has been rejected because it unfairly benefits a PRP with access to financial resources (such as tax revenues in this case). See Borough of Sayreville v. Union Carbide Corp., 923 F.Supp. 671, 679 n. 12 (D.N.J.1996); Kaufman & Broad-South Bay v. Unisys Corp., 868 F.Supp. 1212, 1215 n. 2 (N.D.Cal.1994). It has also been rejected as illusory because the defendant-PRPs could later compel the plaintiff-PRP to pay its pro rata share under § 113(f). See id.; Kaufman, 868 F.Supp. at 1215 n. 2. Although it may seem unfair to eliminate the City’s joint and several liability remedy given its laudable and public-spirited actions in undertaking the cleanup, the perceived unfairness may be remedied in the apportionment and contribution phase of this lawsuit. See Rohm and Haas, 2 F.3d at 1279-80 (<HOLDING>). It is then that the City may point to the
holding that a lump sum verdict on punitive damages against all defendants was improper since there can be no joint and several liability or contribution recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several holding that the government prp may bring a costrecovery action pursuant to cercla  107 thereby imposing joint and several liability on the defendant prp recognizing a right to contribution recognizing that joint and several liability of  107 seems unfair but the solution is found in apportionment and contribution