Resolving Superfund Liability and Protecting PRP Interests: Settling and Preserving CERCLA Claims
PRP Intervention Trends and Developments; Best Practices for CERCLA Settlements
Course Details
- smart_display Format
On-Demand
- signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level
Intermediate
- work Practice Area
Environmental
- event Date
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
- schedule Time
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
- timer Program Length
90 minutes
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
This CLE course will provide counsel advising parties in a contaminated site cleanup with guidance on both protecting the interests of settling potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and, on the other hand, protecting the contribution interests of non-settling PRPs.
Mr. Dunn represents regional and national companies at locations throughout the country in environmental regulation and litigation issues. His environmental projects have involved hazardous waste and large multi-party toxics cleanup sites, including marine and fresh water sediment sites, landfills, and natural resource damages claims. He has also conducted extensive work obtaining permits for key facility operations. He has particularly deep knowledge of the following industries: manufactured gas facilities, regulated utilities, smelters and metals refineries, pesticide sites, and large area contamination sites.
Ms. Fellers focuses her practice on environmental law, with an emphasis on litigation relating to groundwater contamination, including cost recovery and mass toxic tort litigation. She has experience in litigation under a variety of state and federal environmental laws, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and litigation under the state counterparts, such as the California Hazardous Substance Account Act.
Settlements resolve most Superfund matters--settlements with regulators and settlements among private parties. But, not all settlements are created equal, provide the protection-release that parties seek, or preserve the contribution and cost recovery rights that releasors intend to retain.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Guam v. United States and Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian and lower court decisions such as New Jersey DEP v. American Thermoplastics Corp., Arconic v. APC Investment, and ASARCO L.L.C. v. Union Pac. RR Co. provide lessons and guidance for practitioners.
This program will evaluate the risks and rewards of CERCLA settlements and how to craft them--or attack them--to best protect client interests.
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.
- Administrative orders and agreements and consent decrees: settling with the government
- Allocation agreements and cash-outs: private party settlements
- Intervention and other challenges to settlements
- Recent CERCLA decisions involving settlements
- Best practices for protecting client interests
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- How can a settling PRP minimize the risk of future claims?
- What can a non-settling party do to mitigate the risk of disproportionate liability?
- 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?
Related Courses
Environmental Regulation One Year After Loper Bright: Judicial Review, Policy Shifts, NEPA Rulings
Wednesday, November 5, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT