Summary

Portrait of John M. Walker, Jr. John M. Walker, Jr. New York v. National Services Industries… (2003)

Noting that the substantial continuity test (sometimes referred to as the "continuity of enterprise" approach) had been followed by the Supreme Court in the labor law context, in Betkoski we contrasted that doctrine with the mere continuation rule. Rather than considering ownership, the substantial continuity test focuses on the continuity of the business: Whether the "successor maintains the same business, with the same employees doing the same jobs, under the same supervisors, working conditions, and production processes, and produces the same products for the same customers."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John M. Walker, Jr. John M. Walker, Jr. New York v. National Services Industries… (2003)

DISCUSSION We are faced with the question of whether, in the context of CERCLA, the substantial continuity rule for successor liability that we adopted in Betkoski remains good law after the Supreme Court's decision in Bestfoods. We hold that it does not.
CERCLA makes any "person" who is the present or past owner or operator of a contaminated facility or a generator or transporter of the hazardous substances that pollute a facility, liable for the cost of cleaning up the facility.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature