Although appellants also asserted that the RCRA and common law claims against them were discharged in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion without specifically addressing the RCRA or common law claims. In Penn Central, the release or threatened release of hazardous substances by the debtor occurred before and during the bankruptcy proceeding, but CERCLA was not enacted until after the consummation date. R.), 3 F.3d 200, 201 (7th Cir.1993) ( “[CERCLA] ․ seek[s] to protect public health and the environment by facilitating the cleanup of environmental contamination and imposing costs on the parties responsible for the pollution.”). If the plan included all of the required provisions; was fair, equitable, and feasible; and did not include provisions inconsistent with Chapter X, the judge was required to confirm the plan. Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of the effect of the Plan's definition of “Claim” on the Discharge is “inconsistent with the provisions of [Chapter X].” 11 U. According to the Bankruptcy Court's analysis of the Plan's effect on the Discharge, the only claims that would have been discharged in the Final Decree were those (1) that arose prior to the filing of the petition, (2) for which a proof of claim was filed before the Bar Date, and (3) that the court ultimately allowed. Nonetheless, the Bankruptcy Court correctly interpreted the Final Decree and Plan to specifically except from discharge and permanent injunction all Administrative Claims. The Virgin Islands District Court has already dismissed the Oil Companies' RCRA claims for this very reason. The District Court affirmed without discussing the non-CERCLA claims. These disputed material facts preclude this Court from determining when the Oil Companies' common law claims arose and therefore, whether they are discharged. The Oil Companies remain free to reassert these claims in any district court that has personal jurisdiction. It did not dismiss the CERCLA claims or the common law claims for strict liability and equitable disgorgement. Chateaugay II arose under the Bankruptcy Code, not the Act.
LEARN MORE The Trust is in the process of liquidating the remaining assets of the Provident entities including pursuing claims brought by the Trust against numerous third parties. Please consult a qualified tax advisor or the IRS regarding Revenue Procedure 2009-20 and other tax advice pertaining to your investment in Provident Royalties, LLC.
A 5% distribution (5% of allowed claim) to the General Fund (all 7,786 investors) participants in November, 2012.
A 7% distribution to the Assigned participants in November, 2013 and the second distribution of 3% to the Assigned participants in April, 2016.
Other questions about the Trust should be directed to the Trust’s administrator, Fiduciary Partners, Inc., at either [email protected] 866-380-9969.
IF YOUR FUNERAL HOME REFUSES TO HONOR THE TERMS OF YOUR BURIAL CONTRACT, PLEASE CONTACT FIDUCIARY PARTNERS AS PROVIDED ABOVE. If Fiduciary Partners is unable to assist you, please contact the Trustee at either [email protected] 855-947-9900.