On March 2, 2010, the EPA listed the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn on the National Priorities List (NPL), making it a federal Superfund site.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation urged EPA to consider (more…)

The District Court for the District of Maine relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (“BNSF”), in denying a motion to (more…)

In a recent decision in In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation (“In re MTBE”), No. 00 MDL 1898, and related case City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, No. 04 Civ. 3417 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2009), the District Court for the Southern District of New York relied (more…)

Following our posts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (“BNSF”), this post will discuss implications of this decision on apportionment in Superfund cases as various commentators (including this one) see it. (more…)

Following our recent posts on the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (”BNSF“), this post will discuss the implications of (more…)

On October 27, 2009 the New York State Court of Appeals made the most important decision regarding standing in SEQRA cases in perhaps the last 18 years.  The court ruled in Pine Bush Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, that standing to challenge the environmental impact of a (more…)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part II.

As discussed in our prior posting, the Supreme Court recently clarified the requirements for “arranger” liability and allocation of liability in CERCLA cases in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009).  That post set forth the facts and procedural history of the case; this post discusses the Supreme Court’s holding. (more…)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part I.

The Supreme Court recently clarified the requirements for “arranger” liability and allocation of liability in CERCLA (more…)

The Western District of Washington also recently followed the holding from the Aviall case.  See Port of Tacoma v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5884 (W.D.Wa., January 14, 2009). The Port of Tacoma sued Todd Shipyards in a contribution action under CERCLA § 113(f) for (more…)

In a recent Second Circuit decision, W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International, No.: 05-cv-2798 (March 4, 2009), the Court followed two recent Supreme Court decisions on the oft-contested issue of when and under what sections of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (the “Superfund” statute) a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) can recover (more…)