See Recent Blog Posts or search the archive.
Grant Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., congratulates David Higney – Environmental for his Best Lawyers® selection.
GKH environmental and litigation attorney David Higney is a panel leader for discussion regarding "Emerging Contaminants" .
Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison is proud to share the recognition by CHAMBERS USA of one of the firm members.
EPA proposes a new rule to redefine hazardous waste aerosol cans as “Universal Wastes,” a classification the agency believes can enhance recycling if it applies the lower standard to discarded aerosol cans.
As an update to my July 16, 2014 and January 20, 2015 articles, on January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hobart on 1/20 (S.Ct. Case # 14-575;http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012... at p.3). Thus, the 6thCircuit Court of Appeals ruling in Hobart relative to CERCLA contribution and cost-recovery governs.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (1/14), in LWD PRP Group v. Alcan Corp., et al., Case No. 14-5730, to resuscitate affirmative defense arguments against claims being made by a conglomeration of 58 settling corporations that had negotiated a Consent Decree with the United States EPA. The panel relied heavily on a decision six months ago in Hobart Corp., et al. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Nos. 3273/3276 (6th Cir.). Holding the settling parties' claims are time barred due to the expiration of the CERCLA statute of limitation for contribution claims, under the circumstances presented, the LWD PRP Group panel held the settlement's effective date is the appropriate triggering event when calculating the applicable statute of limitations. Rejecting the settling parties' arguments that the completion of a removal action should be the limitations period's trigger, the LWD PRP Group panel noted no distinction with Hobart and no power to reverse a precedential opinion of the Court. The opinion reverses the United States District Court (W.D. Ky.) that had denied defendants' motions to dismiss the settling-PRP group's contribution claims against hundreds of other companies, state agencies, municipalities and universities.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday (7/14) in Hobart Corp. et al. v. Waste Management of Ohio (Case Nos. 13-3273/3276), in CERCLA, 42 USC §9601 et seq., cases where a potentially responsible party (PRP) has entered into an administrative settlement with the government, thus meeting a statutory trigger for filing a contribution action, the PRP can bring only a contribution action pursuant to CERCLA § 113(f)(3)(B) and cannot bring a CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) cost-recovery action. The appellate court's opinion is consistent with a position previously advanced by this law firm and Squire Sanders resulting in our client's Motion to Dismiss being granted on the issue. Tennessee v. Roane Holdings Ltd., 835F.Supp.2d 527, 538-541 (E.D. Tenn. 2011); 75 ERC (BNA) 1109 (CERCLA §113(f) constitutes third-party plaintiff's exclusive remedy such that its action and claims made pursuant to CERCLA §107 cannot be maintained). For more information about this development, or to discuss environmental matters and federal court litigation, please contact David Higney.
Grant Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., serves clients in Tennessee cities such as Chattanooga, Cleveland, East Ridge, Red Bank, Jasper, Collegedale, Athens, Decatur, Altamont, McMinnville, Manchester, Dunlap, Winchester, Fayetteville, Soddy-Daisy, Etowah, Dayton, Charleston, Tullahoma, Fort Oglethorpe, Dalton, Chatsworth, Calhoun, Summerville, Lafayette, Ringgold, Chattanooga Valley, Chickamauga, Tunnel Hill and Trenton.
Counties: Hamilton County, Bradley County, McMinn County, Sequatchie County, Grundy County, Franklin County, Coffee County, Warren County, Dade County, Catoosa County.