Chapter 13 Corporate Environmental Liability

Corporations:A Contemporary Approach

Chapter 13Corporate Environmental Liability

Slide 1of 10


• Corporation as polluter– Respondeat superior liability– But pollution pays!

• CERCLA liability (beyond corporate polluter)– Parent corporation liability

(1) owner: only under PCV (derivative liability)(2) operator: manage polluting facilities (direct liability)

– Factors in direct liability: parent personnel ~ polluting facility (1) dual officers/directors not enough(2) beyond “norms” of parental oversight

• Corporate officers’ liability• Criminal (environmental statutes): no convictions! • Civil: beyond normal PCV

Module V – Corporate Externalities

Citizen of world

Citizen of world

Law profession

Law profession

Corporate practice

Corporate practice

Bar examBar exam



Slide 2of 10

When is corporationliable as polluter?

Civil liabilityCriminal liability

Does pollution pay?



Slide 3of 10

United States v. Bestfoods (US 1998)

• Superfund?• How funded?• Who liable? Why BF?

• Rules on parent liability?• Overlapping managers? • Supervision of

environ compliance?• CERCLA policy?

• “owner” liability?• “operator” liability?



Slide 4of 10

CERCLA § 107(a)(1)

Any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of shall be liable for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State.

Justice David Souter

Nothing in CERCLA purports to reject this bedrock principle of corporate law: parent is not liable for acts of subsidiary. … Only when the corporate veil may be pierced may parent face derivative liability.

Under CERCLA “operator” [direct liability] must manage, direct or conduct operations specifically related pollution…. Analysis of relationship between CPC and Muskegon facility. Common D/Os acting in their capacities as CPC D/Os – beyond “normal relationship.”



Slide 6of 10

Subsidiary

Gov’t regulator

Parent

Derivative liability

Direct liability

PCV

“owner/operator”

“operator”



Slide 7of 10

Unanswered questions:

• Derivative liability: Why does Supreme Court adopt “state” PCV standards – isn’t CERCLA federal law?

– Which state: If federal “derivative liability” standards depend on state law, which state?

• Direct liability: Compare to PCV - different? “Corporate form misused” vs. “beyond norms of parental influence”?

– Reward laxity: Which parent corporation is better off – one that oversees its sub’s polluting activities or not?

• Corporate awe: Why is the Supreme Court so in awe of state-based corporate limited liability – “bedrock principle”?



Slide 8of 10

Data on PCV in environmental cases …

Thompson

(until 1985)

Wake I

(1986-1995)

Wake II

(1996-2005)

PCV

(K / tort cases)

1005 cases

PCV = 39.5%

118 cases

PCV = 32.2%

154 cases

PCV = 26.6%

PCV

(environ cases)

6 cases

PCV = 83.3%

5 cases

PCV = 60.0%

6 cases

PCV = 67.7%



Slide 9of 10

Data on PCV in environmental cases …

Thompson

(until 1985)

Wake I

(1986-1995)

Wake II

(1996-2005)

PCV

(K / tort cases)

1005 cases

PCV = 39.5%

118 cases

PCV = 32.2%

154 cases

PCV = 26.6%

PCV

(environ cases)

6 cases

PCV = 83.3%

5 cases

PCV = 60.0%

6 cases

PCV = 67.7%



Slide 10of 10

More questions:

• Special PCV: Should there be different piercing standards in environmental cases?

• Officer civil liability: why should “could have prevented” be the standard? Too lax?

• Officer criminal liability: if statutes specifically contemplate this, why no convictions?



Slide 11of 10

Subsidiary

Gov’t regulator

Parent

Derivative liability

Direct liability

PCV

“owner/operator”

“operator”



Slide 12of 10

Unanswered questions:

• Derivative liability: Why does Supreme Court adopt “state” PCV standards – isn’t CERCLA federal law?

– Which state: If federal “derivative liability” standards depend on state law, which state?

• Direct liability: Compare to PCV - different? “Corporate form misused” vs. “beyond norms of parental influence”?

– Reward laxity: Which parent corporation is better off – one that oversees its sub’s polluting activities or not?

• Corporate awe: Why is the Supreme Court so in awe of state-based corporate limited liability – “bedrock principle”?



Slide 13of 10

: A te

rrible hyp

othetical

BP Oil Spill Victim Compensation Fund



Slide 14of 10

BP plc

BP Corp North Am

BP Co. North Am

BP Am Production

BP Exploration, Inc

BP America Inc



Slide 15of 12

You are the general counsel of GlobalPetroleum.

There’s been a terrible accident. An oil rig leased to GP North America -- a company in the GP group -- has gone down in flames with loss of life, and the uncapped underwater well is spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It may become the biggest man-made oil spill in history.

It turns out the rig was actually operated not by GP, but its wholly-owned US sub, GP Exploration – which held the lease to the offshore oil field. And liability of GP Exploration (as “holder” of the offshore mineral rights) is capped under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 at removal costs plus $75 million in environmental damages, unless there was “gross negligence.” [See Act]

The GP board has met in emergency session. You have been asked to address GP’s liability. What do you advise the board?

http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf



Slide 16of 12

OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

SEC. 1001. DEFINITIONS.

(27) ‘‘person’’ means an individual, corporation, …

(32) ‘‘responsible party’’ means the following: …

(C) OFFSHORE FACILITIES.—In the case of an offshore facility … the lessee or permittee of the area in which the facility is located or the holder of a right of use and easement granted under applicable State law or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act….

SEC. 1002. ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY.

(a)IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, … each responsible party for … a facility from which oil is discharged .. into or upon the navigable waters … is liable for the removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) that result from such incident. …

SEC. 1004. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.• GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a

responsible party under section 1002 … with respect to each incident shall not exceed—• … (3) for an offshore facility …, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000 …

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—

(1) … Subsection (a) does not apply if the incident was proximately caused by—

(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or

(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation by, the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible party ….



Slide 17of 10

The end

Documents

Chapter 13 Corporate Environmental Liability