Volvo fined $72 million by U.S. district court
Theres plenty of toxic air spouted in Washington on any given day, but at least this time, the foul emissions were coming from truck engines and not pundits, politicians and the like. The U.S. government decided to take Swedish truckmaker Volvo Powertrain Corp., a unit of Volvo AB, to task...
April 18, 2012 at 08:07 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
There's plenty of toxic air spouted in Washington on any given day, but at least this time, the foul emissions were coming from truck engines and not pundits, politicians and the like. The U.S. government decided to take Swedish truckmaker Volvo Powertrain Corp., a unit of Volvo AB, to task for violating a consent decree it signed in 1998, and fined the company $72,006,337 in penalties and interest.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order to Volvo on April 13 to make the payment on a dispute relating to emission compliance of 8,354 model year 2005 Volvo Penta engines.
In 1998, the U.S. brought enforcement actions against numerous truck engine manufacturers, alleging that a feature of their fuel injection systems violated the Clean Air Act. The government argued that the engine manufacturers were purposely dodging the regulations with creative programming of those systems, which the manufacturers denied.
After years of negotiations, both parties agreed to a series of similar consent decrees by which the manufacturers would have to meet new emission standards for their heavy-duty diesel engines. While the court recognized that Volvo Penta is not party to the consent decree, it said those engines are subject to the decree requirements.
Volvo disagrees, noting that the decree covers only Volvo Powertrain in-highway engines and Volvo Construction Equipment non-road engines.
Volvo will appeal the decision.
The U.S. government also cracked down on another truck manufacturer in February. The Environmental Protection Agency informed Navistar International Corp. that it is investigating whether 7,600 engines the company built in 2009 comply with the Clean Air Act.
If found not to be in compliance, Navistar could face fines of up to $37,500 for each violation, which means it could end up paying as much as $285 million in fines.
For more on Volvo, read Fox Business.
For more on Navistar, read “EPA investigating Navistar's diesel-engine production.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250