On May 4, 2009, in its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed “arranger” liability as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Court held that, under CERCLA, (1) parties are not liable as “arrangers” unless they have an “intent to dis-pose” of at least a portion of a product and (2) apportionment of liability, not joint and several liability, applies when there is a “reasonable ba-sis” for determining the contribution of each de-fendant to the contamination. Subsequent deci-sions on arranger liability, however, have limited Burlington to its facts, suggesting that its impact may not be as significant as once believed.  Read More…