Presiding Judge Riley, who wrote for the Eighth District, called Asarco`s dispute a “collateral assault,” noting that “all of Asarco`s claims are prohibited contribution requests, even if some are camouflaged — like wolves dressed in sheep`s clothing, so to speak,” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 699 (1988) (Scalia, J., deviant) – as claims for breach of contract. » *11. He continues: “The District Court correctly concluded that UP had not waived the protection of the contributions of the law or violated the toll agreement by relying on this protection.” * 14. The Court`s opinion is full of legal interpretations and CERCLA guidelines for the CERCLA practitioner. The toll agreement was not a specific waiver of the contested party`s superfund liability, the court said. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit upheld this decision, stating that once a party has settled its liability under CERCLA, it is protected from other claims related to Superfund`s website. This protection also applies if a unifying PRP is involved in a contribution process at the time of its settlement or if an agreement between PRPs purports to change the traditional structure of contribution protection. ASARCO, as the owner and operator of this large lead smelter, paid $214 million to settle its liabilities when it emerged from bankruptcy.
ASARCO did not object to UP`s separate settlement, but later argued that UP had violated its toll agreement with ASARCO by entering into a settlement with the EPA. However, the courts have now ruled that UP`s settlement with EPA UP under CERCLA provides legal protection against other ASARCO claims, with the courts concluding that when filing the limitation periods, the toll agreement reserved all other rights and defenses to the parties. As a result, CERCLA`s separate settlement essentially prevailed over the toll agreement, which the courts interpreted narrowly under Nebraska law. In Asarco v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2014 American application. LEXIS 15285 (8th Cir. 2014), the Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court in Asarco LLC v. Union Pac. R.R.
Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108852 (D. Neb. 2 August 2013) and dismissed Asarco`s claims against Union Pacific in connection with the Omaha Lead Superfund Site (OLS) for contribution, breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Asarco attempted to circumvent Article 113(f)(2) of the CERCLA on the protection of Union Pacific`s contributions by alleging a violation of the parties` toll agreement. Rejecting NL`s claim that it could invoke a statute of limitations defence existing the day before the toll agreement was signed, the court considered cercla`s “structure, underlying policies [and] legislative history” and noted that “the time requirement [in CERCLA] is a limitation period that can be extended by toll agreements between the parties.” The court also noted that “contaminated sites can have a long and complex history,” that toll agreements help the EPA in the tedious process of identifying responsible parties and investigating sites, and that toll agreements facilitate settlement with PRPs, which is a goal of CERCLA. The court ruled that the defence had been lifted because the toll agreement did not provide for the parties to expressly maintain the existing limitation periods.
Prior to the signing of the agreement, the United States requested mediation in the FOIA dispute. The toll agreement did not deal with the settlement by Union Pacific. Asarco nevertheless concluded the agreement. The mediation was successful and resulted in a CERCLA complaint and consent decree and the dismissal of the FOIA dispute. Asarco did not comment in response to the Federal Register`s announcement of the settlement and ultimately did not attempt to intervene in the CERCLA case. Instead, Asarco sued the Pacific union for violating the toll agreement after the consent order was approved. The action was dismissed at the request of Union Pacific F.R.C.P. 12 (b) (6). For the first time, Asarco has put forward an estoppel argument on appeal to prevent Union Pacific from seeking contribution protection.
The SEC began investigating the defendant, a financial advisor to J.D. Nicolas, in 2014 for conduct that began in 2011. His trading strategy was to review the news reports to identify events he found that the shares had not yet been fully included in their price and invested his clients in those stocks. The defendant`s approach resulted in high turnover rates, significant transaction costs, and unauthorized business. .