← All Authorities
United States Leading Case separate legal personalityvicarious liability

United States v Bestfoods

524 U.S. 51 (1998)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1998
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Under CERCLA, a parent corporation is not liable for its subsidiary's environmental violations merely by actively participating in subsidiary operations; corporate veil must be properly pierced.

Key Principle

CERCLA; parent corporation liability; corporate veil not pierced merely by active involvement in subsidiary operations

Area of Law

environmental

Related Cases

Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2022] FCAFC 35

Full Federal Court overturned trial judge and held no novel duty of care is owed by the Environment Minister to Australian children when approving fossil fuel projects under climate change concerns.

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc v Environment Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 92

NSW Land and Environment Court held the EPA had a statutory duty under the POEO Act to develop environmental protection policies addressing climate change, enforceable by judicial review.

Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning (Rocky Hill Mine) [2019] NSWLEC 7

First Australian court decision refusing mine approval on climate change grounds, holding that a project's greenhouse gas contributions are a material consideration in planning decisions.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of United States v Bestfoods and how it applies to your situation.

Explain United States v Bestfoods