of response are recoverable under § 113(f), § 107(a), or both.” Id. The Bronson Defendants’ motion holding that a PRP could never assert a § 107 claim, Atlantic Research did not overrule decisions holding that claims for costs incurred in performing a cleanup pursuant to a judicial or administrative settlement are limited to a contribution action under § 113(f). All of the post-Atlantic Research decisions that have directly addressed the issue are consistent in holding that Atlantic Research did not overrule decisions holding that claims for costs incurred in performing a cleanup pursuant to a judicial or administrative settlement are limited to a contribution action under § 113(f). See Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 572 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1041-44 (E.D.Wis.2008) (<HOLDING>); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consol. Rail
holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under  113f holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a  113f contribution action holding that an action by plaintiffs who had a legal obligation to conduct cleanup pursuant to a  106 order and then sought costs for cleanup from other prps was the quintessential action for contribution holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs