Source: https://www.straffordpub.com/products/prp-contribution-claims-under-cercla-strategies-for-cost-recovery-against-potentially-responsible-parties-2017-07-06
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:12:39+00:00

Document:
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.
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.
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?
Mr. Harris concentrates his practice in environmental litigation, with an emphasis on Superfund cost recovery and contribution actions. He has assumed a lead role in many significant Superfund matters, where he has served as common counsel, shared counsel, or liaison counsel. He has represented groups and individual companies in over three dozen Superfund sites in over a dozen states.
Mr. Haworth has significant environmental litigation experience, including prosecuting and defending remediation claims under CERCLA and other statutes and common law. As a commercial litigator, Mr. Haworth has extensive experience with disputes involving contractual breaches, unfair competition and general commercial issues; construction defects, liens and sureties; builder performance; redevelopment; business dissolution and shareholder oppression; commercial and residential lending; negligence; product liability; and consumer fraud litigation.
I thought the points to consider at the end of the presentation sparked good back and forth dialogue.

References: §113
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.