context: In fact, "unforeseeable" post-reorganization CERCLA claims have been allowed by some courts, either because CERCLA was not in effect at the time of reorganization (obviating any finding of a legal relationship between the claimant and debtor from which even a cognizable contingent bankruptcy claim might arise), or because under particular factual circumstances neither the debtor nor claimant could have reasonably contemplated the existence of an actual or contingent bankruptcy claim.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 139 B.R. 412, 412
citation_a.parenthetical: EPA's bar date extended to file claims for CERCLA response costs fairly within the contemplation of the parties at time of debtor's bankruptcy
citation_a.sentence: Cf. In re Nat’l Gypsum Co., 139 B.R. at 412 (EPA’s bar date extended to file claims for CERCLA response costs fairly within the contemplation of the parties at time of debtor’s bankruptcy).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 133 B.R. 653, 653
citation_b.parenthetical: when governmental agency has not had actual knowledge of the potential claim in time to file claim in bankruptcy proceeding, potential CERCLA liability not' discharged
citation_b.sentence: In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 944 F.2d 164, 167-68 (3d Cir.1991), (cleanup claims allowed where CERCLA enacted after consummation date) cert. denied, — U.S. — , 112 S.Ct. 1262, 117 L.Ed.2d 491 (1992); Sylvester Bros. Dev. Co., 133 B.R. at 653 (when governmental agency has not had actual knowledge of the potential claim in time to file claim in bankruptcy proceeding, potential CERCLA liability not' discharged).