Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
1986 U.S. LEXIS 50, 106 S. Ct. 755, 88 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bankruptcy trustee may not abandon property under § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards.
Facts:
- Quanta Resources Corporation (Quanta) processed waste oil at facilities in Long Island City, New York, and Edgewater, New Jersey.
- Midlantic National Bank provided a secured loan to Quanta.
- In June 1981, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) discovered Quanta had accepted over 400,000 gallons of oil contaminated with highly toxic PCBs at its Edgewater site, in violation of its operating permit.
- NJDEP ordered Quanta to cease operations and began negotiations for cleanup.
- Before negotiations concluded, on October 6, 1981, Quanta filed for bankruptcy.
- An investigation then revealed Quanta had also stored over 70,000 gallons of PCB-contaminated oil in deteriorating and leaking containers at its New York facility.
- The estimated cost of disposing of the waste oil, combined with existing mortgages, rendered both properties burdensome and of inconsequential value to the bankruptcy estate.
- Upon seeking to abandon the properties, the trustee, Thomas J. O'Neill, shut down the 24-hour guard service and fire-suppression systems at the sites.
Procedural Posture:
- Quanta Resources Corporation filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The trustee, Thomas J. O'Neill, sought the Bankruptcy Court's approval to abandon the contaminated New York and New Jersey properties under § 554(a).
- New York and the NJDEP objected to the proposed abandonments.
- The Bankruptcy Court approved both abandonments, finding the properties were burdensome to the estate.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed the abandonment of the New York property.
- New York (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and NJDEP (appellant) took a direct appeal to the same court.
- The Third Circuit consolidated the appeals and reversed the lower courts, holding that the trustee could not abandon property in violation of state environmental laws.
- The trustee and Midlantic National Bank (petitioners) were granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code authorize a bankruptcy trustee to abandon property in contravention of state laws or regulations that are reasonably designed to protect public health and safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. A trustee 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. The Court's reasoning is that when Congress enacted § 554(a), it codified the pre-existing, judicially-developed rule of abandonment, which included a well-recognized exception that prevented abandonment in violation of laws intended to protect the public. The Court found no evidence that Congress intended to eliminate this established restriction. This interpretation is supported by other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, such as § 362(b)(5), which creates an exception to the automatic stay for governmental units to enforce their police or regulatory powers. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 959(b), requiring a trustee to manage estate property according to state law, and the strong congressional policy of protecting the environment, bolster the conclusion that the abandonment power is not absolute and must yield to reasonable state laws protecting public safety.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. A trustee's power to abandon property under § 554(a) is not limited by state public health and safety laws. The text of § 554(a) is absolute, permitting abandonment if property is 'burdensome' or of 'inconsequential value,' with no mention of other factors or exceptions. The majority's reliance on a pre-Code 'well-recognized' exception is based on a misreading of three isolated cases that do not constitute settled law. When Congress intended to create exceptions for police or regulatory powers, it did so explicitly, as seen in the automatic stay provisions (§ 362), and its failure to do so in § 554 indicates no such exception was intended. The majority's decision improperly subordinates the Code's goal of equitable distribution to creditors by forcing the estate to expend assets on cleanup, effectively prioritizing the state's financial interest over the claims of other creditors.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant public policy exception to the bankruptcy trustee's abandonment power under § 554(a). By ruling that the trustee's power is not absolute, the Court subordinated the bankruptcy goal of maximizing assets for creditors to the states' police power to protect public health and safety from environmental hazards. This precedent prevents bankrupt estates from using § 554(a) to walk away from contaminated properties, thereby shifting the cleanup costs to the public. The decision creates a new duty for trustees to ensure that abandonment does not create an imminent and identifiable harm, though it leaves open for future litigation how 'onerous' a state's cleanup requirements can be before they impermissibly interfere with the bankruptcy process itself.
