Law360, New York (February 27, 2015, 11:01 AM EST) -- Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009), holding that a party must "take[] intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance" to qualify as an "arranger" under § 107(a)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3), several federal circuit courts have addressed the requisite intent that is necessary to establish a claim for "arranger liability." In the coming months (if not weeks), the Fourth Circuit will become the latest federal appellate court to enter the fray and address the issue of intent under § 107(a)(3) when it renders a decision in Consolidation Coal Co. v. Georgia Power Co., No. 13-1603 (4th Cir.). Identifying and understanding the key takeaways from these cases will help businesses that sell new or used products containing hazardous substances assess, and most importantly minimize, their risk of liability as arrangers....