PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties
|
|
- Logan Fisher
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Presenting a 90 Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference/Webinar with Live, Interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Td Today s faculty features: Beverlee E. Silva, Partner, Alston & Bird, Atlanta Linda W. Tape, Partner, Husch Blackwell Sanders, St. Louis, Mo. Glenn A. Harris, Partner, Ballard Spahr, Cherry Hill, N.J. The audio portion of the conference must be accessed via the telephone. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.
2 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: Close the notification box In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the blue icon beside the box to send
3 Tips for Optimal Quality Sound Quality For this program, you must listen via the telephone by dialing and entering your PIN when prompted. There will be no sound over the web connection. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. You may also send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
4 CERCLA: The state of the law before Aviall and Atlantic Research Beverlee E. Silva Alston + Bird LLP beverlee.silva@alston.com
5 How can a PRP recover its clean-up costs? CERCLA provides three ways: Section 107(a) provides for direct suit against other PRPs. Section 113(f)(1) allows contribution action against other PRPs when the party has incurred response costs pursuant to an action under Section 106 or 107. Section 113(f)(3) allows contribution action against other PRPs when the party has settled its liability with a State or the United States. 5
6 Contribution: Implied, then Express No contribution right under CERCLA initially. Courts implied a contribution ti right under Section 107. Enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986 added Section 113, providing an express contribution right. 6
7 Courts begin directing traffic Enactment of Section 113 led courts to direct traffic between the causes of action in Sections 107 and 113 PRPs were directed to Section 113, even in the absence of an action under Section 106 or 107. Innocent parties were sent to Section 107. As a result, PRPs were limited it to actions for contribution. Only innocent parties could avail themselves of Section
8 Most of the traffic goes to Section 113 PRPs could not seek joint and several liability against other PRPs; only contribution. Section 113 was interpreted broadly, to include costs incurred voluntarily or pursuant to a settlement agreement. Section 107 was limited to a narrow class of private parties. 8
9 The Supreme Court puts up a roadblock The issue in Aviall: Whether a private party who has not been sued under section 106 or Section 107 of CERCLA C may nevertheless obtain contribution under Section 113(f)(1) from other liable parties. The Supreme Court answered this question with a no. 9
10 The Supreme Court puts up a roadblock The Supreme Court held that, under the plain language of CERCLA, a Section 113(f)(1) action may be brought during or following an action under Section 106 or Section 107, but not before. The United States advocated this position in its amicus brief in Aviall. 10
11 The Supreme Court puts up a roadblock After Aviall, a PRP could not seek contribution from other PRPs in the absence of a suit under Section 106 or 107. PRPs conducting a voluntary clean-up could not recover from other PRPs at all. The United States benefited from the Aviall decision; the government could effectively prevent contribution actions against it by not filing suit under Sections 106 or
12 Setting the stage for Atlantic Research Aviall made it impossible for a PRP who voluntarily cleans up to recover from other PRPs. This restriction of CERCLA actions was arguably at odds with the purpose of the statute. 12
13 Atlantic Research Factual background: Atlantic Research Corporation voluntarily cleaned up a site where it had conducted d work for the Department of Defense, then sought recovery of its costs under Section 107. The United States filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Atlantic Research, as a PRP, could not bring suit under Section 107. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there was no textual basis for limiting Section 107 relief to innocent parties. 13
14 Impact of Atlantic Research Viewed through the lens of Aviall, Atlantic Research makes sense. PRPs who clean up voluntarily now have a cause of action against other PRPs. Consistent with Supreme Court emphasis on the text of CERCLA 14
15 Impact of Atlantic Research Footnote 6 of the decision: PRPs can incur costs pursuant to a consent decree following a suit under 106 or 107(a). These compelled costs could be recoverable under Section 113(f), Section 107(a), (), or both. Not clear whether PRPs conducting clean-ups pursuant to a consent decree can sue other PRPs under Section 107 or Section 113, or both. Case law from the lower courts: Generally finding that if a PRP meets the Section 113 criteria, that is the sole remedy. Part of the rationale is that such actions are equitable at heart. 15
16 Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004). United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007). Glenn A. Harris, Esq
17 Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 543 U.S. 157 (2004). 17
18 Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. Plaintiff, Aviall Services Inc., bought property p from defendant, Cooper Industries, Inc. Aviall later discovered environmental contamination on the property and voluntarily remediated Aviall brought a civil action against Cooper, seeking recovery of fc Cooper s equitable itbl share of environmental tl response costs - One of Aviall s several claims was ultimately brought under CERCLA section 113(f)(1) 18
