parties pay the clean-up costs.” Id. at 490. Thus, the purchasing corporation in Mexico Feed and Seed escaped CERCLA liability because it met neither the traditional common law exceptions to the nonliability of a purchasing successor corporation nor the broader substantial continuity test. We acknowledge that the continuing viability of the substantial continuity theory of corporate successor liability as a creation of federal common law has been seriously questioned following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Bestfoods that nothing in CERCLA purports to rewrite the settled rules of state corporation law simply because the cause of action is based upon a federal statute. 524 U.S. at 63, 118 S.Ct. 1876. See United States v. Gen. Battery Corp., 423 F.3d 294, 309 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 41, 166
holding that state law determines successor liability under cercla holding that  successor liability is not a tort it is an equitable tool used to transfer liability from a predecessor to a successor  quotation omitted recognizing cercla successor liability holding  substantial continuity is untenable as a basis for successor liability under cercla holding that state law governs application of successor liability to cercla defendants