1:11-CV-483 (W.D. Mich.), relating to CERCLA liability at the Kalamazoo River Site (the “Site”). The Court found that NCR is liable as an arranger under Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA for sales of PCB-containing carbonless copy paper (CCP) broke, at least as of March 1969. PCB-containing CCP was produced from approximately 1954 to April 1971. NCR is one of a number of Potentially Responsible Parties at the Site. The Court did not determine NCR’s share of the overall liability or how NCR’s liability relates to the liability of other liable or potentially liable parties at the Site. If NCR were to be found liable for any costs with respect to the Kalamazoo River, it would have claims against Appleton Papers Inc. (now known as Appvion, Inc.) and B.A.T Industries p.l.c. under a 1998 cost sharing agreement and associated arbitration award and judgment. NCR respectfully disagrees with the Courts conclusion. NCR believes that the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., No.
Updated October 1, 2013, 7:26 PM As the economy continues to recover, legislators in 22 states have been looking into starting state-owned banks, similar to the Bank of North Dakota, as a way to encourage economic development and generate revenue. The Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned bank operating in the United States, primarily aims to promote agriculture, commerce and industry, and to stimulate economic development through several lending programs. Unlike infrastructure banks that operate more as finance authorities, the Bank of North Dakota is a depository institution. And unlike other financial institutions, the state bank is not F.D.I.C. insured; its deposits instead are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the state of North Dakota. With 12 bills introduced in 2013, other states could decide to follow the path that North Dakotas legislature took in 1919. Proponents of state-owned banks argue that they create new jobs and encourage broader economic growth by providing more loans to small businesses at a time when commercial financial lending is limited. State-owned banks generate revenue for states without raising taxes (through the banks dividends) and may offer affordable alternatives for public infrastructure projects at lower borrowing costs. Proponents also contend that these institutions strengthen local banks by acting as a bankers bank, lending to commercial financial institutions. Critics counter that state-owned banks require significant start-up capital from public coffers and could disrupt the economy because they would withdraw the public funds now held by large commercial banks. Because there would be no F.D.I.C. insurance, these institutions pose a risk to states in the event of any bank losses. Critics also assert that state-owned banks are unnecessary because commercial financial institutions already lend to qualified borrowers meaning a state-owned bank would unfairly compete against commercial banks. State lawmakers have been weighing the options. Since 2010, legislators in 22 states have introduced bills either to study the issue or to create a state-owned bank or investment trust.