19 Cooper s Motion for Summary Judgment Cooper argued that Aviall could not state a claim under section 113(f)(1) because Aviall had not been sued under section 106 or District i Court agreed, and dismissed i d the claim - 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, then reversed the dismissal by a divided en banc panel vote The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claim by the lower courts 19
20 Supreme Court s Holding Private party who has not first been sued under section 106 or 107 cannot seek contribution under section 113(f)(1) from other potentially responsible parties ( PRPs ) for remediation costs it incurred Supreme Court based its decision on the plain language of section 113(f)(1): ()( ) - Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under section 9607(a) of this title, during or following any civil action under section 9606 or under section 9607(a). (emphasis added) 20
21 United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. 551 U.S. 128 (2007). 21
22 United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. Plaintiff, Atlantic Research Corp., leased property p from US Department of Defense In the course of work done for the U.S., Atlantic contaminated the site, then voluntarily cleaned it Atlantic brought a civil action against the US under CERCLA section 107 to recover share of costs incurred in voluntarily cleaning up contaminated site 22
23 U.S. Moves to Dismiss U.S. argued that section 107(a) does not allow PRPs (such as Atlantic) to recover costs - District Court granted dismissal - 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, stating that section 113(f) does not provide the exclusive route by which PRPs may recover cleanup costs Supreme Court affirmed judgment of the Court of Appeals 23
24 Supreme Court s Holding PRPs who have voluntarily incurred remediation costs may bring cost recovery action against other PRPs under section 107(a)(4)(B) The decision harmonized section 107(a) cost recovery and 113(f) contribution: - 107(a) permits cost recovery (as distinct from contribution) by a private party that has itself incurred clean-up costs.... [C]osts of reimbursement to another person pursuant to a legal judgment or settlement t are recoverable only under 113(f). (emphasis added) While recognizing possible scenario, Court declined to decide whether hth costs of work kdone pursuant tto consent tdecree under section 106 or 107 (compelled costs) are recoverable under section 113(f), 107(a), or both 24
25 Recovery of Cleanup Costs under CERCLA 107/113, Which Section Applies? Linda W. Tape Husch Blackwell LLP com Husch Blackwell LLP 25
26 The Post Atlantic Research World of CERCLA Atlantic Research clearly redefined cost recovery actions but left a number of issues open. Key insights from Atlantic Research for analysis of issues and cases going forward: The language g of the statute is the starting point of any analysis. Sections 107 and 113 provide clearly distinct remedies that can also be overlapping. 26
27 Section 107 Language Section 107(a) Liability The statute sets out who is liable in 107(a)(1)-(4) ) ( ) and then states in 107(a)(4) to whom those parties are liable and what they are liable for: A. To the government for all costs of a removal or remedial action not inconsistent with the NCP and, B. To any other person for any other costs of response incurred which costs are consistent with the NCP. Husch Blackwell LLP 27
28 Section 113(f) Language Section 113(f) Contribution (1) Contribution. Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under 107(a) during or following any civil action under 106 or under 107(a). (2) Settlement. A person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the settlement. 28
29 Section 113(f) Language, Cont d (3) Persons not party to settlement. (A) (B) A person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State for some or all of a response action or for some or all of the costs of such action in an administrative or judicially approved settlement may seek contribution from any person who is not party to a settlement referred to in paragraph (2). 29
30 Section 113(g) SOL Provisions (g) Period in Which Action May Be Brought... (2) Actions for recovery of costs. An initial action for recovery of the costs referred to in section 107 must be commenced (A) for removal action, within 3 years after completion of the removal action,.; and (B) for a remedial action, within 6 years after initiation of physical on-site construction of the remedial action 30
31 Section 113(g) SOL Provisions, Cont d (3) Contribution. No action for contribution for any response costs or damages may be commenced more than 3 years after (A) the date of judgment in any action under this Act for recovery of such costs or damages, or (B) the date of an administrative order under section 122(g) (relating to de minimis settlements) or 122(h) (relating to cost recovery settlements) or entry of a judicially approved settlement with respect to such costs or damages. 31
32 Costs Clearly Recoverable Under Either 107 or 113 Claims that must be brought under 107: Costs incurred in cleanup undertaken without EPA oversight or involvement. Claims that must be brought under 113: Claims against 3 rd parties for government incurred costs where the government has conducted a cleanup and sued your client for cost recovery. 32
