Environmental investigations and remediation expenses are costly. Private litigants and state and federal governments often seek viable “deep pocket” entities or high net worth individuals to pay for the cleanup costs allegedly attributable to an otherwise defunct or underfunded company’s historical operations that caused the environmental contamination.

In the typical scenario, the separate entity (parent company, shareholder, or successor in interest) does not own, lease, or operate the facility at issue, nor did it directly release a hazardous substance into the environment. And often, the former company was dissolved years ago and incorporated in an entirely separate state.

Thus, the parent company, shareholder, or successor-in-interest is blindsided by the claims letter, lawsuit, or enforcement order–all of which require a strategic and accurate response. This type of indirect liability can be a real threat in any environmental litigation if pleaded correctly and supported by facts, and not met by a strong, well thought out and supported defense. As such, environmental litigators must be adept at using or defending against these theories of liability before they arise.

Listen as our panel provides environmental litigators with an analysis of legal theories of alter ego and successor liability as they relate to environmental liabilities at cleanup sites and provides guidance on factors to consider and best practices for defending against such allegations.