Recently Law360 published my three-part series covering 2016’s most significant environmental cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts. Part 1 covers the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts sitting in the D.C., First, Second, Third and Fourth Circuits. Part 2 highlighted cases decided by the federal courts sitting in the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits. Part 3 covers cases decided in the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, as well as several state supreme courts.
On December 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in Water Quality Insurance Syndicate v. U.S., which reversed the Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center’s (NPFC) finding of gross negligence by the captain of the MONARCH, a supply vessel that collided with an offshore oil and gas production platform in the Cook Inlet, AL. This decision may have significant implications for insurers. Continue Reading ›
On December 21, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the Final Rule revising the EPA’s Chemical Accident Prevention regulations, generally known as the Risk Management Program (RMP). These rules were mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (42 U.S.C. § 7412), and the rules are located at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The EPA is authorized by law to prevent and respond to the accidental release of “regulated substances” by stationary sources by promulgating appropriate regulations which recognize “differences in size, operations, processes, class and categories of sources.” EPA’s list of regulated toxic and flammable substances and their threshold quantities is located at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. The latest revisions to the RMP rules respond to Executive Order 13650, and a number of recent serious releases of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from HAP storage facilities.
Two new statutes—the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the GAO Civilian Task and Delivery Order Protest Authority Act of 2016 (Civilian Task Order Act)—greatly impact the ability of government contractors to pursue bid protests of task order awards. The NDAA increases the jurisdictional threshold from $10 million to $25 million to file a bid protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for Department of Defense (DoD) task order awards. The Civilian Task Order Act, signed into law on December 14, 2016, restored the GAO’s jurisdiction over protests involving task order awards valued at over $10 million issued by civilian agencies, which had lapsed on September 30, 2016.
Today, our colleague Glenn Sweatt published a client alert discussion the Defense Innovation Unit (Experimental) (DIUx) relaunched in May 2016 and recent developments, including the award of more than $36 million in new contracts in FY 2016, and what is expected in the coming year. The alert is titled High-Tech Government Contracts Program Shows Promise, but Long Term Success Uncertain.
On April 7, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Gulf Restoration Network, et al., v. McCarthy, vacated and remanded a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that granted, in part, the plaintiff environmental organizations’ complaint that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by denying a petition for rulemaking and thereby failing to impose numeric water quality standards to control nitrogen and phosphorus pollution within the Mississippi River Basin and the Northern Gulf of Mexico, violated the Administrative Procedure Act. On remand, the district court has now granted EPA’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ petition for rulemaking filed with EPA.
On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the case of Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, et al., v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, et al. The Fourth Circuit concluded that, “[b]ecause events beyond the parties’ control have mooted this appeal, leaving the district court’s judgment undisturbed would not serve the public interest.” Continue Reading ›
Today, our colleagues Jenny Sheng and Julian Zou published a client alert discussing China’s recent restrictions on outbound investments by Chinese companies in certain industries. Among other things, they encourage Chinese firms and foreign investors engaged in overseas investments to be aware of these new trends and to prepare to adjust their strategic plans and overseas activities. The alert is titled China’s Recent Restrictions on Outbound Investments by Chinese Companies.
On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of United States of America, e ex rel. Jeffrey M. Simoneaux v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company. Reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit held that “potential or contingent penalties” are not obligations under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and they are not obligations under the FCA “even when a statute requires immediate action from a violator,[because] the Government must still choose whether to impose a penalty.” Continue Reading ›
On December 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling holding that a lower court’s decision dismissing the federal government’s civil claim that the defendants were at fault in connection with a spill of clarified slurry oil had preclusive effect upon the government’s later-filed criminal enforcement case in the same matter. The case is U.S. v. Egan Marine Corporation and Dennis Michael Egan. Continue Reading ›
