File this under questionable legal tactics: According to The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC), AVX filed recent court documents seeking to stick residents and other property owners, some of whom have sued AVX, with part of the tab from AVX's TCE investigation and clean-up:

The electronics manufacturer filed a proposed amended complaint last week in federal court that would make those property owners subject to federal laws that require shared liability for environmental contamination.

That means property owners living near AVX could be forced to pay the manufacturer a prorated share of whatever amount AVX spends for "investigations, containment, removal or mitigation of the contamination at the properties," according to the proposed complaint.

That amount could be measured in the millions of dollars.

AVX also wants property owners to pay "interest at the maximum rate allowable by law" for any amount they might owe to the manufacturer.

A judge has not made a ruling on the proposed complaint.

Gene Connell, a lawyer representing property owners near AVX's headquarters at 801 17th Ave. S., said the proposal is an unconscionable scare tactic.

"It's audacious that AVX would try to blame its pollution on the poor people who've worked all their lives for their homes," Connell said. "These are innocent landowners."

[...]

AVX, in its proposed complaint, wants a federal judge to rule that contamination has not damaged any property near the manufacturer's headquarters because the TCE eventually can be removed from the groundwater.

[...]

AVX also wants a judge to rule that property owners are entitled to no compensation for any possible damage to their land or property values resulting from the contamination.

Though we're reluctant to play armchair legal quarterback without seeing the court-filed documents (yeah, we'll do it anyway), we'd say the first part of the complaint, the move to pin costs on property-owners, may be designed to discourage public participation in litigation against AVX (almost as if to say, "Hold us accountable and you'll literally pay for it.")

The latter two issues, that no property was damaged and that owners aren't entitled to compensation for certain damages, sound to us like they depend on questions of fact that a trial must ultimately decide. But we are not attorneys nor familiar with all the applicable facts or laws in this case, so really, what do we know?

Read the full story at MyrtleBeachOnline.com.