Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 105.0

524US1

Unit: $U74

[09-06-00 17:54:15] PAGES PGT: OPIN

60

UNITED STATES v. BESTFOODS

Opinion of the Court

upon whether the degree to which it controls its subsid-
iary and the extent and manner of its involvement with
the facility, amount to the abuse of the corporate form
that will warrant piercing the corporate veil and disre-
garding the separate corporate entities of the parent and
subsidiary.”

Id., at 580.

Applying Michigan veil-piercing law, the Court of Appeals
decided that neither CPC nor Aerojet 7 was liable for control-
ling the actions of its subsidiaries, since the parent and sub-
sidiary corporations maintained separate personalities and
the parents did not utilize the subsidiary corporate form to
perpetrate fraud or subvert justice.

We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 1024 (1997), to resolve a
conﬂict among the Circuits over the extent to which parent
corporations may be held liable under CERCLA for operat-
ing facilities ostensibly under the control of their subsidiar-
ies.8 We now vacate and remand.

7 Unlike CPC, Aerojet does not base its defense in this Court on a claim
that, absent unusual circumstances, a parent company can be held liable
as an operator of a facility only by piercing the corporate veil. Rather,
Aerojet denies liability by claiming that (1) neither it nor its subsidiaries
disposed of hazardous substances during their operation of the facility, see
Brief for Respondents Aerojet-General Corp. et al. 27–36, and (2) it is
entitled to a third-party defense under § 107(b)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U. S. C.
§ 9607(b)(3), see Brief for Respondents Aerojet-General Corp. et al. 38–46.
The Court of Appeals expressed some measure of agreement with Aerojet
on these points and instructed the District Court to consider them on
remand. See 113 F. 3d, at 577, 583. These issues are not before this
Court.

8 Compare United States v. Cordova/Michigan, 113 F. 3d 572, 580 (CA6
1997) (case below) (parent may be held liable for controlling affairs of sub-
sidiary only when the corporate veil can be pierced), and Joslyn Mfg. Co.
v. T. L. James & Co., 893 F. 2d 80, 82–83 (CA5 1990) (same), cert. denied,
498 U. S. 1108 (1991) (but cf. Riverside Market Dev. Corp. v. International
Bldg. Prods., Inc., 931 F. 2d 327, 330 (CA5) (parent companies that actually
participate in the wrongful conduct cannot hide behind the corporate veil,
and can be held directly liable without veil piercing), cert. denied, 502 U. S.
1004 (1991)), with United States v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 910 F. 2d 24, 27