Dealing With the Post-SARA Dynamics of PRP Settlements: Anyone for A Stay?
Hazardous waste cases litigated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) invariably involve large numbers of potentially responsible parties (PRPs). It is not uncommon for a single site to involve hundreds of parties, including the owners and operators of the site, transporters that utilized the site for disposal, and original generators of the waste.
Experience has demonstrated that one of the most significant aspects in these cases is the negotiation of appropriate allocation and settlement arrangements among the PRPs. Failure to achieve a PRP agreement invariably results in significantly increased litigation costs, more expensive governmentally funded cleanups, and compromise of the court's ability to effectively manage related litigation such as toxic tort and insurance coverage claims.1