Document: 469 U.S. 274 105 S.Ct. 705 83 L.Ed.2d 649 OHIOv.KOVACS, dba B & W Enterprises et al. No. 83-1020. Argued Oct. 10, 1984. Decided Jan. 9, 1985. Syllabus Petitioner State of Ohio obtained an injunction in state court ordering respondent and other defendants to clean up a hazardous waste disposal site. When the was not complied with, appointment receiver, who directed take possession defendants' property assets implement injunction. The receiver took site but had completed his tasks when filed personal bankruptcy petition. Seeking require part respondent's postbankruptcy income be applied receiver's unfinished tasks, motion discover assets. At request, Bankruptcy Court stayed these proceedings. then complaint seeking declaration that obligation under dischargeable because it "debt" or "liability on claim" within meaning Code. For purposes, debt is liability claim. Section 101(4)(B) Code pertinent defines claim as "right equitable remedy for breach performance if such gives rise right payment, whether reduced judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, unsecured." ruled against State, did District Court. Appeals affirmed, holding essentially sought from only monetary payment required Held: 1. fact Army Corps Engineers, using funds recovered those concerns generated wastes question, has removed does render case moot. still stake outcome based its removal satisfy all since ground remains permeated with toxic materials must avoid further pollution. Pp. 277-278. 2. Respondent's subject discharge Contrary State's contention, there no indication language § cannot unless arises contractual arrangement. Moreover, apparent Congress desired broad definition "claim" knew how limit application provision contracts do so. Where clear what wanted after money defray cleanup costs, err concluding order been converted into pay money, bankruptcy. 278-283. 717 F.2d 984 (CA6 1983), affirmed. E. Dennis Muchnicki, Columbus, Ohio, petitioner. Kathryn A. Oberly, Washington, D.C., United States amicus curiae by special leave David Caldwell, San Francisco, Cal., respondents. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 William Kovacs A subsequently appointed. Still later, petition question before us whether, circumstances present here, Kovacs' 2 * chief executive officer stockholder Chem-Dyne Corp., which business entities operated industrial Hamilton, Ohio. In 1976, sued polluting public waters, maintaining nuisance, causing fish kills, violation environmental laws. 1979, both individual capacity behalf Chem-Dyne, signed stipulation judgment entry settling lawsuit. Among things, enjoined pollution air forbade bringing additional onto site, remove specified property, ordered $75,000 compensate injury wildlife. 3 failed comply their obligations corporate cleaning petition.1 4 develop basis requiring task receivership, current requested stay proceedings, did.2 also "debt," "claim," addition, trustee restrain him pursuing any action recover hands receiver. re Kovacs, 29 B.R. 816 (SD 1982), Sixth Circuit statute. (1983). We granted certiorari determine dischargeability affirmative entered him. 465 1078, 104 1438, 79 759 (1984). II 5 alleges wastes, he expenses, owed States, State. urges therefore argues moot barrels surface site; said itself waters avoided. perceive nothing feigned frivolous about submission. Sibron v. New York, 392 40, 57, 88 1889, 1899, 20 917 (1968). surely this case, Parole Comm'n Geraghty, 445 388, 397, 100 1202, 1209, 63 479 (1980), our view proceed merits. III 6 Except nine kinds debts saved 11 U.S.C. 523(a), discharges debtor arose 727(b). It claimed here fell categories excepted 523. Rather, submits at law. 7 101(11). defined 101(4) follows: 8 "(4) 'claim' means— 9 "(A) liquidated, unliquidated, legal, equitable, unsecured; 10 "(B) issue 101(4)(B). purposes section, little doubt law form cleanup. argues, however, secured (1) default statute, ordinary commercial contract concededly would give claim; (2) are persuaded either 12 There statute resorted courts enforce laws negative cease polluting, sum recompense damage done population. Each one alleged law; bankruptcy, freely concedes, makes sense assert statutory violation, likewise constitute purposes. Furthermore, "claim"3 so.4 Other provisions cited refute, rather than support, strained interpretation.5 13 below found substance submission renders 727. H.R. 8200 originally drafted have deemed even payment.6 initial Senate narrower,7 compromise version, 101(4), finally adopted. key phrases "equitable remedy," "breach performance," payment" defined. See 101. Nor differences between successive versions explained. legislative history offers statement sponsors Reform Act respect scope provision: 14 "Section . intended cause liquidation estimation contingent rights may alternative result will susceptible being discharged example, some specific satisfied event refused; event, creditor entitled