| | Michael Freeborn's Practice Areas:
Antitrust Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Employment Law
Environmental Litigation
Product Liability
Securities Litigation
His environmental litigation has included the
following cases --
 | Sekerez v. U.S. Steel
When Michael began his career as a lawyer in 1972, he concentrated
on environmental issues almost exclusively. During this period, for
example, he authored a thorough discussion of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972: Freeborn, "Illinois Environmental
Law -- The New Assault on Water Pollution," 24 DePaul Law Review
481 (1975).
The environmental movement was sweeping the nation, and steel mills were
high profile targets. Federal, state and local governments sued them,
as did citizen groups and individuals. One such individual was a gadfly in
Indiana named Zarko Sekerez.
Mr. Sekerez, who was a surveyor by training, had also obtained a law
degree and passed the bar. He filed more than two dozen complaints and
amended complaints against U.S. Steel in Gary, Indiana -- alleging a variety
of claims based on alleged air pollution, water pollution, nuisance and so
on.
But he also filed one case challenging the legality of a revenue bond
financing which was intended to pay for millions of dollars' worth of
pollution control equipment at U.S. Steel's Gary Works. While
associated with a prior firm, Michael
defended the company.
Although Michael felt the lawsuit was frivolous, getting it dismissed
would be time-consuming and, of course, the inevitable appeal by Mr. Sekerez
would only prolong things further. Meanwhile, reputable bond counsel
would be reluctant to render the legal opinions necessary to facilitate
issuance of the bonds.
Thus, Michael had to negotiate. For so long as the bond issue was
held up, so might the pollution control facilities be delayed, he argued to
Mr. Sekerez. In addition, surely Mr. Sekerez did not wish to be
personally embarrassed by the eventual dismissal of his case, nor personally
responsible for the damages potentially resulting from improper obstruction
of the bond issue.
Michael asserted that any reputable lawyer who looked at this
case would say it had little likelihood of success. Sekerez disagreed
but took the challenge. He designated a law school professor -- a
teacher of "natural law" -- to examine the pleadings.
Michael and Sekerez agreed that if the professor concluded there was little
likelihood of Sekerez prevailing, Sekerez would voluntarily dismiss the case
forthwith.
Michael drove to the law school that night, with the case file in
hand. Sure enough, the professor gave Sekerez the news he did not wish
to hear, the case was voluntarily dismissed, the bond issue proceeded, and
the pollution control equipment was installed.
|
| Allied et al v. Acme et al
Since adoption of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as the "Superfund"
law, Michael has subsequently represented numerous companies which were identified as
potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") at various cleanup
sites. Most of the situations have involved negotiated agreements for
voluntary sharing of cleanup costs by the many companies involved.
In this case, however, litigation was necessary in order to stimulate
contributions to the cleanup costs. In Allied, a couple dozen
plaintiff companies which were participating in payment of the cleanup costs
joined in filing suit in federal court seeking contribution from another
couple dozen companies. The defendants, which for a variety of reasons
disputed that they were responsible for the cleanup, resisted.
In addition to representing one of the defendants, Michael served as liaison
counsel for all the defendants on issues which they had in common with each
other, such as discovery disputes, joint dispositive motions, and the like.
The case eventually settled without the necessity of trial.
|
| Clorox Company v. Chromium Corporation
The Clorox Company discovered a suspicious,
"greenish"-looking liquid on its property. A neighbor,
Chromium Corporation, had used metallic chromium in its manufacturing
processes -- and chromic oxide is known to be green in color.
Hmmm.
So Clorox sued Chromium, alleging that hazardous substances, including
chromium, had migrated from the Chromium property onto the Clorox
property. The plaintiff relied on the "citizen suit"
provisions of the federal Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The defendant asked Michael for help.
Michael and his colleagues argued that because the U.S. EPA had authorized
the state of Illinois to administer its own hazardous waste program, the
state's requirements superseded the federal requirements.
Therefore, a RCRA citizen suit could not survive based on the superseded
regulations.
In a ruling which established new precedent in Illinois, and was widely
reported in national environmental publications, the federal district court
agreed. The suit by Clorox was dismissed.
|
|
