Contribution Confusion Post-Aviall: Unraveling CERCLA Response Cost Recovery

The question of whether private parties can pursue contribution against other parties, including the federal government, for voluntary clean-up costs recently came to the forefront with conflicting decisions from the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as federal district and state supreme courts.

The Supreme Court’s seminal 2004 ruling in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services Inc. marked significant changes for those seeking CERCLA contribution. However, the Court reserved judgment and did not address whether parties not subject to an action under CERCLA §106 or §107 may seek relief against other parties under CERCLA §107(a)(4)(B).

This teleconference will examine cost recovery and contribution claims post-Aviall, the practical effect of the decision, and best practices for seeking or defending environmental clean-up contribution claims.

Loeb & Loeb's environmental partner Albert Cohen is a contributor.

Listen and participate as our panel of environmental law specialists for businesses examine these and other questions regarding cost recovery and contribution claims, including those left open by the Aviall Court that lower federal courts have since addressed:

• Can a potentially responsible party (PRP) pursue a cost-recovery action for joint and several liability against another PRP?

• What types of administrative settlements qualify as a prerequisite to a contribution action?

• What alternative remedies are available for cleanup cost recovery under state law and common law principles?

• Does Aviall apply to state voluntary and non-voluntary cost-recovery agreements?

Plus, you’ll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A session following the speaker presentations.