Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
- New Jersey Appellate Division Finds The New Jersey Constitution Does Not Provide A Fundamental Right To “A Stable Environment”
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
Topics
- Agency Action
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Loper Bright
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Inspection
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Earlier this month, in B&R Resources, LLC v. DEP, No. 1234 C.D. 2017 (March 15, 2018), Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court held that the sole managing member of a limited liability company may be personally liable for his company’s failure to plug certain abandoned wells. In doing so, the Commonwealth Court clarified that the participation theory of liability, which essentially extends liability from a corporation to its officers who “participated” in corporate wrongdoing, may encompass not only intentional misconduct by an officer but also deliberate inaction.
The case concerned an enforcement action against Richard F. Campola ("Campola"), the sole and managing member of B&R Resources, LLC ("B&R"), a limited liability company engaged in oil and gas exploration activities. In December 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the “Department” or “DEP”) first notified Campola that a number of B&R's wells appeared to be abandoned. In 2014, after B&R failed to address the issue, DEP issued a notice of violations with a list of wells that had been abandoned and requested that B&R take action to comply with the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. Section 3220(a) of the oil and gas statutes enacted by Act 13 of February 14, 2012, P.L. 72 (the "2012 Oil and Gas Act"), 58 Pa. C.S. § 3220(a), requires the owner or operator of a well to plug any abandoned well to stop vertical flow of fluids or gas within the well bore. Campola received the notice and informed the Department that B&R was "not in any position to plug any wells at this time," and requested that DEP "allow [B&R] to fix problems without DEP interference." DEP later followed up with additional notice of violations and repeatedly instructed B&R to bring the wells into compliance, but B&R did not plug any of the wells or return any of them to production. DEP then issued an administrative order against both B&R and Campola, requiring them to plug 47 wells that had allegedly been abandoned.
B&R and Campola appealed the administrative order to Pennsylvania’s Environmental Hearing Board. The principal matter before the Board was whether the Department could take enforcement action against Campola, who did not technically own or operate any of the wells in question. The Department found that Campola, as B&R's managing member, made all operational decisions for B&R, including decisions on which wells to produce and decisions on whether to plug wells. Further, it was undisputed that the 47 wells had been abandoned and that B&R was required to plug the wells under the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. Consequently, the Board held that Campola was responsible for plugging the wells in his individual capacity under the participation theory, a basis for liability whereby a corporate officer's actions and participation in corporate wrongdoing make the officer individually liable. The Board held that, even though the wrongdoing at issue here was inaction, Campola was still responsible for plugging the wells because his inaction was intentional.
B&R and Campola appealed again, this time to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Board's decision. First, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's holding that Campola could be liable under a participation theory even though his conduct consisted of inaction. The court noted that the participation theory extended to a corporate officer's wrongdoing when that wrongdoing was "intentional," and the court held that deliberate inaction could meet this standard. Specifically, the court raised concerns that, if there was an absolute rule barring participation theory liability for inaction, then corporate officers would essentially be shielded from individual liability if their corporation simply ignored statutory obligations. Thus, the court rejected the argument that intentional inaction could never support participation theory liability as a matter of public policy.
While the Commonwealth Court largely agreed with the Board's legal analysis, the court ultimately remanded the case back to the Board for additional factual determinations. Specifically, the court noted that participation theory liability can attach "only if there is a casual connection between [Campola's] wrongful conduct and the violation." Here, the record reflected that Campola did not have B&R plug its wells because Campola decided to direct B&R's financial resources to other business besides plugging the wells. The court found that there was a gap in the factual record as to whether B&R could have plugged all 47 of its wells had Campola channeled its financial resources to plugging the wells. Thus, in the court's view, there was not necessarily a causal link between Campola's decision to not plug the wells and B&R's failure to plug them. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the Board so that the record could be further developed on this matter.
Although the court ultimately remanded the matter back to the Board, its holding that deliberate inaction may be a foundation for participation theory liability arguably expands the scope of the participation theory in environmental matters in Pennsylvania. The participation theory remains an oft-forgotten but viable tool in the Department's enforcement belt.