The U.S. Supreme Court refused April 20 to accept for review a lawsuit which asserted liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for asbestos left in place when an industrial building was sold (Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson Inc., U.S., No. 08-1070, 4/20/09).rnThe order leaves intact an Oct. 20, 2008, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that ruled against Sycamore Industrial Park Associates, holding that a superfund cost recovery claim cannot be based merely on asbestos left in place when a building was sold (Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson Inc., 546 F.3d 847, 67 ERC 1870 (7th Cir. 2008); 39 ER 2173, 10/31/08).rnIn 1985, the industrial park company purchased a site with a number of buildings in Sycamore, 111., that Ericsson had used for manufacturing.
展开▼
机译：美国最高法院于4月20日拒绝接受诉讼的复审，该诉讼声称根据《综合环境响应，赔偿和责任法》，对出售一栋工业建筑时留下的石棉应承担的责任（美国Sycamore Industrial Park Associates诉爱立信公司） ，第08-1070号，第4/20/09号）。rn该命令在2008年10月20日完好无损，这是美国第七巡回上诉法院对Sycamore Industrial Park Associates作出的裁定，裁定超级资金成本得以收回索赔不能仅仅基于出售建筑物时留下的石棉（Sycamore Industrial Park Associates诉爱立信公司，546 F.3d 847，67 ERC 1870（7th Cir。2008）; 39 ER 2173，10/31 / 08）.rn 1985年，工业园区公司在111.的Sycamore购得了带有许多建筑物的场地，这是爱立信用于制造的建筑物。
展开▼
