1.

 Describe the corporate ownership history that surrounds the Muskegon

facility. Ott owned the chemical plant that originally operated the Muskegon
plant. Ott sold to CPC (eventually became Best Foods). CPC incorporated Ott II
to run the plant. Ott II was sold to Story. Story went into bankruptcy. Aero-Jet
purchased the plant in bankruptcy.
2. What must be shown to hold a parent liable for the actions of the subsidiary?
Is CERCLA liability determined under the same corporate veil standards as
other issues? No, the silence makes it clear that there is only the common law
corporate doctrine and not any special CERCLA veil piercing standard. There
must be something more than joint directors and control of the company – here
there must be control of the operations and involvement.
3. Are joint directors of parent and corporate subsidiaries evidence of a need to
pierce the corporate veil? No, the court makes it clear that such is one of the
necessary functions of corporate accountability and that a conclusion of liability
from such cross-directorships is not appropriate under common law or
CERCLA. There is some evidence that an officer of the parent had hands-on
involvement with the facility and it is that level of control and involvement that
is necessary to establish liability.

Describe the corporate ownership

history that surrounds the
Muskegon facility. Ott owned the
chemical
plant that originally operated the
Muskegon plant. Ott sold to CPC
(eventually became Best Foods).
CPC
incorporated Ott II to run the plant.
Ott II was sold to Story. Story
went into bankruptcy. Aero-Jet
purchased the plant in bankruptcy.
2. What must be shown to hold
a parent liable for the actions of
the subsidiary? Is CERCLA
liability
determined under the same
corporate veil standards as other
issues? No, the silence makes it
clear that
there is only the common law
corporate doctrine and not any
special CERCLA veil piercing
standard.
There must be something more
than joint directors and control of
the company – here there must be
control of the operations and
involvement.
3. Are joint directors of parent and
corporate subsidiaries evidence of
a need to pierce the corporate veil?
No, the court makes it clear that
such is one of the necessary
functions of corporate
accountability and that
a conclusion of liability from such
cross-directorships is not
appropriate under common law or
CERCLA.
There is some evidence that an
officer of the parent had hands-on
involvement with the facility and it
is
that level of control and
involvement that is necessary to
establish liability
1. Describe the corporate ownership history that surrounds the Muskegon
facility. Ott owned the chemical plant that originally operated the Muskegon
plant. Ott sold to CPC (eventually became Best Foods). CPC incorporated Ott
II to run the plant. Ott II was sold to Story. Story went into bankruptcy.
Aero-Jet purchased the plant in bankruptcy.
2. What must be shown to hold a parent liable for the actions of the
subsidiary? Is CERCLA liability determined under the same corporate veil
standards as other issues?
No, the silence makes it clear that there is only the common law corporate
doctrine and not any special CERCLA veil piercing standard.
There must be something more than joint directors and control of the company
– here there must be control of the operations and involvement.
3. Are joint directors of parent and corporate subsidiaries evidence of a need to
pierce the corporate veil?
No, the court makes it clear that such is one of the necessary functions of
corporate accountability and that a conclusion of liability from such cross-
directorships is not appropriate under common law or CERCLA.
There is some evidence that an officer of the parent had hands-on involvement
with the facility and it is that level of control and involvement that is necessary
to establish liability