We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 38

Bona fide prospective purchaser defense rejected by Fourth Circuit because purchaser did not exercise appropriate care after closing

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 8 2013

An owner of real property claiming the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) defense under Section 107(r)(1) of CERCLA has the burden of

Clean Ohio fund announces streamlined process for Brownfields funding

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 11 2013

In March, 2013, the Clean Ohio Council announced a streamlined process for issuing grants and loans from the Clean Ohio Fund. $15 million is now

EPA and Kentucky sign memorandum of agreement for voluntary site cleanup

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 14 2013

As of December 19, 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will now defer to the Kentucky Department for Environmental

Stormwater flow not a “pollutant” under Clean Water Act and EPA may not regulate it as a surrogate, federal court holds

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 8 2013

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently granted judgment on the pleadings against EPA and held that EPA lacked the

Clean Ohio Fund streamlines approval process for brownfield projects

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2012

The Clean Ohio Fund, which has been one of the more successful state sponsored brownfields redevelopment funding programs in the U.S., is streamlining its process

Wisconsin Federal Court follows Ninth Circuit's support of CERCLA useful product defense: knowledge is not enough to trigger arranger liability

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2012

After a sevenday bench trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin upheld the CERCLA useful product defense

Ohio EPA's 10 ton per year de minimis emission BAT exemption upheld by Sixth Circuit

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 29 2012

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently dismissed the challenges brought by the Sierra Club to Ohio EPA's 10 ton per year de minimis exemption for Best Available Technology (BAT) analysis

Wisconsin federal court reverses itself: no CERCLA liability under asset purchase agreement

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 16 2012

On January 4, 2012, we reported to you my view that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin “could not have been more wrong” in finding that an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) imposed direct CERCLA liability on the purchaser

US EPA reissues and replaces 2008 Stormwater Construction General Permit for five year term

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 5 2012

On February 16, 2012, US EPA reissued and renewed the expiring 2008 Stormwater Construction General Permit (CGP) for a five-year term

Post-script to article: U.S. v. NCR: California District Court says not so fast to successor liability under APA

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 9 2012

We reported to you last week about the questionable December 19, 2011 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in U.S. v. NCR Corp., which held that an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) created CERCLA liability because of “noncompliance” with CERCLA Section 107(a