BarbriSFCourseDetails

Course Details

This CLE course will guide 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.

Faculty

Description

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.

Counsel must understand how, when, and where PRPs can seek remediation costs to guard their clients' ability to explore contributions from other PRPs. For cooperating and settling PRPs, recent decisions may change 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 trying to limit their liability in such actions.

Outline

  1. PRP direct cost recovery under CERCLA Section 107
    1. Who can bring direct cost recovery claims and when
    2. Defenses against such claims
    3. Impact of settlement
    4. Differences among the courts
  2. PRP contribution cost recovery under CERCLA Section 113
    1. Who can bring contribution claims and when
    2. Defenses against such claims
    3. Impact of settlement
    4. Differences among the courts
  3. Recent developments and court decisions

Benefits

The panel will review these and other relevant issues:

  • When can a PRP seek contribution from other PRPs under CERCLA Section 107? Under Section 113?
  • How does a settlement impact a PRP's ability to recover costs from other PRPs?
  • What is the impact of contribution protection on a PRP's ability to recover from other PRPs?
  • What is the status of recent developments and case law related to PRPs seeking contribution under Sections 107 and 113?