Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 117

524US1

Unit: $U74

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

72

UNITED STATES v. BESTFOODS

Opinion of the Court

holder acts in his ostensible capacity, so here we may refer
to them in distinguishing a parental ofﬁcer’s oversight of a
subsidiary from such an ofﬁcer’s control over the operation
of the subsidiary’s facility.
“[A]ctivities that involve the fa-
cility but which are consistent with the parent’s investor
status, such as monitoring of the subsidiary’s performance,
supervision of the subsidiary’s ﬁnance and capital budget de-
cisions, and articulation of general policies and procedures,
should not give rise to direct liability.” Oswald 282. The
critical question is whether, in degree and detail, actions di-
rected to the facility by an agent of the parent alone are
eccentric under accepted norms of parental oversight of a
subsidiary’s facility.

There is, in fact, some evidence that CPC engaged in just
this type and degree of activity at the Muskegon plant. The
District Court’s opinion speaks of an agent of CPC alone who
played a conspicuous part in dealing with the toxic risks em-
anating from the operation of the plant. G. R. D. Williams
worked only for CPC; he was not an employee, ofﬁcer, or
director of Ott II, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, and thus, his actions
were of necessity taken only on behalf of CPC. The District
Court found that “CPC became directly involved in environ-
mental and regulatory matters through the work of . . . Wil-
liams, CPC’s governmental and environmental affairs direc-
tor. Williams . . . became heavily involved in environmental
issues at Ott II.”
777 F. Supp., at 561. He “actively partici-
pated in and exerted control over a variety of Ott II environ-
mental matters,” ibid., and he “issued directives regarding
Ott II’s responses to regulatory inquiries,” id., at 575.

We think that these ﬁndings are enough to raise an issue
of CPC’s operation of the facility through Williams’s actions,
though we would draw no ultimate conclusion from these
ﬁndings at this point. Not only would we be deciding in the
ﬁrst instance an issue on which the trial and appellate courts
did not focus, but the very fact that the District Court did
not see the case as we do suggests that there may be still