Laserfiche WebLink
1 months to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement of all of plaintiff LPL's direct claims. While <br /> 2 plaintiff LPL finally accepted the assignment of the direct and derivative contribution claims held <br /> 3 by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants and others, as consideration for the releases granted in <br /> 4 this and the related state court action and in lieu of a significantly larger cash settlement,the <br /> 5 change in the identity of the party asserting these claims does not entitle a responsible party to <br /> 6 escape their equitable share of the liability for contamination at the Site. <br /> 7 Comment#9: <br /> 8 Section Addressed: General Comment <br /> 9 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 10 The Commenters, the Equipment Manufacturers, assert that the Consent Decree <br /> I 1 provides no incentive for the Settling Parties to monitor costs or make cost effective choices <br /> 12 regarding the clean-up of the Site which might limit the potential liability in contribution of the <br /> 13 Equipment Manufacturers. The Commenter further states that the Consent Decree gives plaintiff <br /> 14 LPL an unlimited right to attempt to recover costs in the future from the Equipment Manufacturers <br /> 15 without providing the Equipment Manufacturers an opportunity to participate in the decisions that <br /> 16 cause those costs to be incurred. The Commenter posits that the Consent Decree cannot constitute <br /> 17 a good faith settlement based on the exclusion of the Equipment Manufacturers from this process. <br /> 18 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 19 The Settling Parties strongly disagree with these assertions. Under this settlement, <br /> 20 the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants have every reason to conserve their resources to the <br /> 21 maximum extent possible and to control costs in that they have agreed and have been ordered by <br /> 22 the Court, at their sole expense, to pay those costs. The Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants <br /> 23 recognize that they have limited resources with which to pay them. Plaintiff LPL also has every <br /> 24 incentive to control these costs because of the limited resources available to the Settling Dry <br /> 25 Cleaning Defendants with which to address all of the issues at the Site. In short, once the <br /> 26 Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants exhaust their resources, plaintiff LPL will likely bear any <br /> 27 residual costs in that plaintiff LPL is, and always has conceded that it is,jointly and severally liable <br /> 28 to the Federal and State governments as an owner of the property. <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -16- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 Q 10:43 AM <br />