Skip to content

It looks like we may have content for your preferred language. Would you like to view this page in English?

CERCLA Settlements and PRP Intervention

Loeb & Loeb LLP is pleased to announce that partner Albert Cohen will be speaking at the upcoming Strafford Legal webinar on CERCLA Settlements and PRP Intervention.

From the seminar website:

Non-settling PRPs in contaminated site cleanup often seek to intervene in settlement proceedings to ensure that any settling parties are held responsible for their fair share of the cleanup costs. However, the federal courts have been split as to whether to permit such intervention.

The Ninth Circuit recently joined the Eighth and Tenth circuits in ruling that a non-settling PRP may intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the settling PRP.

Parties involved in a site cleanup must protect their interests to ensure they are fairly treated in a proposed consent decree. Understanding how, when and where non-settling PRPs can intervene in a settlement is critical to guarding their ability to seek contribution from settling parties.

Listen as our authoritative panel of environmental law attorneys examines recent PRP intervention trends and developments, and offers best practices for CERCLA settlements, including settlement incentives for PRPs and when a PRP should settle.

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • When does a PRP have sufficient interest in settlement proceedings to satisfy the intervention requirements of CERCLA and the Federal Rules?
  • Under what circumstances should a PRP seek to participate in a settlement?
  • What strategies should PRPs employ to protect their contribution interests in settlements to which they are not a party?