of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person [or] by any other party or entity....” We followed this approach in Cadillac Fair-view/California I, where we said with forcible reasoning: Liability is not limited to those who own the hazardous substances, who actually dispose of or treat such substances, or who control the disposal or treatment process. The language explicitly extends liability to persons “otherwise arranging]” for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances whether owned by the arranger or “by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity.” 41 F.3d at 565 (quoting § 9607(a)(3)) (alteration in original); see also Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Menasha Corp., 228 F.3d 648, 659 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The text of § 9607(a)(3) can also be modified
holding that an employee may be discharged as a result of an accusation of criminal behavior holding that an arranger must have owned or possessed or had the authority to control or duty to dispose of  the hazardous materials at issue holding without discussion that a cercla arranger must own or possess the hazardous substance at issue holding attorney potentially liable for independent torts committed while working for firm holding that defendant was potentially liable as an arranger when it discharged hazardous substances into a river