Glen R. Stuart

In his environmental work, Glen defends federal and state governmental claims as well as private common law and contractual claims made under environmental statutes. He has, for example, represented numerous clients against federal and state governmental claims under the environmental statutes. He also has defended at trial a former property owner in a private cost recovery claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. He also has defended property diminution claims involving extensive expert testimony, pursued and defended third-party contribution claims, negotiated consent decrees, and represented companies in the defense and settlement of natural resource damage claims. In addition, he counseled clients during the design and construction of two of the first CERCLA response actions funded through mixed funding.

Glen represents clients responding to investigations and litigation by the federal government and State Attorneys General. For example, in representing a major pharmaceutical client, Glen served as the coordinator of a virtual law firm defending against federal and state governmental investigations and personal injury claims.

Glen has defended toxic tort conspiracy cases in numerous jurisdictions, including the state and federal courts of Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia. He also has defended landfill-related toxic tort and property diminution claims in the federal courts of the Third Circuit and has experience with environmental insurance litigation.

In his energy practice, Glen twice successfully argued before the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In each case, the court affirmed the dismissal of federal antitrust claims against the utility client.

Glen’s tort experience includes successfully defending a $2 million negligence action in a Philadelphia County jury trial. He also has litigated healthcare law cases, including a successful appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of a $20 million judgment resulting from a client’s statutory conversion of a health maintenance organization (HMO) from nonprofit to for-profit.

Glen’s work has been recognized by a number of publications, including Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business (2004–2018), The Best Lawyers in America (2008–2018), and Philadelphia magazine.

Environmental Litigation

• Represented coke manufacturing facility in the defense of a RCRA and CAA enforcement action. The United States made claims for tens of millions of dollars in civil fines and penalties related to claims pursued under Subtitle C and Subtitle I of RCRA and for opacity and H2S exceedances under the CAA. After significant briefing on motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion and rejected the United States’ claim that defendant had violated RCRA by failing to manage as a hazardous waste coke oven gas condensate (COGC) reused in the coke-making process.
• Represented major oil company in the defense of various components of a Superfund Site located in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Aggressively defended against property diminution and business interruption claims pursued by a number of adjacent property owners and businesses based on alleged contamination, including PCE and its daughter products. Defense involved close coordination with approximately 15 defense group experts in hydrogeology, hydrology, groundwater modeling, economics and property damage evaluation (including “stigma”), as well as the cross-examination of a similar number of plaintiffs’ experts. A critical component of our representation involved extensive 104 hearings challenging the admissibility of plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony in many areas. Presented oral argument at Third Circuit that affirmed trial court’s approval of client’s consent decree.
• Represented former pipe manufacturing company in a private-party response cost claim, including the successful defense of the client at a two-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Focusing on the absence of risk presented by the contaminants (including styrene) detected at the property, obtained a defense verdict from the advisory jury, which verdict was adopted by the trial court judge.
• Represented major chemical company in the defense of a private contribution action brought by the primary PRPs at two Superfund sites in Connecticut against approximately 100 third-party defendants. Through lead responsibility for the cross-examination of the third-party plaintiffs’ primary liability expert, Glen became de facto lead counsel for approximately 30 active and 100 total parties during this trial. After nearly two months, third-party plaintiffs accepted modest settlement proposed by our client before trial (previously rejected).
• Defended industrial tenant in two landlord claims made under CERCLA, RCRA and each state’s environmental statutes as well as the lease agreements in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Through aggressive development of the facts and the expert case, settled each case for a value far below plaintiffs’ multimillion dollar original demands. Each case involved the allegation of property diminution allegedly resulting from the contamination attributed by the landlord to the tenant.
• Represent numerous clients in defense of federal Superfund actions, including one site listed as the #2 NPL Site in the country. Glen has represented clients in every conceivable stage of such environmental matters including but not limited to pre-filing discovery, filing the third-party complaint, conducting numerous depositions, pre-trial motions, consent decree negotiation (including one of the first mixed funding (21%) agreements in the country), working with technical personnel in remedial design, legal assistance to technical steering committee, pursuit of mixed funding payments, dispute resolution with EPA/DOJ over oversight costs, and proactive handling of methane landfill gas generation problem. Briefing in one early case led to one of the first pre-SARA decisions recognizing the right to contribution under CERCLA. United States v. New Castle County, 642 F. Supp. 1258 (D. Del. 1986). Glen has also defended firm clients in companion personal injury/property damage cases instituted by adjacent property owners.
• Represented major oil company in several environmental matters, including the “Consolidated Montvale Cases” and the Player action. Successfully defended on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the dismissal of adjacent landowner claims for property diminution.
• Acted as national counsel to a major chemical company in more than 30 cases around the country. Plaintiffs alleged that the entire plastics industry was involved in a conspiracy to misrepresent and/or conceal the risks associated with exposure to vinyl chloride. Aggressively defended these actions, receiving a number of favorable substantive dismissals for failure to state a cause of action and other favorable procedural rulings (e.g., statute of limitations, forum non conveniens) as well as negotiating very favorable settlements.
• Represented a chemical company through extensive multiparty allocation effort designed to transform an interim allocation based on drum count into a final allocation based on all relevant factors. Through the assistance of a neutral mediator and the significant involvement of counsel for the parties, the Group reached a final allocation designed to adjust the historical contributions and to establish the contributions going forward with the performance of the final remediation action.
• Represented one of the defendants in a multiparty claim brought by the Suffolk County Water Authority in New York state court against numerous manufacturers of PCE and numerous manufacturers of dry cleaning equipment utilizing PCE for the alleged costs of monitoring for and treating PCE contamination in some or all of the plaintiff’s wells. Successfully negotiated favorable settlement.

