We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDamon Scammon
Modified about 1 year ago
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Private Litigation Under CERCLA after U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp Seth D. Jaffe December 11, 2008
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cutting the Gordian Knot of Superfund
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. The Evolution of Atlantic Research Pre-Aviall Jurisprudence The Holding in Aviall Aftermath of Aviall The Holding in Atlantic Research Questions left open by Atlantic Research Cases after Atlantic Research
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Pre-Aviall Jurisprudence Section 113(f) authorizes one PRP to sue another for contribution: –Section 113(f)(1): “during or following” a civil action under s. 106 or s. 107(a) –Section 113(f)(3)(B): settlement with the government Prior to s. 113(f), some courts held that s. 107(a) provided a cause of action for a private party to recover voluntarily- incurred response costs and to seek contribution after having been sued. After s. 113(f), several Courts of Appeals directed traffic between s. 113(f) and s. 107(a) To avoid s. 107(a) from swallowing s. 113(f), many courts held that s. 113(f) was the exclusive remedy for PRPs; s. 107(a) was reserved for innocent parties
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. The Holding in Aviall A potentially responsible party who has undertaken a voluntary site cleanup may not bring claims for contribution under s. 113(f)(1) of CERCLA except “during or following” a civil action under s. 106 or s Basis is textual analysis of CERCLA. “During or following” language of s. 113(f)(1) would be “superfluous” if contribution claims could be brought in the absence of a prior civil action. Because plaintiff in Aviall had engaged in voluntary site clean-up, rather than awaiting government compelled clean- up, it was foreclosed from seeking to recover costs in an action under s. 113(f)(1).
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. What’s Implied in Aviall Parties may not bring contribution actions under s. 113(f)(3)(B) unless they really have resolved their CERCLA liability to the United States or a state in an “administrative or judicially approved settlement.” Given strict textual analysis of s. 113(f)(1), it is unlikely that s. 113(f)(3)(B) would be read expansively.
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. The Holding in Atlantic Research Distinguished s. 107(a) cost recovery from s. 113(f) contribution claims “Plain language” of Section 107(a) permits cost recovery by a private party that has voluntarily incurred direct clean-up costs Section 113(f) authorizes a contribution action by party that has paid money to a third party to satisfy a settlement agreement or court judgment pursuant to s. 106 or s. 107(a) In Footnote 6, the court explicitly left open the issue of whether expenses incurred pursuant to consent decrees can be recovered under s. 113(f) or s. 107(a)
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Questions after Atlantic Research Footnote 6 – Are response costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree recoverable under 107(a) or 113(f)? –Atlantic Research explicitly did not decide this question –Such costs were not incurred voluntarily –Claims for response costs would not seem to be subject to section 113, because response costs are not payments to third parties
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Questions after Atlantic Research, cont. Joint and several liability? –Atlantic Research “assumed without deciding that 107(a) provides for joint and several liability” –A PRP can file a 113(f) counterclaim for contribution to ensure fair apportionment –Who has burden of proof?
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Questions after Atlantic Research What about the Settlement Bar under 113(f) –Can a PRP that voluntarily undertakes clean-up efforts pursue a 107(a) cost recovery claim against PRPs that have settled with the government, given that the settlement bar only protects against suits for contribution? –If court allows 107 actions for response costs following consent decrees, plaintiff could argue that the contribution counterclaim would be barred by section 113 contribution protection
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cases after Atlantic Research Footnote 6 –Claims under section 107 or 113 following plaintiff settlement with government –NY v. Solvent Chemical company (W.D.N.Y. 2008) Court allowed plaintiff to assert s. 107 claims relating to response costs incurred following settlement –Niagara Mohawk Power v. Conrail (N.D. NY 2008) Court precludes s. 107 claim based on response costs incurred pursuant to state consent order –Champion Laboratories v. Metex Corp. (D.N.J. 2008) Allows assertion of claim under s. 113(f)(3)(B) in connection with payment to government for NRD. Liberal in allowing pleading of various theories under s. 107 and s. 113
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cases after Atlantic Research What is voluntary? Does it matter? – Reichhold v. U.S. Metals Refining Company (D.N.J. 2008) -- Costs incurred pursuant to a negotiation with NJDEP are voluntary –Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper (E.D. Wis. 2008) – Proper focus is not whether payments were voluntary. Question is whether a s. 113 claim is available. “107(a) is available to recovery payments only in circumstances where s. 113(f) is not.” (Court notes that payments made under government duress could hardly be described as “voluntary.”)
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cases after Atlantic Research What settlements trigger s. 113 claims? –ITT Indus. v. BorgWarner (6 Cir.) - Administrative Order by Consent with the EPA – Settlement with EPA does not trigger s. 113 claim, because it did not resolve plaintiff’s liability to EPA, where EPA reserved right to assert further claims if EPA determined that plaintiff’s work plan was inadequate
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cases after Atlantic Research Joint and Several Liability Reichhold v. U.S. Metals Refining Company (D.N.J. 2008) – Liability is joint and several unless defendant can prove divisibility NY v. Solvent Chemical company (W.D.N.Y. 2008) – “[R]egardless of what section of CERCLA is involved, it will make every effort to fairly and equitably apportion liability” Agere Sys. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp. (E.D. Pa ) – Very lengthy allocation decision. Court noted difference between claims under s. 107 and s. 113, but then stated that it would determine “equitable shares”, without determining whether it was acting under s. 107 or s. 113.
