United States v. Bestfoods et al.

Supreme Court of the United States · Corporations

CorporationsCERCLAParent-subsidiary liabilityCorporate veil piercingOperator liabilityCERCLAoperator liabilityparent corporation

Facts

Ott Chemical operated a chemical plant near Muskegon, Michigan, and hazardous substances were dumped there over time. CPC formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Ott II, to acquire the plant assets, and Ott II continued operations and pollution; CPC placed some of its officials in Ott II management and board positions, while one CPC employee, G. R. D. Williams, worked only for CPC and became heavily involved in environmental matters relating to the plant. The United States incurred response costs cleaning up the site and sued, alleging that CPC and Aerojet, as parent corporations, had owned or operated the facility within CERCLA. The dispute relevant here was whether CPC could be liable as an operator based on its relationship to its subsidiary or based on its own actions at the facility.

Issue

Whether, under CERCLA, a parent corporation that actively participates in and exercises control over the operations of its subsidiary may, without more, be held liable as an operator of a polluting facility owned or operated by the subsidiary. Also, whether a parent may instead be directly liable when it itself operates the facility.

Rule

CERCLA does not displace ordinary principles of corporate law preserving the separateness of parent and subsidiary corporations. Thus, a parent may be held derivatively liable for a subsidiary's actions only when the corporate veil may be pierced. Separately, a parent may be held directly liable as an operator if it manages, directs, or conducts operations at the facility specifically related to pollution, including leakage or disposal of hazardous waste or decisions about compliance with environmental regulations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Holdings, Inc., a Delaware parent, owns all shares of Rio Works, LLC, which runs a metal-plating facility in Cleveland, Ohio. Blue Mesa approves Rio Works's annual capital budget, reviews monthly profit reports, and requires quarterly presentations on plant performance, but gives no instructions about waste disposal, leak response, or environmental compliance.

If hazardous waste contamination later triggers cleanup costs, is Blue Mesa most likely directly liable as an operator of the facility?

Explanation. Direct operator liability turns on the parent's own management, direction, or conduct of operations at the facility specifically related to pollution. Normal parental oversight—such as monitoring performance, supervising finances, and approving budgets—is consistent with investor status and is not enough. A parent can be directly liable, but not on these facts. (Derived from United States v. Bestfoods et al. (n.d.).)