June 23, 2008
WR Grace funds another cleanup
Analysis of:
W.R. Grace's Asbestos Settlement Wins Approval | www.washingtonpost.com
This analysis is solely the work of the author. It has not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Implications: The guidelines for EPA actions may have to be amended to try & decrease the time it takes to obtain cleanup reimbursement from responsible parties!
Analysis: Almost 9 years since the cleanup began & 7 years from the judgement against WR Grace, WR Grace is finally reimbursing cleanup efforts. Interestingly, what started as a 54 million judgement in 2001 has resulted in a 250 million payout by Grace. While it may be one of the largest EPA cleanup reimbursements ever, the result may be out weighed by the economics of how long it took to resolve. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Environmental+Protection+Agency?tid=informline Why did it take so long for the responsible party to be forced to step up to the plate, especially since taxpayers having been paying the tab to date. Part of the issue was WR Grace was allowed to seek bankruptcy protection & things moved at a snails pace thru that proceeding. The rules may need to be revised to give greater teeth to those who do an end run. Some may question WR Grace's right to hide in bankruptcy or even their tactics to seek all legal avenues on the 7 year old judgement, but the rules need to be adjusted for these systematic delays & creative posturing. What has also been called into question is that when all is said and done WR Grace's payment will not even cover the cost of cleanup. It seems like this conglomerate was able to somewhat out last the government. Many feel the government had to take short money to meet budgetary concerns, but we all know who ends up picking up the tab for the shortfall. It seems like one big chess game.
Analysis: Almost 9 years since the cleanup began & 7 years from the judgement against WR Grace, WR Grace is finally reimbursing cleanup efforts. Interestingly, what started as a 54 million judgement in 2001 has resulted in a 250 million payout by Grace. While it may be one of the largest EPA cleanup reimbursements ever, the result may be out weighed by the economics of how long it took to resolve. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Environmental+Protection+Agency?tid=informline Why did it take so long for the responsible party to be forced to step up to the plate, especially since taxpayers having been paying the tab to date. Part of the issue was WR Grace was allowed to seek bankruptcy protection & things moved at a snails pace thru that proceeding. The rules may need to be revised to give greater teeth to those who do an end run. Some may question WR Grace's right to hide in bankruptcy or even their tactics to seek all legal avenues on the 7 year old judgement, but the rules need to be adjusted for these systematic delays & creative posturing. What has also been called into question is that when all is said and done WR Grace's payment will not even cover the cost of cleanup. It seems like this conglomerate was able to somewhat out last the government. Many feel the government had to take short money to meet budgetary concerns, but we all know who ends up picking up the tab for the shortfall. It seems like one big chess game.
Report a Concern
More GLG News in
Legal, Economic & Regulatory Affairs
Most Popular:
Source Article | Expert Analyses
Partial settlement reached in Exxon Valdez case
www.dallasnews.com
Court Decision: Tiffany v. eBay
www1.nysd.uscourts.gov
U.S. trade commission loses bid for Rambus appeal
www.reuters.com
Decision: 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision
www.eff.org
Billions Not for the Plaintiffs Bar
www.law.com
Exxon Settles!
September 1, 2008
Rambus Wins Again
August 29, 2008
Does Cablevision Matter?
August 29, 2008
From eBay, the Law Should Expect More
August 29, 2008
Afghanistan: March Back Naked, the Ultimate Concessions: Theirs or Ours.
August 25, 2008

