District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin held in the In re MTBE multidistrict litigation that: (1) to apportion liability among joint tortfeasors, fact finders may rely on the "available evidence," and (2) to support a showing of divisibility, the defendant only need show a reasonable basis for its proposed share. Curiously, the court did not rely on common law tort rules to make this decision. Instead, it loosely relied on CERCLA jurisprudence, most notably Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States. In Burlington, the United States Supreme Court held that CERCLA's "arranging for disposal" language includes an intent requirement, and clarified the level of proof needed to demonstrate divisibility of harm. The New York District Court did not go so far. Instead, the court stated that "[W]here a correct division of liability cannot be made, the trier of fact may make it the best it can." The court also noted that where multiple parties cause a single harm, the burden of proving divisibility is "ordinarily placed on the culpable party" seeking divisibility. As a result, the court created an extraordinarily vague standard that places difficult burdens on the party seeking to prove divisibility.