ILNews

Proposed settlement may net $25 million for environmental cleanup

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The proposed settlement filed today in the bankruptcy case involving former General Motors sites could provide nearly $25 million for cleanup of eight Indiana sites with ties to the automaker.

Indiana and 13 other states, along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, filed the proposed settlement of the bankruptcy case with Motors Liquidation Corporation, which used to be called General Motors. When the company filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last year, a new entity – General Motors LLC – was created and purchased many of GM’s auto-making facilities and the name “General Motors.” The old GM was renamed in the process and agreed to use bankruptcy proceedings to remediate or liquidate 89 remaining MLC-owned manufacturing sites that weren’t purchased by the new GM.

The settlement totals nearly $773 million and includes provisions so that the states can oversee and monitor environmental cleanup of the sites by the court-appointed trustee and redevelopment managers, and implement any changes if needed. Cleanup will allow for redevelopment of the old sites for future manufacturers or businesses.

The Indiana sites are in Anderson, Indianapolis, Kokomo, and Muncie.

Now there will be a 3-day public comment period after which the court can accept the agreement. The suit is in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.   
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT