recent developments in cercla

1

Recent Developments in CERCLA: Interpreting Atlantic Research and

Burlington Northern

Suzanne Ilene SchillerManko, Gold, Katcher & Fox LLP401 City Avenue, Suite 500Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004(484) 430-2354

2

What’s New With CERCLA

• CERCLA Actions: § 107 or § 113

• Burlington Northern and Apportionment

• Intervention By Non-Settling PRPs in Consent Decree Proceedings

• Statute of Limitations

© Copyright 2010

3

CERCLA Actions: §107 or §113

Section 107

A. Generally Joint and Several Liability

B. Lower Burden of Proof

C. 6 Year Statute of Limitations

Section 113

A. Contribution by Percentage of Fault

B. Must Prove Proportionate Share

C. 3 Year Statute of Limitations

© Copyright 2010

4

Relevant New Cases

• Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 218 (3d Cir. 2010)

• Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010)

• Chitayat v. Vanderbilt Assocs., No. 03-5314, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26745 (E.D.N.Y. March 22, 2010)

© Copyright 2010

5

Burlington Northern and Apportionment

Liability under 107 is not necessarily joint and several liability; with adequate proof, the Court may apportion liability

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (US 2009)

© Copyright 2010

6

Apportionment or Allocation

Apportionment (§107)

A. Equitable Factors Not Considered

B. Orphan Shares Remain Orphan

Allocation (§113)

A. Equity Plays A Large Role

B. Parties Pay For Orphan Shares

© Copyright 2010

7

New Cases

• Appleton Papers, Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 2009 WL 3931036 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 18, 2009)

• United States v. Saporito, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11033 (E.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2010)

• Evansville Greenway & Remediation Trust v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co., 2009 WL 3163180 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2009)

• Reichhold, Inc. v. U.S. Metals Roofing Co., 2009 WL 180668 (D.N.J. June 22, 2009)

© Copyright 2010

8

Intervention by Non-Settling PRPs in Consent Decree Proceedings

Factors Considered

A. the timeliness of the motion to intervene;

B. whether the proposed intervenor has an interest legally sufficient to support intervention as of right;

C. whether the disposition of the underlying action will impair the proposed intervenor’s ability to protect its interest; and

D. whether the proposed intervenor’s interest is already adequately protected by the existing parties.

© Copyright 2010

9

New Relevant Cases

• United States v. Aerojet Gen. Corp., No. 08-55996, U.S. App. LEXIS 11131 (9th Cir. June 2, 2010)

• United States v. Albert Inv. Co., Inc., 585 F.3d 1386 (10th Cir. 2009)

• United States v. Exxonmobil Corp., No. 08-cv-124 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 1, 2010)

© Copyright 2010

11

Relevant New Cases

• Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204, 218 (3d Cir. 2010)

• Chitayat v. Vanderbilt Assocs., No. 03-5314, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

26745 (E.D.N.Y. March 22, 2010)

© Copyright 2010

recent developments in cercla

Documents