33 Issue: Work under an AOC and/or UAO For example, Berstein v. Bankert, 2010 WL (Sept. 29, 2010 S.D. IN) The involved Consent Orders required cleanup work. Court focused on the fact that the orders were not voluntary and thus the Plaintiffs claims were in contribution. Orders contained covenants not to sue by U.S. upon completion of work. Two of the orders contained contribution protection provisions. The court expressed concern that the defendants would not be able to counter claim for contribution based on the contribution protection in the Orders. 33
34 Issue: Work under an AOC and/or UAO See also: Agere Systems v. Advanced Environmental Technology, 602 F. 3d 204 (3 rd Cir. 2010) A party may bring a 107 claim when it makes payment to a trust fund used to cleanup a site which fund was set up pursuant to a Consent Decree signed by other PRPs. Pgs A key point for the court was that Agere would be barred from bringing its claims if a 107 claim was denied because 113 was unavailable to it. In what is a confusing turn, the court also held that the PRPs who signed the Consent Decree to do work, and received contribution protection, could not bring a 107 claim because it would prevent the defendant from bringing a 113 claim. Pg Thus, the focus was not on the language of the statute, but on trying to juggle protecting defendants from joint and several liability under
35 Issue: Work under an AOC and/or UAO Question: Did the Berstein and Agere courts fail to properly take into account the plain language of Section 107 with their misplaced concern for the contribution protection the Plaintiffs received in the Consent Orders? Nothing in 107 mandates joint and several liability. Thus, could the defendants have argued against imposition of 100% of the cleanup costs against them under 107? Divisibility arguments also exists. 35
36 Issue: Work under an AOC and/or UAO Consider: Pharmacia v. Clayton Chemical, 382 F.Supp.2d 1079 (S.D. Ill. 2005) decided shortly after Aviall but before Atlantic Research. The case involved contribution claims brought for costs incurred under an AOC (requiring RI/FS work) and a UAO (requiring remedial work). The court found that despite the fact that the AOC contained contribution protection, because the AOC did not state that it was a settlement and it used the stipulated penalties from 106 rather than 122(d)(3), it was not a settlement and thus a 113 contribution claim was dismissed. The court found that the UAO was not a civil action (i.e. a judicial proceeding) and thus 113 contribution claims could not be brought for costs incurred under the UAO. 36
37 Issue: Work under an AOC and/or UAO What happens when a PRP settles in a Consent Decree with the US for EPA past costs, and undertakes work under an AOC or UAO? The court in U.S. v. Pharmacia, 2010 WL (S.D. Ill. May 12, 2010) found that a 107 claim was available. Note that the court had held in an earlier proceeding in the same case that the Cross-Claim Plaintiffs did not have a contribution claim. 37
38 Voluntary vs. Required Work under Consent Orders or Decrees Berstein v. Bankert focused on the fact that the Consent Order signing PRPs did not undertake the work required in the orders voluntarily. Note that no language in 107 requires that the costs be incurred voluntarily. The court in Ashland v. Gar, 2010 WL (D. RI. July 22, 2010) agreed when it said clearly the focus of the Supreme Court s analysis [in Atlantic Research] was on the type of recovery sought, not on the voluntariness of the cleanup or the innocence of that party bringing i the action. Pg. *
39 Informal Agency Agreements Ashland v. Gar, 2010 WL (D. RI, July 22, 2010) Defendants entered two Consent Decrees for work at the site with EPA. Contribution protection in the agreements did not cover claims such as those brought by Ashland for groundwater. Ashland s costs incurred pursuant to an informal agreement with a regulatory agency (no EPA direct civil action or administrative action) were held to be 107 claims. The court noted that the Consent Decrees the defendants entered with EPA (with the contribution protection language) did not prevent these claims. At *16. 39
40 Work Under State Consent Orders Cleanup costs incurred undertaking work pursuant to a state consent order. The Court in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron, 596 F3d 112, 124 (2 nd Cir. 2010) held that claims based on a state consent order that resolved CERLCA liability had to be filed under 113.). If work is done under a state voluntary cleanup program, then 107 is available. Mervis v PPG, (March 30, 2010, S. D. Ind.). 40
41 Additional Issues for Discussion Are PRPs that bring 107 claims entitled to impose joint and several liability on third parties and thus impose the orphan share onto such third parties (defendants)? What happens to a PRP that pays money to a work performing PRP? Can it bring a contribution claim against a 3 rd PRP under 113? Note that such a PRP has not incurred any of its own costs (so it has no 107 claim) and it has not been involved in a court action. 41
42 Additional Issues for Discussion What happens when a PRP enters a Consent Decree that includes both payments to EPA for past costs and requirements for the PRP to undertake work? Is this the scenario that t the Supreme Court was referencing regarding the overlap of 107 and 113? Or is this clearly a judicially approved settlement and thus limited to 113 contribution claims? 42
