arising out of the same bankruptcy proceeding, present the question whether § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 554(a),1 authorizes a trustee in bankruptcy to abandon property in contravention of state laws or regulations that are reasonably designed to protect the public's health or safety.

I

Quanta Resources Corporation (Quanta) processed waste oil at two facilities, one in Long Island City, New York, and the other in Edgewater, New Jersey. At the Edgewater facility, Quanta handled the oil pursuant to a temporary operating permit issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), respondent in No. 84-801. In June 1981, Midlantic National Bank, petitioner in No. 84-801, provided Quanta with a $600,000 loan secured by Quanta's inventory, accounts receivable, and certain equipment. The same month, NJDEP discovered that Quanta had violated a specific prohibition in its operating permit by accepting more than 400,000 gallons of oil contaminated with PCB, a highly toxic carcinogen. NJDEP ordered Quanta to cease operations at Edgewater, and the two began negotiations concerning the cleanup of the Edgewater site. But on October 6, 1981, before the conclusion of negotiations, Quanta filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The next day, NJDEP issued an administrative order requiring Quanta to clean up the site. Quanta's financial condition remained perilous, however, and the following month, it converted the action to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7. Thomas J. O'Neill, petitioner in No. 84-805, was appointed trustee in bankruptcy, and subsequently oversaw abandonment of both facilities.

After Quanta filed for bankruptcy, an investigation of the Long Island City facility revealed that Quanta had accepted and stored there over 70,000 gallons of toxic, PCB-contaminated oil in deteriorating and leaking containers. Since the mortgages on that facility's real property exceeded the property's value, the estimated cost of disposing of the waste oil plainly rendered the property a net burden to the estate. After trying without success to sell the Long Island City property for the benefit of Quanta's creditors, the trustee notified the creditors and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey that he intended to abandon the property pursuant to § 554(a). No party to the bankruptcy proceeding disputed the trustee's allegation that the site was "burdensome" and of "inconsequential value to the estate" within the meaning of § 554.

The City and the State of New York (collectively New York), respondents in No. 84-805, nevertheless objected, contending that abandonment would threaten the public's health and safety, and would violate state and federal environmental law. New York rested its objection on "public policy" considerations reflected in applicable local laws, and on the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) that a trustee "manage and operate" the property of the estate "according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated." New York asked the Bankruptcy Court to order that the assets of the estate be used to bring the facility into compliance with applicable law. After briefing and argument, the court approved the abandonment, noting that "[t]he City and State are in a better position in every respect than either the Trustee or debtor's creditors to do what needs to be done to protect the public against the dangers posed by the PCB-contaminated facility." The District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed, and New York appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Upon abandonment, the trustee removed the 24-hour guard service and shut down the fire-suppression system. It became necessary for New York to decontaminate the facility, with the exception of the polluted subsoil, at a cost of about $2.5 million.2

On April 23, 1983, shortly after the District Court had approved abandonment of the New York site, the trustee gave notice of his intention to abandon the personal property at the Edgewater site, consisting principally of the contaminated oil. The Bankruptcy Court approved the abandonment on May 20, over NJDEP's objection that the estate had sufficient funds to protect the public from the dangers posed by the hazardous waste.3

Because the abandonments of the New Jersey and New York facilities presented identical issues, the parties in the New Jersey litigation consented to NJDEP's taking a direct appeal from the Bankruptcy Court to the Court of Appeals pursuant to § 405(c)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F.2d 912 (1984); In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F.2d 927 (1984). Although the court found little guidance in the legislative history of § 554, it concluded that Congress had intended to codify the judge-made abandonment practice developed under the previous Bankruptcy Act. Under that law, where state law or general equitable principles protected certain public interests, those interests were not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
734 cases
  • McInnis v. Phillips (In re Phillips)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 20 d3 Setembro d3 2017
    ...the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Midlantic Nat. Bank v. N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Protection , 474 U.S. 494, 501, 106 S.Ct. 755, 759, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986). In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that in codifying the judicially developed rul......
  • Schaefer v. Town of Victor
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 13 d4 Julho d4 2006
    ...responsible parties to reimburse either the fund or the parties who paid for the cleanup." Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 506, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986). CERCLA's passage ignited controversy over whether responsible persons could seek contributi......
  • Adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:26B, In re
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 d1 Maio d1 1991
    ...re Waste Disposal Agreement, 237 N.J.Super. 516, 529-531, 568 A.2d 547 (App.Div.1990); see also Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey DEP, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986) (DEP regulatory order upheld; right to protect public health and safety by DEP prevailed over Suprema......
  • Kiviti v. Pompeo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 17 d3 Junho d3 2020
    ...interstitial common law element a presumption so universally applied by the states"). Cf. Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. , 474 U.S. 494, 501, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986) (noting that the "normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
11 books & journal articles
  • The Argument for a Federal Rule of Decision for a Bankruptcy Court's Recharacterisation of a Claim as Equity.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 94 No. 4, December 2020
    • 22 d2 Dezembro d2 2020
    ...at 2581 (emphasis added). (147) 1984 Act, 98 Stat. at 374 (emphasis added). (148) See Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 501 (1986) ("The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicia......
  • Courting Equity in Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 94 No. 2, March 2020
    • 22 d0 Março d0 2020
    ...Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333 (1984). See, e.g., Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 514-15 (1986) (Rhenquist, J., dissenting) ("While the Bankruptcy Court is a court of equity, the Bankruptcy Code 'does not authorize freewheelin......
  • ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 d4 Julho d4 2021
    ...with CAA standards are properly considered during penalty phase of litigation). 90. See Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 502 (1986) (noting that Congress did not intend to allow bankruptcy trustees to contravene other laws, including environmental regulations......
  • Environmental Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 d6 Julho d6 2023
    ...See United States v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 128 F.3d 216, 229 (4th Cir. 1997). 95. See Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 502 (1986) (noting Congress did not intend to allow bankruptcy trustees to contravene other laws, including environmental regulations); se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT