Posted
by

On April 20, an intermediate Court of Appeals for the First Court of Appeals, sitting in Houston, reversed the trial court and directed that court to reinstate an environmental enforcement action that had purportedly been settled by agreement of the officials of Brazoria County, Texas and the defendants. Brazoria County had brought an environmental enforcement action against the defendants for violating state and county regulations regarding sewage disposal and the use of on-site sewage facilities. The State had objected to these settlement reached by Brazoria County and the defendants, but the trial court overruled the State’s objections and entered final judgment resolving the case and attaching the Agreed Judgments as exhibits to its judgment. The case is The State of Texas v. Brazoria County and Daniel Infante, Humberto Lumbrero, Isidro Dejesus Luna, and Ma Dejesus Luna.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On April 20, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson Division, dismissed the plaintiffs’ Clean Water Act (CWA) Citizen Suit which alleged that the defendant pipeline operators had violated the CWA by discharging pollutants into navigable waters without a permit. The District Court concluded that although plaintiffs “identified a discrete source for the pollution,” they “failed to allege a discrete conveyance of pollutants into navigable waters.” The District Court otherwise confirmed that “the CWA does not apply to claims involving discharge of pollution to groundwater that is hydrologically connected to surface waters.” The case is Upstate Forever and Savannah Riverkeeper v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and Plantation Pipe Line Company, Inc.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that may terminate much of the litigation triggered by the bankruptcy of Tronox Inc. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case is In re Tronox Inc.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Government enforcement actions, including the issuance of subpoenas and Civil Investigation Demands (CIDs), must be authorized by the laws that created the agency or invested it with such broad investigative powers. A relatively new agency like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was established by the Dodd-Frank Act, will often see its enforcement powers challenged at the start, and the regulated community should be aware of these inherent limitations on the exercise of governmental authority.

On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued another ruling adverse to the CFPB. In CFPB v. the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the CFPB has no authority to issue a CID to the Council seeking information held by the Council related to “unlawful acts and practices in connection with accrediting for-profit colleges.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On April 14, a U.S. Magistrate serving with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana issued a ruling in a matter involving the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The case is Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc. The District Court held that the attorney’s communications with environmental contractors Keramida, Inc. and CH2M Hill, Inc. were not entered into for the purpose of rendering legal advice and, therefore, the attorney-client privilege did not apply. However, the District Court did agree that some of the emails were protected by the attorney work product doctrine.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

iStock-468692144-stored-materials-300x200

Stored materials present a potentially serious point of tension between lenders and borrowers in the negotiation of a construction loan agreement. In construction lending, the term “stored materials” refers to the materials and items that are purchased in advance of their use and incorporation into the project. Those materials will need to be stored either on the project site or in a warehouse or other location “off-site.” Many lenders are wary about allowing funds to be used for stored materials because of the risk of loss off-site and, accordingly, may place conditions on the use of such funds. However, the borrower, usually through its general contractor, needs to purchase materials “in advance” to keep construction moving smoothly. For example, it would be completely impractical to require the general contractor to purchase the windows of a high-rise on a daily, as-needed basis.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The new administration at the Environmental Protection Action has taken these actions:

  • Reconsidering the New Methane Rules.

On June 3, 2016, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA promulgated amendments to the existing oil and gas New Source Performance Standards, 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart 0000, and established new methane emissions standards for the these sources, 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart 0000a, with respect to volatile organic compounds (VOC) and greenhouse gas emissions. The new 0000a standards are designed to reduce pollutant greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from oil and natural gas production, processing, transmission and storage activities and operations.

On April 18, responding to petitions for reconsideration filed by industry groups and trade associations, EPA determined that these petitions raised an important issue that had not been considered earlier regarding the monitoring of fugitive emissions. As a result, EPA will convene a new proceeding to reconsider these requirements, and stayed the compliance date for fugitive emissions monitoring for 90 days. EPA will also consider the impact of these rules on low–production wells.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

In Federal Contractors Beware DHS Proposes Robust Cybersecurity Procurement Regulation to Safeguard Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), my colleagues and I discuss the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) procurement regulation to safeguard CUI and its internal inconsistencies/ambiguities.

Posted
by and

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments on any “regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.”

This notice invites an unprecedented level of review over EPA’s entire existing body of regulations. The notice aims to implement the President’s February 24 Executive Order 13777 Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” The notice describes those regulations vulnerable to overhaul as those that:

(a)    Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;

(b)   Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;

(c)    Impose costs that exceed benefits;

(d)   Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies.

The comment period closes only 30 days out, on May 15, 2017. Contact your counsel for more information or to request assistance in commenting.

Posted
by

iStock-518037359-construction-300x198

As any builder will tell you, it is impossible to know with certainty the exact amount a project is going to cost. Variables affecting the cost run the gamut from labor and material costs to delays for unforeseen conditions, weather or other causes. The longer a project is expected to take, the more uncertain the project’s costs become. For this reason, contingencies are included in budgets by all parties involved: owners, contractors, subcontractors and, occasionally, lenders. Ideally, these contingencies will allow the project to absorb delays and other unexpected events without the owner being forced to contribute additional equity (and “balance the loan”) at the time. The owner will desire maximum flexibility over the re-allocation of the contingency(ies) to line items that will then be funded by the lender—while the lender will want to “control” the use of contingency line items to the extent possible.

With this in mind, let’s look at some of the competing motivations at play and “typical” loan agreement provisions regarding the use (or re-allocation) of contingency(ies) to other line items in the Project Budget.

Continue Reading ›