43 Additional Issues for Discussion What if a private party has begun a "voluntary" cleanup incurring significant costs and then is sued by the United States? Does the government lawsuit preclude the private party from pursuing a 107 claim for the pre-suit costs? Does the government suit enable the private party to file a 113 for the pre-suit costs? 43
44 Additional Issues for Discussion Burdens of Proof whose burden applies when? At what point in litigation can a defendant who has been sued under 107 bring contribution claims against 3 rd parties? Should parties that are willing to do work that the government has determined needs to be performed at a site refuse to enter a Consent Decree or other settlement with the government and rather wait for a UAO to be issued so that the party can be in the best position to recover its costs under 107? 44
PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 1pm
More informationSolving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles Lessons From Recent Decisions for Timing in Superfund and Environmental Litigation
More informationPRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationPRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2015 1pm Eastern
More informationNotwithstanding a pair of recent
Preserving Claims to Recoup Response Costs During Brownfields Redevelopment Part I By Mark Coldiron and Ivan London Notwithstanding a pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, the contours of cost recovery
More informationPRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2018 1pm Eastern
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the Unite Statee. MORRISON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Petitioner, DRAVO CORPORATION, Respondent.
S{~pteme Court, U.S. F!I_ED 201! No. 11-30 OFFICE OF 3"HE CLERK IN THE Supreme Court of the Unite Statee MORRISON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Petitioner, Vo DRAVO CORPORATION, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ
More informationSupreme Court Clarifies Rights of PRPs to Recover Cleanup Costs from Other PRPs, and the United States
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS JUNE 13, 2007 Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of PRPs to Recover Cleanup Costs from Other PRPs, and the United States By Steven Jones Putting an end to two-and-a-half years of uncertainty
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
_._o No. 12- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SOLUTIA INC. AND PHARMACIA CORP., v. Petitioners, MCWANE, INC. et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 13-568 In the Supreme Court of the United States PATRICIA A. BANKERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JONATHAN W. BANKERT, SR., JONATHAN W. BANKERT, ROBERT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 551 U. S. (2007) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationSummary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation Weighing the Risk of Showing Your Hand, Leveraging Discovery Tools and Timing,
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In House Counsel Depositions: Navigating Complex Legal and Ethical Issues Responding to Deposition Notices and Subpoenas and Protecting Privileged
More informationCOMPELLED COSTS UNDER CERCLA: INCOMPATIBLE REMEDIES, JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY, AND TORT LAW
COMPELLED COSTS UNDER CERCLA: INCOMPATIBLE REMEDIES, JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY, AND TORT LAW By Luis Inaraja Vera* Introduction... 395 I. From the Origins of CERCLA to the Current Framework Adopted by
More informationRecent Developments Regarding CERCLA Claims and Their Disallowance Under Bankruptcy Code Section 502(e)(1)(B) Milissa A. Murray, Bingham McCutchen LLP
Recent Developments Regarding CERCLA Claims and Their Disallowance Under Bankruptcy Code Section 502(e)(1)(B) Milissa A. Murray, Bingham McCutchen LLP What the Supreme Court giveth, the Second and Third
More informationUNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH: OF SETTLEMENT AND VOLUNTARILY INCURRED COSTS
UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH: OF SETTLEMENT AND VOLUNTARILY INCURRED COSTS Mark Yeboah* INTRODUCTION In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
More informationApproximately a year and half
Spring 2009 Volume 20 Number 2 Section of Litigation American Bar Association Environmental Litigation Committee CERCLA in the Post-Atlantic Research World: Some Emerging Questions By Michael K. Murphy
More informationPatent Reexamination: The New Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings
presents Patent Reexamination: The New Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive
More informationDeposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses Preparing the Deposition Notice, Questioning the Corporate Representative, Raising and Defending Objections,
More informationEnvironmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Environmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws Addressing Pre- vs. Post-Petition
More informationSettling Private CERCLA Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Settling Private CERCLA Litigation Navigating Contribution Protection, Determining Order of Settlement, and Avoiding Unintended Consequences THURSDAY,
More informationDefeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims Evaluating Effectiveness of Strategy in Light of Differing Lower
More informationChallenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent
More informationU.S. v. 718 W. Wilson Ave., Glendale, Cal., 91203
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2011 Case Summaries U.S. v. 718 W. Wilson Ave., Glendale, Cal., 91203 Matt Jennings Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationJournal of Environmental and Sustainability Law
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 14 Issue 3 Summer 2007 Article 5 2007 Reimbursement for Voluntarily Cleaning up Your Mess? The Seventh
More informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing
More informationExpert Witnesses: Leveraging New Rule 26 Amendments Preserving Work Product Immunity for Expert Opinions and Reports
presents Expert Witnesses: Leveraging New Rule 26 Amendments Preserving Work Product Immunity for Expert Opinions and Reports A Live 60-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive ti Q&A Today's panel
More informationArticle III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Article III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends Strategies for Plaintiff and Defense Counsel to Pursue or Challenge
More informationPreparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
More informationCERCLA Liability After Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. Reducing Cleanup Liability and Recovering Remediation Costs
presents CERCLA Liability After Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. Reducing Cleanup Liability and Recovering Remediation Costs A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive
More informationLeveraging the AIA s Joinder Provision, Recent Decisions, and New Court Procedures in Defending Infringement Disputes
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A NPEs in Patent Litigation: i i Latest Developments Leveraging the AIA s Joinder Provision, Recent Decisions, and New Court Procedures in Defending
More informationRendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Rendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests Drafting Defensible Opinions and Minimizing
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Michael A. Brusca, Shareholder, Stark & Stark, Lawrenceville, N.J.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Personal Injury Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Preparing and Delivering, Handling Objections and Related Motions Developing and Presenting
More informationNew ERISA Supreme Court Rulings in Conkright and Hardt Leveraging Court Guidance on Deferential Review Standards and Attorney Fee Awards
presents New ERISA Supreme Court Rulings in Conkright and Hardt Leveraging Court Guidance on Deferential Review Standards and Attorney Fee Awards A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Satya Narayan, Attorney, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, Calif.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Nondisclosure Agreements for Information Technology Transactions Negotiating Key Provisions and Exclusions, Navigating Challenges for Information
More informationProvisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Provisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System Assessing Whether to Use - and Strategies for Leveraging Provisional
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In Pari Delicto Doctrine in Bankruptcy and Other Asset Recovery Litigation Anticipating or Raising the Defense in Claims Against Directors and Officers,
More informationLitigating Employment Discrimination
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Litigating Employment Discrimination Claims: Filing in State vs. Federal Court Evaluating Substantive and Procedural Advantages and Risks of Each
More informationFCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A FCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims Drafting Policies and Procedures for FCRA Compliance, Leveraging Class
More informationThird-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Third-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions Defining Scope, Limitations and Key Terms; Minimizing Liability Risks for Opinion Giver THURSDAY,
More informationDiscovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery
More informationCERCLA Preemption of State Law Claims Bringing or Surviving Preemption Challenges to Maximize Contribution Protection
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A CERCLA Preemption of State Law Claims Bringing or Surviving Preemption Challenges to Maximize Contribution Protection TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2013 1pm
More informationThe Private Causes of Action under CERCLA: Navigating the Intersection of Sections 107(a) and 113(f)
Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 5 Issue 1 2015 The Private Causes of Action under CERCLA: Navigating the Intersection of Sections 107(a) and 113(f) Jeffrey M. Gaba Southern
More informationDefeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: When Do U.S. Antitrust Laws Apply to Foreign Conduct? Navigating the Applicability of the FTAIA's "Effects
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies Disposing of or Limiting Claims,
More informationEnvironmental and Energy Business Law Reporter Newsletter of the Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law Committee
Spring 010 Environmental and Energy Business Law Reporter Newsletter of the Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law Committee Notes from the Chair Lawrence Schnapf, Chair Committee on Environmental,
More informationInsurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Insurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations Perspectives From Policyholder and Insurer
More informationCERCLA: To Clean or Not to Clean - The Supreme Court Says There is no Question. U.S. v. Atl. Research Corp.
