Let's Discuss Your Issue

Lenders, developers, businesses, and law firms: contact us to discuss the details of your environmental issue and we’ll strategize options for solving it.

Contact Us >

Sample Matters

A seller of corporate assets was sued by the purchaser alleging the seller had failed to disclose material liabilities. .

A seller of corporate assets was sued by the purchaser alleging the seller had failed to disclose material environmental liabilities and had breached its environmental reps and warranties.

The Outcome >

Because of our expertise in environmental due diligence in corporate transactions, we were retained by the defendant/seller to an provide expert report stating that the purchaser should have discovered the environmental issues had it properly conducted environmental due diligence and the claim relating to the environmental issues was dismissed.

Client had lost its financing for a $200MM development project due to the economic downturn.

Client had lost its financing for a $200MM development project due to the economic downturn. Because the project would not be proceeding forward within the foreseeable future, the state environmental agency was threatening to terminate the project from the state brownfield program, causing client to lose approximately $30MM in tax credits.

The Outcome >

Using our expertise in the nuances of this brownfield program, our understanding of the tax credit program and experience with the capital markets, we came up with a creative solution that preserved the project’s eligibility for the brownfield tax credit program.

Client owned a multi-parcel property with contamination on several parcels.

Client owned a multi-parcel property that had significant redevelopment potential but had significant contamination on several parcels from historic uses. Having lost patience with the pace of the cleanup, the state environmental agency was prepared to place the property on state superfund list which would substantially reduce the redevelopment value of the property.

The Outcome >

Using our understanding of the superfund listing process, we identified the key issues that needed to be addresses, helped the client select a new consultant who had credibility with the state agency and negotiated a solution with the agency which allowed the most valuable portion of the site to avoid being listed.

A nearby superfund site impacted the groundwater beneath a client’s property.

A nearby superfund site impacted the groundwater beneath a client’s property. The state environmental agency wanted to collect samples from client’s property. The client’s general law firm did not have environmental expertise and had advised the client to deny access because he believed the state was trying to link the client’s property to the contamination, thereby making the client also responsible for the cleanup. As a result, the state was prepared to issue an order requiring the client to provide access to the consultant working for the responsible party.

The Outcome >

After the client’s law firm asked for our assistance, we used our understanding of the state policy and the particular issues associated with this site, we advised the client to pro-actively install certain mitigation systems that would effectively eliminate the concern expressed by the state regulator. When client agreed to adopt this strategy, the agency agreed no further investigation of the client’s property was required.

The owner of a shopping mall was trying to refinance a securitized loan.

The owner of a shopping mall was trying to refinance a securitized loan. The mall had a dry cleaner tenant that had contaminated the groundwater but had failed to take any of the remedial actions that had been required under the original mortgage. During the refinancing due diligence, the borrower discovered that the contamination had spread beyond the dry cleaner location. The bank was concerned that vapors were migrating into a day care center and other tenant spaces. As a result, the bank was taking the position that the contamination had to be completely investigated before the new loan could be closed. However, a traditional environmental investigation could not be completed before the closing date and if the borrower was unable to close, it would have to “defease” the loan that would dramatically increase the borrower costs for the property owner.

The Outcome >

With our expertise in vapor intrusion issues, we identified a consultant who was able to use sophisticated real time sampling and surrogate parameter analysis to delineate the extent of the vapor intrusion. We then developed a cost estimate for short-term to eliminate the immediate exposure concerns and for long-term remedial measures. The borrower was able to implement the short-term measures prior to the closing date and the bank established a post-closing reserve for the long-term remedial measure

Client wanted to redevelop a former gas station site into a mixed-use project.

Client wanted to redevelop a former gas station site into a mixed-use project and was hoping to enroll in the state brownfield program and use the tax credits to attract investors for the project. However, because a major oil company had already begun to implement interim remedial measures at the property, the state was not initially inclined to allow the site into the brownfield program.

The Outcome >

Using our understanding of the eligibility criteria for the brownfield program and state policy, we were able to demonstrate to the state agency why this project warranted enrollment into the brownfield program. The project was accepted and became eligible for $10MM in tax credits.

A lender was sued by a former borrower.

A lender was sued by a former borrower who had been ordered by a state environmental agency to remediate its former property. The former borrower asserted that the lender had exercised sufficient control during a workout in the late 1980s, and had also failed to comply with the state law requiring properties to be remediated when they were sold or closed.

The Outcome >

Because of expertise in the area of lender liability and our understanding of the practices in effect in the 1980s, we were hired as an expert witness. As a result of our expert report, the lender was dismissed from the case.

A seller of corporate assets was sued by the purchaser.

A seller of corporate assets was sued by the purchaser alleging the seller had failed to disclose material environmental liabilities and had breached its environmental reps and warranties.

The Outcome >

Because of our expertise in environmental due diligence in corporate transactions, we were retained by the defendant/seller to an provide expert report stating that the purchaser should have discovered the environmental issues had it properly conducted environmental due diligence and the claim relating to the environmental issues was dismissed.