Opinion ID: 199705
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Derivative (Indirect) Liability

Text: 36 The Court began the analysis by affirming in a CERCLA context the general rule that a parent corporation is not liable for acts of its subsidiary. See id. at 61-62 ([N]othing in CERCLA purports to reject this bedrock principle, and against this venerable common-law backdrop, the congressional silence is audible.). Thus, the Court rejected the notion that owner liability could attach to a parent corporation simply because its subsidiary owned a polluting facility. See id. at 62. 37 However, the Court also recognized an equally fundamental principle of corporate law that the corporate veil may be pierced to hold a parent corporation liable for acts of a subsidiary. Id. at 62. Finding [n]othing in CERCLA [that] purports to rewrite this well-settled rule, the Court held that a parent may be charged with derivative CERCLA liability for its subsidiary's acts only when the corporate veil may be pierced. 10 Id. at 63-64.