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 15 Issue 2 Spring 2008 Article 9 2008 CERCLA: To Clean or Not to Clean - The Supreme Court Says There
More informationLatest CERCLA Decisions: Navigating Complexities of Arranger Liability, Divisibility, Settlement and More
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Latest CERCLA Decisions: Navigating Complexities of Arranger Liability, Divisibility, Settlement and More TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationLaw Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for Responding to a Chinese Government Commercial Bribery Investigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Chinese Anti Corruption Law Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2011 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am
More informationWitness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Witness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23,
More informationStandards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Standards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation WEDNESDAY,
More informationDrafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark
More informationHIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A HIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery Safeguarding PHI and Avoiding Violations When Responding to Subpoenas and Discovery Requests THURSDAY,
More informationLIBRARY. CERCLA Case Law Developments ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE. Full Article
ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE As a service to Jenner & Block's clients and the greater legal community, the Firm's Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law practice maintains
More informationLeveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program
Presenting a live 60-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program Amending Identifications of Goods and Services in Trademark Registration TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,
More informationORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 23, 2014.
Case 92-30190-RAM Doc 924 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 20 ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 23, 2014. Robert A. Mark, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN
More informationEnvironmental Settlements in Bankruptcy: Practice Pointers for the Business Lawyer. A. Overview of the Bankruptcy Process
Environmental Settlements in Bankruptcy: Practice Pointers for the Business Lawyer By Jeanne T. Cohn-Connor, Esq. 1 For business lawyers, the intersection of environmental law and bankruptcy law raises
More informationThe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 42 U.S.C.
SECURING CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION IN PRIVATE PARTY CERCLA LITIGATION: A Case Study of United States of American and the State of Oklahoma v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Western District of Oklahoma,
More informationLeveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB Best Practices for Patentees and Third Parties in Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review
More informationThe Court Cannot Save the Government From Overpayment Of CERCLA Remediation Costs That Were Its Own Choice
OCTOBER, 2016 Environmental Update In this update: The Court Cannot Save the Government From Overpayment of CERCLA Remediation Costs That Were Its Own Choice A Unilateral Administrative Order ( UAO ) Pursuant
More informationENVIRONMENTAL. EXPERT ANALYSIS 9th Circuit Opinion May Create Hurdles For De Minimis Cercla Settlements
Westlaw Journal ENVIRONMENTAL Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 / OCTOBER 29, 2014 EXPERT ANALYSIS 9th Circuit Opinion May Create Hurdles For De Minimis
More informationEvidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Evidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings Navigating the Discovery Minefield and Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege WEDNESDAY,
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Against Citizen Suits Under Environmental Laws Navigating Notice, Standing, Jurisdiction, Settlements and More Under RCRA, CERCLA, CWA
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
AK Steel Corporation vs Prologis Inc., et al Doc. 144 AK STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. Case No. 15-9260-CM PAC OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
More informationEffective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Effective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
More informationAppellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Appellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 1pm Eastern
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 03-C-949. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the STATE OF WISCONSIN v. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 03-C-949 P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Signatures and Electronic Loan Documentation in Real Estate Finance: ESIGN and UETA, Interplay With UCC Enforceability, Authentication and Admissibility;
More informationExtraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationThe Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Perspectives on Georgia s Environment A Publication of the Environmental Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia Answering Atlantic Research s Call: The Eleventh Circuit s Decision in Solutia, Inc. v.
More informationKEY TRONIC CORP. v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
OCTOBER TERM, 1993 809 Syllabus KEY TRONIC CORP. v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 93 376. Argued March 29, 1994 Decided June 6, 1994 Petitioner
More informationJane E. Fedder, Shareholder, Vice Chair, Environmental Practice, Polsinelli, St. Louis
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Latest CERCLA Decisions and Navigating New Complexities Key Lessons on Parent Liability for Subsidiary Conduct, Arranger Liability, Divisibility,
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationChapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS. In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of
Chapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of hazardous substances, the federal and state governments enacted the Superfund laws to address
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. SOLUTIA, INC., et al. Appellants. MCWANE, INC., et al.
