U.S.C. § 9606(a). 3 . This subsection provides that "any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person ...” shall be liable for removal and remediation costs. 4 . Mr. Williams testified that he changed the corporate name so that it would more accurately reflect the company’s line of business. Deposition transcript at 22. 5 . The court must decide this question as a matter of federal common law. See United States v. Mexico Feed and Seed Co., 980 F.2d 478, 487 n. 9 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Distler, 741 F.Supp. 637, 640 (W.D.Ky.1990). But see Anspec Co. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 922 F.2d 1240, 1248 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Some courts refer to this theory as the
recognizing cercla successor liability holding  substantial continuity is untenable as a basis for successor liability under cercla holding that state law determines successor liability under cercla holding that state law governs application of successor liability to cercla defendants 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