DISCLAIMER OF TERMS
You can reproduce this article online or in print under our Creative Commons license. You may not edit or reduce the text, you must attribute the article to Pulse and include the author’s name in the publication.
If you have any questions, email me [email protected]
FRAGMENT: State Supreme Court issues much anticipated regulations on education funding, environmental protection
“For years, our state has not lived up to the constitutional requirement to provide a sound, basic education for our children. The Court found after a decade of negligence, now is the time for North Carolina to uphold our obligation to provide that education. It is unfortunate that the Courts had to force the Legislature to do so. which we should have done a long time ago.”
Justice Hudson’s opinion was joined by Justices Anita Earle, Samuel Ervin IV and Michael Morgan. All four are members of the Democratic Party. Justice Phil Berger, Jr. he was joined by Paul Newby and Tamara Barringer in a long disagreement with Republican citizens. Ervin is up for re-election next week, and Hudson is retiring at the end of his term. The Leandro case began nearly three decades ago, when school districts in five low-income counties sued the state, saying their children were not receiving the same level of educational opportunities as students in wealthier counties. Halifax County schools in Cumberland, Hoke, Robeson, and Vance counties joined the lawsuit. In 1997, the State Supreme Court issued a ruling, later affirmed in 2004, in which it stated that every child has the right to a “sound basic education,” which includes competent and well-trained teachers and basic and equitable access to resources. Click here to read leadership and dissent. . ==
Justice rules chemical giants can’t escape liability for PFAS pollution in eastern NC By Lisa Sorg The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding that “New DuPont” and Corteva were liable. for potential legal damages in North Carolina related to PFAS contamination, according to today’s government release. The Supreme Court of the state also agreed with the Business Court, which shows the documents of the first parent company, Old DuPont, two companies pulled out, together with Chemours, a corporate complex arrangement made to hit the liability “and defrauding creditors.” Ryan Park, a lawyer with the NC Attorney General’s office, argued the state’s case asking the Supreme Court to affirm the previous ruling. Old DuPont has operated its Fayetteville plants for decades, knowingly releasing and releasing toxic PFAS — perfluorinated compounds — including GenX, into drinking water and air. As Policy Watch previously reported, the historic DuPont corporation — known in court records as “Old DuPont” — was born. roughly $20 billion in two “paper groups” – New DuPont and Corteva, which have no employees, offices and equipment to protect goods from legal liability. New companies are proceeding in Delaware. The state of North Carolina has already sued Chemours and Old DuPont, demanding that they “assess all past and future costs, remediate, restore and remedy environmental harm” from operations at the Fayetteville Works plant. If Corteva and New DuPont succeed on the side, the payouts could be bigger.
New DuPont and Corteva have argued that they will not be held responsible for DuPont’s actions in North Carolina because they are not the result of a corporate merger. The Supreme Court disagreed. While the cognizance protects companies from the threat of lawsuits in “arbitrary jurisdictions, it is not a tool to arm … as an escape mechanism for defendants.” they effectively defend themselves against the legal consequences of a different state – or even a merger. Business Court previously found that both Corteva and New DuPont expressly assumed Old DuPont’s PFAS-related liabilities in the April 2019 Separation Agreement and the June 2019 Letter of Agreement. However, lawyers for Corteva and New DuPont claimed – incredulously – that they did not know they could face disputes in North Carolina. The Supreme Court didn’t buy his argument. “When companies enter into various businesses such as Old DuPont, Corteva and New DuPont, they exercise great due diligence,” the justices wrote, “and the new parties are either aware of, or should be aware of, the burdens they are acquiring.”