首页> 外文OA文献 >Pennsylvania v. Conroy: Expanded Administrative Expense Priority for State-Funded CERCLA Cleanups Note
【2h】

Pennsylvania v. Conroy: Expanded Administrative Expense Priority for State-Funded CERCLA Cleanups Note

机译:Pennsylvania诉Conroy:扩大州政府资助的CERCLA清理的行政费用优先级注释

摘要

In Pennsylvania v. Conroy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The court held that cleanup expenses incurred by a state environmental agency to remove the threat posed by hazardous wastes should be treated as administrative expenses under the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Third Circuit afforded state response costs high priority when the assets of the bankruptcy estate were distributed. In addition, this case expanded prior decisions by holding that administrative and legal costs incurred by a state agency, usually around 10% of the total costs, should also be awarded to the agency. This expansion is the most important contribution of Conroy. This paper will suggest amending the Bankruptcy Code to include an express administrative expense priority for hazardous waste remediation. Such an amendment is necessary, since neither the courts nor Congress has resolved the issue. Since 1986, however, the trend in the federal circuit courts has been toward affording state cleanup costs a high priority.
机译:在宾夕法尼亚州诉康罗伊案中,美国第三巡回上诉法院维持了美国宾夕法尼亚州西部地区地方法院的裁决。法院认为,根据《破产法》,国家环境机构为消除危险废物造成的威胁而发生的清理费用应视为行政费用。因此,当破产财产的资产被分配时,第三巡回法院将国家响应成本置于高度优先地位。此外,本案通过认为国家机构产生的行政和法律费用通常应占总费用的10%左右,扩大了先前的决定。此项扩展是Conroy最重要的贡献。本文将建议对《破产法》进行修正,以包括对危险废物进行补救的明确的行政费用优先事项。因为法院和国会都没有解决这个问题,所以这种修正是必要的。但是,自1986年以来,联邦巡回法院的发展趋势一直是优先考虑支付州清理费用。

著录项

  • 作者

    Mandelbaum Seth M.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 1995
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号