PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA: Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Potentially Responsible Parties

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A


Conducted on Thursday, July 6, 2017

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to counsel advising parties involved in contaminated site cleanups on protecting the contribution interests of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in seeking cost recovery against other PRPs.

Description

Recent decisions on when PRPs can sue to recover remediation costs under CERCLA Sections 107 and 113 have made the law in this area increasingly complex. Questions regarding the trigger for a claim and the applicable statute of limitations remain unresolved.

Two recent Sixth Circuit cases provide new insights regarding when an administrative settlement with the EPA constitutes a CERCLA §113(f)(3)(B) settlement that triggers a right-to-contribution claim and the applicable statutory limitations period.

Counsel must understand how, when and where PRPs can seek remediation costs in order to guard your clients’ ability to seek contribution from other PRPs. For cooperating and settling PRPs, recent decisions may change the process of deciding whether and when to cooperate and settle.

Listen as our authoritative panel of environmental attorneys examines PRP cost recovery from other PRPs under CERCLA Sections 107 and 113 and recent developments. The panel will offer best practices for representing PRPs, including those seeking recovery of cleanup costs, whether incurred directly or through contribution, and those seeking to limit their liability in such actions.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. PRP direct cost recovery under CERCLA Section 107
    1. Who can bring direct cost recovery claims and when
    2. Defenses against such claims
    3. Impact of settlement
    4. Differences among the courts
  2. PRP contribution cost recovery under CERCLA Section 113
    1. Who can bring contribution claims and when
    2. Defenses against such claims
    3. Impact of settlement
    4. Differences among the courts
  3. Recent developments and court decisions

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • When can a PRP seek contribution from other PRPs under CERCLA Section 107? Under Section 113?
  • What are the ramifications of the recent appellate rulings in Hobart Corp. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Florida Power v. Firstenergy, Trinity Indus. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., Solutia v. McWane, and Bernstein v. Bankert, among others?
  • How does a settlement affect a PRP’s ability to recover costs from other PRPs?
  • What is the impact of contribution protection on a PRP’s ability to recover costs from other PRPs?

Faculty

Harris, Glenn
Glenn A. Harris

Partner
Ballard Spahr

Mr. Harris concentrates his practice in environmental litigation, with an emphasis on Superfund cost recovery and...  |  Read More

David A. Haworth
David A. Haworth

Of Counsel
Ballard Spahr

Mr. Haworth has significant environmental litigation experience, including prosecuting and defending remediation claims...  |  Read More

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

$297

Download

$297