Bill develops creative and practical solutions to help companies identify and manage risks, regulatory burdens, and potential liabilities throughout strategic planning and litigation.  
Bill’s practice focuses on two areas.  
First, he represents companies who may assume liability due to the potential use, sale, release, or disposal of potentially dangerous material or products in mass tort cases, class actions, environmental litigation, accident investigations, and for related insurance coverage issues.   
Second, he helps companies comply with regulatory requirements and minimize potential risk from the sale, use, release, or disposal of chemicals, bio-engineered systems, and bio-technology. Bill advises corporations who may wish to register products or who seek regulatory approvals under a number of state and federal laws including the Toxic Substances Control Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, Bill draws upon his broad experience to help companies manage risk and seek insurance coverage for products and processes. 
In both litigation and regulatory matters, Bill works with medical doctors, toxicologists, epidemiologists, scientists, engineers, and other experts to put potential risks into context by translating technical arguments into “real world” common sense solutions.
  • Represented manufacturer in a putative class action alleging property damage from a release of mercury. After a multiple-day hearing, the court denied the motion for class certification and the case, along with nine other personal injury cases, was favorably settled.
  • Defended Occidental Chemical Corp. in a 300-plus plaintiff action alleging property damage and emotional distress from mercury released at a mercury cell chloralkali plant. The case settled favorably after plaintiffs’ experts were excluded.
  • Helped obtain defense verdict for Tate & Lyle Sucralose, a global provider of ingredients and solutions to the food and beverage industry, in a two-week, 13-plaintiff toxic tort case in state court in southern Alabama. The jury returned the defendant’s verdict in 45 minutes.
  • Residents filed a property damage lawsuit over a plume of gasoline under their neighborhood. Plaintiffs claimed that the client, a pipeline company, was jointly and severally liable for all of the damage associated with the plume. The case settled shortly after demonstrating that the client could not be held jointly and severally liable for the property damage.
  • Plaintiffs outside of New Jersey sought a medical monitoring class action in New Jersey because their home state did not recognize claims for medical monitoring. Plaintiffs claimed that New Jersey had an interest in the case because waste was shipped from New Jersey to their state. The New Jersey State Court dismissed plaintiffs claim because New Jersey was not the right forum.
Past Events