In this issue

- The CERCLA Divisibilty Defense: Back from the Dead?

- Springing Recourse for Breach of Solvency and Debt Payment Covenants? Does New York Need Cherryland Legislation?

- Mid-Construction Refinancing: Opportunity or Plunge into the Void?

- Blank Rome’s Real Estate Group

- Why Owners Should Care about Subcontracts Held by Construction Managers

- Noteworthy Real Estate Deals

- An excerpt from: The CERCLA Divisibilty Defense: Back from the Dead?

On September 25, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision that may resuscitate the all-butdead divisibility defense in cases brought under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). This decision has the potential to be a game-changer with respect to easing defendants’ burden in limiting their CERCLA liability exposure at multi-party contamination sites.

The Supreme Court Affirms the Divisibility Defense in Its 2009 Decision in Burlington Northern -

Because CERCLA liability is typically joint and several, potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with even minimal contributions to a contaminated site may be held liable for all response costs associated with a site cleanup. Environmental cleanups can be costly, and joint and several liability is not only unnerving, but it can also be an impediment to a viable defense.