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cases after Atlantic Research Where Do We Go From Here? – Is s. 107 available for response costs incurred following consent decree? A betting man would say yes -Is liability joint and several? A betting man will punt, but pray that he is not a defendant to a private suit under s Will the s. 113 settlement bar preclude s. 107 claims against either -3 rd party defendants who settled? -The s. 107 plaintiff? A betting man says …
© 2008 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Cases after Atlantic Research One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider.
Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Slide 6- 1 CERCLA Chapter 6 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act “CERCLA”
Superfund. Introduction – passed in 1980 after Love Canal – reauthorized and amended in 1986 (SARA)
Allocation of Liability at a Sediment Cleanup Site by Joan P. Snyder, Esq. Stoel Rives LLP (503)
© 2009 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States Changing the Landscape of CERCLA Liability June.
Environmental Law Section Lessons Learned From Recent Environmental Bankruptcy Cases Andrea Madigan, US EPA Region 8 January 26, 2010.
Law I Chapter 18. Torts: A Civil Wrong Pages
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Mon. Sept. 24. removal 1441(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district.
Mon. Nov. 25. claim preclusion issue preclusion.
Historical Overview Two or more persons engaged in unlawful enterprise are jointly and severally liable. No apportionment allowed unless factual basis.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
Chapter 22 Liability, Agency Problems, Fraud, And Ethics in Real Estate Finance © OnCourse Learning.
Portland Harbor Superfund Site. Overview of Statutes CERCLA - Federal law –Provides EPA with authority for clean up –Provides for liability, compensation,
Presented by: Attorney Laurence W. Getman Historical Overview Two or more persons engaged in unlawful enterprise are jointly and severally liable. No.
“FOLLOW THE LEADER” A BRIEF HISTORY OF “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” CLAUSES – THE U.S. VIEW Prepared for: AIDA Word Congress September 30, 2014 Prepared By:
TOPIC 7: SHAREHOLDERS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES….contd.
A [Drunk] Wolfe at the Door (handling covered combined with uncovered claims) Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP Peter J. Speaker, Esquire Joshua J. Bovender,
Thurs. Sept. 20. federal subject matter jurisdiction diversity and alienage jurisdiction.
1 Everything about CERCLA You Were Afraid to Ask: Superfund Basics for Environmental Business Lawyers Presented by: Environmental, Energy and Resources.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation Lina Carreras.
Legal Liability Regarding the BoRit Asbestos Superfund Site Community Advisory Group Meeting dated March 3, 2010 Presenters Timothy J. Bergere, Partner,
Confidentiality & Privilege Kristen Blankley Assistant
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 18 Environmental Law.
Chapter 4. Litigation: The process of bringing, maintaining, and defending a lawsuit Pretrial litigation process can be divided into: Pleadings.
Chapter 4 Resolving Disputes: Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Options McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
The Modernization Commission's Approach To Illinois Brick and Indirect Purchaser Litigation Conference on International Cartels September 8, 2006 Jonathan.
Mediation with the Information Commissioner’s Office Cory Martinson Appeals and Policy Analyst 25 November 2009.
Economics of the Legal Process. Car Accident I hit you with my car and cause $10,000 in damages We both believe that there’s an 80% chance I’ll be.
Chapter 4 Resolving Disputes: Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Options Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction.
1 Legal Developments Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials April 25, 2013 John E. Price Carnahan, Evans, Cantwell & Brown, P.C
Pulling a Rabbit Out of a Hat: Navigating the nuances of Med-Pay, Health Insurance, ERISA Plan and Medicare recovery in work comp cases and related third.
Chapter 3 Alternative, Judicial, and E- Dispute Resolution.
16.1 Civil Cases. Civil Lawsuits In civil cases the plaintiff- the party bringing a lawsuit- claims to have suffered a loss and usually seeks damages.
© 2007 Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved. What is a Civil Case?
A WHOLE NEW WORLD OF SETTLING CASES: PART II Donald Patrick Eckler December 23, 2013.
B O S T O N H A R T F O R D N E W L O N D O N S T A M F O R D G R E E N W I C H N E W Y O R K Case Law Updates on Lender and Fiduciary Liability Presented.
Thurs. Apr. 21. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (U.S. Apr. 19, 2016)
Forgotten But Not Lost: Using Insurance Archeology to Fund Brownfields Development Tina Richards Baker & Daniels LLP Indianapolis,
1 Agenda for 24th Class Name plates out Subject matter jurisdiction –Federal Question Jurisdiction –Settlement Next Class -- Settlement –Settlement Handout.
Chapter 16.1 Civil Cases. Types of Civil Lawsuits In civil cases the plaintiff – the party bringing the lawsuit – claims to have suffered a loss and usually.
Chapter 4 Alternative, Judicial, and E- Dispute Resolution.
Litigation and Alternatives for Settling Civil Disputes CHAPTER FIVE.
1 “For Better or For Worse” State Bar of Arizona American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers January 28, 2010 Rules Update Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure,
Brown: Legal Terminology, 5 th ed. © 2008 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All Rights Reserved. Legal Terminology Fifth Edition by Gordon.
COPYRIGHT LAW 2003 Professor Fischer CLASS of April THE LAST CLASS!!!
Securities Act - Liability Section 11 Damages Negative causation Indemnification (last updated 19 Feb 13)
YOU BETTER PAY UP: Illinois’ Prompt Pay Statute Donald Patrick Eckler August 6, 2015 Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago,
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.