Case: 10-15639 Date Filed: 06/30/2011 Page: 1 of 65 No. 10-15639 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SOLUTIA, INC., et al. Appellants v. MCWANE, INC., et al. Appellees Appeal
More informationPatent Licensing: Advanced Tactics
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics for Licensees Post-AIA Structuring Contractual Protections and Responding When Licensed Patents Are Challenged
More informationThe Permissibility of Actions for Response Costs Arising After the Commencement of a RCRA Citizen Suit: A Post-Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.
University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 1997 Issue 1 Article 22 The Permissibility of Actions for Response Costs Arising After the Commencement of a RCRA Citizen Suit: A Post-Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.
More informationRCRA Citizen Suits: Key Defenses and Interpretive Trends
ACI s Chemical Products Liability & Environmental Litigation April 28-30, 2014 RCRA Citizen Suits: Key Defenses and Interpretive Trends Karl S. Bourdeau Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. kbourdeau@bdlaw.com 1
More informationAssessing Costs under CERCLA: Sixth Circuit Requires Specificity in Complaints Seeking Prejudgment Interest. United States v. Consolidation Coal Co.
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 11 Issue 3 2003-2004 Article 6 2004 Assessing Costs under CERCLA: Sixth Circuit Requires Specificity
More informationA Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A
presents Ricci v. DeStefano: Balancing Title VII Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Leveraging the Supreme Court's Guidance on Employment Testing and its Impact on Voluntary Compliance Actions A
More informationDETERMINING DAMAGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES IN THE WORLD AFTER BURLINGTON NORTHERN
DETERMINING DAMAGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES IN THE WORLD AFTER BURLINGTON NORTHERN By Diana L. Buongiorno and Denns M. Toft In 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Burlington Northern
More informationWetlands Development: Legal Trends and Challenges Navigating Strict New Federal Guidance, Permitting Requirements and Emerging Case Law
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Wetlands Development: Legal Trends and Challenges Navigating Strict New Federal Guidance, Permitting Requirements and Emerging Case Law TUESDAY,
More informationBreach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Breach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2017 1pm Eastern
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
More informationE-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationNew Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationPatent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages
Presenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Email Q&A Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. v. No DRH. MEMORANDUM and ORDER. I. Introduction and Background
Blue Tee Corp. v. Xtra Intermodal, Inc. et al Doc. 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BLUE TEE CORP. and GOLD FIELDS MINING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. No. 13-0830-DRH
More informationMEALEY S 1 LITIGATION REPORT ERISA. A commentary article reprinted from the February 2018 issue of Mealey s Litigation Report: ERISA. by Ian S.
MEALEY S 1 LITIGATION REPORT ERISA To Fee, Or Not To Fee. That Is The Question: In Certain Cases, Arbitrating ERISA Benefits Cases May Enable Plan Fiduciaries To Avoid Paying Plaintiffs Attorney s Fees
More informationTHE SEVENTH CIRCUIT STEPS UP ON CLEANUP OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT STEPS UP ON CLEANUP OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ESTHER WU * Cite as: Esther Wu, The Seventh Circuit Steps Up on Cleanup of Hazardous Waste, 3 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 591 (2008), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v3-2/wu.pdf.
More informationRiding on the CERCLA-Cycle: Is the Third Circuit Backpedaling? E.I. DePont de Nemours & Co. v. U.S.
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 15 Issue 3 Summer 2008 Article 4 2008 Riding on the CERCLA-Cycle: Is the Third Circuit Backpedaling?
More informationLeveraging the AIA's Expanded Prior Use Defense for Patent Infringement Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging the AIA's Expanded Prior Use Defense for Patent Infringement Claims THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain
More informationCERCLA SECTION 9658 AND STATE RULES OF REPOSE Two decades after passage, unanimity still elusive on basic question of statutory interpretation
CERCLA SECTION 9658 AND STATE RULES OF REPOSE Two decades after passage, unanimity still elusive on basic question of statutory interpretation Douglas S. Arnold Benjamin L. Snowden On January 25, 2008,
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Legal Opinions for Article 9 Security Interests: Navigating the Complexities and Avoiding Liability Scope and Limitations, Interests of
More informationFILED 2010 Jul-02 AM 11:49 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 1:03-cv-01345-PWG Document 622 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 53 FILED 2010 Jul-02 AM 11:49 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN
More informationPleading Standards, Affirmative Defenses and Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Pleading Standards, Affirmative Defenses and Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court Navigating Rule 8 Pleadings, 12(b)(6) and (f) Motions to Dismiss,
More information