§ 6972(a)(2), has been held not to authorize monetary relief, Meghrig v.
Thus the government's equitable claim, if well founded, as the district court ruled it to be, entitles the government only to require the defendant to clean up the contaminated site at the defendant's expense. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726, 749-50 (8th Cir.1986), and United States v.
Mo.1985), which allowed an award of clean-up costs on the basis of general equitable principles set forth in such cases as Mitchell v.
We rejected that proposition, which does not comport with the language of the Bankruptcy Code-the cost to Apex is not a “right [of the plaintiff] to payment”-in AM Int'l, Inc. Datacard Corp., supra, 106 F.3d at 1348; see also In re CMC Heartland Partners, 966 F.2d 1143, 1145-47 (7th Cir.1992); In re Torwico Electronics, Inc., 8 F.3d 146, 150 (3d Cir.1993); In re Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 805 F.2d 1175, 1186-87 (5th Cir.1986); Penn Terra, Ltd. Department of Environmental Resources, 733 F.2d 267, 278-79 (3d Cir.1984); United States v.
That leaves Apex to argue that the cost of complying with an equitable decree should be deemed a money claim, and hence dischargeable.
The bankruptcy judge's confirmation (approval) of a claim in a Chapter 11 proceeding discharges the debtor from “any debt that arose before the date of” confirmation, 11 U. It estimates that it would have to pay such a company $150 million for the job, though it might be able to recover some of the expense from other contributors to the contamination. That equitable remedies are always orders to act or not to act, rather than to pay, is a myth; equity often orders payment. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 190 F.3d 495, 498-99 (7th Cir.1999); John H.
Stone, Attorney (argued), Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee. The principal question presented by the appeal is unrelated to the district judge's findings and conclusions; it is whether the government's claim to an injunction was discharged in bankruptcy and therefore cannot be renewed in a subsequent lawsuit-this suit. The critical question is the meaning of “gives rise to a right to payment.”Because Apex no longer does refining and as a result has no in-house capability of cleaning up a contaminated site, it would have to hire another company to do the clean up in order to comply with the injunction. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 4.3 (2d ed.1993), are orders to pay, and so would be dischargeable were it not for specific exceptions in the Bankruptcy Code. Taylor, 912 F.2d 989, 992-93 (8th Cir.1990) (en banc). Garrity, 366 F.3d 569, 576-77 (7th Cir.2004); Clair v. But the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is the basis of the government's equitable claim, does not entitle a plaintiff to demand, in lieu of action by the defendant that may include the hiring of another firm to perform a clean up ordered by the court, payment of clean-up costs.
Apex challenges these findings and conclusion, but the challenge has no possible merit. “Debt” is defined as “liability on a claim,” § 101(12), and “claim” as either a “right to payment,” § 101(5)(A), or-the critical language in this case-a “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured.” § 101(5)(B). In re Davis, 3 F.3d 113, 116 (5th Cir.1993); In re Irizarry, 171 B. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 500-01 (7th Cir.2000); Broadnax v. 1 (2d Cir.2005), and orders of equitable restitution, 1 Dan B. Chapski, Ltd., 405 F.3d 582, 586-87 (7th Cir.2005); Bush v. Apex Oil Company appeals from the grant of an injunction, at the behest of the Environmental Protection Agency and on the authority of 42 U. The judge deemed it Apex's legal responsibility to abate this nuisance because the plume was created by an oil refinery owned by a corporate predecessor of Apex. App.2d 171, 198 P.2d 546, 549 (1948)-and your claim to that value is a claim to a right to receive payment and is dischargeable in the seller's bankruptcy. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 714 (7th Cir.2006); Pals v. § 6973 (a part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U. In a 178-page opinion following a 17-day bench trial, the district judge made findings that millions of gallons of oil, composing a “hydrocarbon plume” trapped not far underground, are contaminating groundwater and emitting fumes that rise to the surface and enter houses in Hartford and in both respects are creating hazards to health and the environment. In addition, some equitable remedies, such as backpay orders in employment cases, Doe v. §§ 6901 et seq.), that requires Apex to clean up a contaminated site in Hartford, Illinois. The Act's companion provision authorizing private suits, 42 U. The natural reading of the statutory provision that we quoted is that if the holder of an equitable claim can, in the event that the equitable remedy turns out to be unobtainable, obtain a money judgment instead, the claim is dischargeable. Langbein, “What ERISA Means by ‘Equitable,’ ” 103 Colum. If for example you have a decree of specific performance (a type of injunction and therefore an equitable remedy) that you can't enforce because the property that the decree ordered the defendant to sell you was sold to someone else (from whom, for whatever reason, you cannot recover it), you are entitled to a money judgment for the value of the property, e.g., UFG, LLC v.