In the United States v. Bestfoods case of 1997, the Supreme Court addressed whether a parent corporation that actively participated in, and exercised control over, the operations of a subsidiary could be held directly liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The court ruled that direct parental liability can only occur if the corporate veil is pierced or if it can be proven that there was an agency relationship between parent and subsidiary. However, they also clarified that mere ownership does not equate to operation for CERCLA purposes. In this particular case involving pollution at a chemical plant owned by CPC International Inc.'s indirect subsidiary Aerovox Inc., it was determined that CPC did not operate its subsidiaries in their polluting activities just because managers were shared among them; therefore they couldn't be held directly responsible for cleanup costs under CERCLA.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bestfoods, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of "operator" under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) was too broad. The dissent believed that a parent corporation should not be held liable as an operator unless it is shown to have actively participated in or controlled activities related to pollution at its subsidiary's facility. They contended that this would align more closely with Congress' intent when drafting CERCLA - which they interpreted as aiming to hold those directly responsible for contamination accountable, rather than imposing liability on mere ownership or investment interests. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on corporate law principles if parent companies were made liable based solely on their relationship with polluting subsidiaries.