Wisconsin State Court Approves Settlement in Fire Suppression Suit

A Wisconsin state court judge approved a $10 million settlement between the state and a leading manufacturer of fire suppression products, resolving claims that PFAS from one of the company’s facilities allegedly contaminated drinking water and the local environment. The company agreed to provide clean water in deep drinking-water wells for every existing plot of…

Fourth Circuit Reverses PFAS Injunction

The Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction barring Chemours from discharging more HFPO-DA, one type of PFAS, from its Washington Works facility into the Ohio River than its Clean Water Act (CWA) permit allows. The Fourth Circuit first held that the plaintiff, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, had shown a substantial likelihood of Article III associational…

Australia Sues to Recover Billions in PFAS Cleanup Costs at Defense Bases

The Australian government announced that it commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against 3M Company and 3M Australia Pty Ltd. to recover costs for alleged PFAS contamination at 28 defense bases across Australia, where PFAS were allegedly present in legacy firefighting foams used for many years. The government alleges that 3M withheld information…

Montana Federal Court Declines to Sanction Forum-Shopping Plaintiffs

The District of Montana denied motions for fees, costs, sanctions, and a stay under Rule 41(d) that were brought by 3M, DuPont, and other defendants in a nationwide class action alleging that PFAS-containing firefighter gear caused certain health effects. The Connecticut purchaser plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their first-filed Connecticut action and then refiled in Montana,…

Michigan Landfills Survive Motion to Dismiss in CERCLA PFAS Case

Two Michigan landfills, Central Sanitary Landfill and Ottowa County Landfill, survived motions to dismiss their Superfund cost recovery claims against PFAS manufacturers and users. In denying the motions to dismiss, the court rejected the defendant’s “useful product” defense—that it sold a legitimate, valuable product that only later became a hazardous waste. The court also rejected…