Termination for Convenience How to Prepare Your Settlement Proposal
Construction Delays in the Time of Coronavirus: A Legal Perspective
In May 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in Territory of Guam v. United States, 593 U.S. __ (2021), on the issue of whether a settlement resolving environmental liabilities was sufficient to establish a right of contribution for...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a party’s right to contribution claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) after entering into a settlement arises...more
In siding with the Territory of Guam in its dispute with the United States over costs to clean up the Ordot Landfill, the Supreme Court has resolved a circuit court split over which types of administrative settlements trigger...more
Does a consent decree under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) trigger a three-year limitation period to bring a contribution claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) when the...more
Last week, in its unanimous decision Guam v. United States, No. 20-382, the United States Supreme Court attempted to clarify a statutory question regarding the right to seek contribution that has been a source of uncertainty...more
In Territory of Guam v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously held that claims for contribution under Section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) require...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Guam v. United States, clarifying when contribution actions under CERCLA may be brought. In a unanimous decision overturning the D.C. Circuit, the Court held that a...more
Reversing the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, a unanimous US Supreme Court held that Guam’s settlement of Clean Water Act liabilities did not give rise to and trigger the statute of limitations to bring a Comprehensive...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a settlement of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)-specific liability is required to give rise to a contribution action...more
The Supreme Court has reversed a DC Circuit decision which held that the territory of Guam was time-barred from pursuing a cost recovery action under CERCLA against the U.S. Government to pay its fair share for the clean-up...more
On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in the Territory of Guam v. United States case. At issue was whether Guam could maintain a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act...more
On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Guam v. United States, holding that contribution under CERCLA does not arise until there is a CERCLA-specific liability, even if there is a settlement that resolves liability...more
On May 24, the Supreme Court weighed in on an issue that for decades has bedeviled litigants under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): When can potentially responsible parties...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that only settlements that explicitly resolve liability under CERCLA trigger the contribution provisions of section 113 of CERCLA. I have previously commented on the Court’s tendency to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue a decision in a Superfund cost recovery case which could provide clarity on whether non-Superfund settlements can start the clock on Superfund’s contribution claims’ statute of...more
The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota (“Court”) addressed in an August 12th opinion an action by the State of South Dakota and the South Dakota Petroleum Release Compensation Fund (“Fund”) action to recover payments...more
On July 23, in MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 17-3468(L), 17-3669(XAP), slip op., -- F.3d -- (2d Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of...more
Under CERCLA activities to clean up hazardous substances are characterized as either “removal actions” or “remedial actions.” Generally, removal actions are interim actions to clean up or remove hazardous materials. 42...more
Governor Brown and Legislature give the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control more power to regulate hazardous substances. On Friday, October 2, 2015, California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed into law a...more