With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: recognizing that joint and several liability of  107 seems unfair but the solution is found in apportionment and contribution
B: holding that the government prp may bring a costrecovery action pursuant to cercla  107 thereby imposing joint and several liability on the defendant prp
C: 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
D: recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several
A.