proceeding title 11."8 15 think rulings were wholly consistent history, sparse is. follows, B.R., 818: "There suggestion plaintiff defendant can money. conclude owes we concluded dischargeable."9 16 primarily bound saw error Appeals' prior more personally perform imposed To hold otherwise, explained, "would subvert Congress' intention debtors fresh start." App. JA-16. rejecting insistence to, attempting enforce, payment: 17 "Ohio suggest capable caused. claims perform, gave total control over later used try post-petition employment status attempt levy future earnings. reality, type now interested effectuate 18 19 "The impact realize upon concealed legerdemain linguistic gymnastics. wrongfully released waters. He properly except paying transferring own financial resources. acknowledged steadfast pursuit performance." F.2d, 987-988. As understand it, held that, circumstances, duty obligation. 21 disturb judgment. obliged But so, prosecute bring civil criminal contempt nonexempt well Kovacs. wise course been, dispossessed authority divested might property. latter action. Although "cooperate" disabled receivership taking charge carrying out What costs. oral argument Court, counsel conceded appointed, Tr. Oral Arg. 19-20. Had furnished necessary funds, seems satisfied. On facts site,10 fault bankruptcy.11 IV 22 emphasize decided. First, shield prosecution having violated performing Second, fine penalty 523(a)(7) forecloses Third, address legal consequences taken appointed designated usual duties trustee.12 Fourth, premises conduct contribute bankruptcy; address, Appeals, end. Finally, anyone site—whether another liquidated abandons vendee Plainly, person firm maintain pollute refuse source conditions. comes us, seeks 23 Affirmed. 24 O'CONNOR, concurring. 25 I join Court's agree 727 write separately petitioner's concern impede enforcing 26 say excuse without recourse order. Because "Congress generally left determination bankrupt's estate law," Butner 440 48, 54, 99 914, 918, 59 136 (1979), classification Ohio's interest lien itself, perfected security interest, merely unsecured depends That classification—a us—generally determines priority relative creditors. Cf. 545 (trustee liens circumstances). Thus, protect enforcement giving judgments claims. 27 avoids potentially adverse corporation, individual. Chapter Code, transfers distribution among creditors cognizable claims, dissolves corporation usually ceases exist, earnings could utilized fulfill situation prebankruptcy 28 reasons, today viewed hostile reorganization 1101 seq., 7. 1112. hearing effort collect automatic provision. 362. well. ruling trying filing barred. 681 454 (1982). court's view, while 362(b) allowed governmental units continue police powers through mandatory injunctions, denied them power efforts. declare certiorari, vacated remanded consider dispute 459 1167, 103 810, 74 1010 far advised, remand. H.R.Rep. 95-595, p. 309 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1978, 5787, 6266; S.Rep. 95-989, (1978), 5807. R. Levin K. Klee, Collier ¶ 101-. 04, 101-16.4 (15th ed. 1984). 365 (assumption rejection executory leases). created exemptions involving penalties forfeitures unit, 523(a)(7), embezzlement larceny. 523(a)(4). If committed larceny embezzlement, damages restitution law, resulting clearly nondischargeable 8200, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 309-310 (House Committee print 1977), reported September 8, 1977. S. 2266, 299 introduced October 31, 124 Cong.Rec. 32393 (1978) (remarks Rep. Edwards); see id., 33992 Sen. DeConcini). More fully stated, observations were: "What defendant's Judgment Entry, dispose and/or premises. successful able wages, prevented Prior Decision, closed 362 interpreted Decision longer force. parties crystallized simple fashion, stoutly insisting just identified obligation, says problem arises, course, stated Essentially reason Yet discussing background Entry expected generate sufficient ongoing clean-up. judicial notice discovery earnings, matter dealt purpose levying technique dischargeable." 818. advised time although contemplating terminating receivership. 4, 56-57. difficult tell exactly owned 500 Ford Boulevard formally abandon seek it. Id., 55, 58. relies Penn Terra, Ltd. Department Environmental Resources, 733 267 (CA3 There, Third apply bankrupt compliance This statutes suit bankrupt. suits regulatory bankrupt—what involved matter. commencement creates which, limited exceptions, consists debtor's wherever located. 541. trustee, promptly cases, charged collecting reducing accountable 704. custodian deliver custody concludes better served permitting 543. After hearing, burdensome inconsequential value estate. 554. Such abandonment possessory 92 (1978). Property scheduled administered abandoned. 554(c). administering shortly worth costs undoubtedly sell net value, buyer whatever less cost cleanup, likely owner, extent ability.

Category: 7