Energy Litigation

• Represented Pennsylvania utility in related litigation and administrative proceedings in federal courts (Third Circuit and E.D. Pa.), state court (Lehigh County, PA), and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in disputes with non-utility generators (NUGs) involving alleged qualifying facilities (QFs) under PURPA, including defending antitrust and breach of contract claims and pursuing claims that NUGs did not operate as QFs. Led to dismissal of antitrust claims in one matter and revocation of NUG’s certification as a qualifying cogeneration facility in another.
• Represented Pennsylvania utility in base rate case for major nuclear facility, primarily responsible for demonstrating the construction prudence of 20-year nuclear construction project. No disallowance in construction prudence aspect of the case by the PA PUC.
• Represented New York utility in defending against NUG’s monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act before federal district court in New Jersey and Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Represented cable company in successfully seeking judicial confirmation of client’s exclusive franchise right to operate a cable television system within the municipal boundaries of the City of Hazelton, PA and permanently enjoining the City from implementing any franchise inconsistent with client’s exclusive franchise.
• Successfully obtained order staying federal court action against utility client on the grounds that the action should be stayed in deference to the primary jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania PUC.
• Represented utility before the PA PUC and obtained summary judgment in favor of client on basis that plaintiff NUG did not establish a mutual mistake of fact to support modification of a purchase power agreement.
• Represented Pennsylvania utility in seeking and obtaining a determination that an industrial park was within the utility’s certificated electric service territory and that any retail electric customer located in the industrial park must continue to pay intangible transition charges previously imposed by the PA PUC.

Other Litigation

• Served as coordinator of virtual law firm (VLF) defending pharmaceutical company against civil actions (both personal injury and state Attorney General actions) and governmental investigations relating to an antipsychotic drug. This coordination effort ensured that all members of the VLF received the benefit of workstreams common to the various legal matters and that the law firms did not perform duplicative factual and/or legal efforts.
• Represented pharmaceutical companies in prosecution of constitutional and statutory challenges to state Attorney General’s use of contingent fee private counsel in state courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.