How Dow Chemical Can End the Bhopal Tragedy

[USFREEDOM911]

It was a crooked deal no doubt aided by slush money from Union Carbide to bent officials in India. $500 per dead person is just fucking pathetic and I really couldn't care what anybody here says to try to defend it. The deal also never took account of anyone under the age of 18 at the time which means there are another further 200,000 victims. Finally I would take Motley Fool's opinion over you or SF any day, that article was co-authored by Tom Gardner who is one of the owners of the website and is an incredibly knowledgeable man when it come to business law and investments.

Then take it up with...oh, I don't know...THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT.
sheesh

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Why don't you go away and find out about successor liability.

Dow bought Union Carbide free of liabilities.
According to international law, the principal of "successor liability" requires the purchaser to gain both the assets and liabilities of the target. So, along with the wealth of assets acquired from Union Carbide, Dow should also be responsible for the environmental and health damage Union Carbide caused in Bhopal.

Another poster has refuted you continually trying to make your comment fact.
I guess you decided to overlook and ignore it.

 

[cancel2 2022]

No, they are not legally responsible.



So despite the BS from Tom, the site clean up was included in the transition in 1994 when McLeod purchased UCIL. Hence, it was long gone before Dow bought Union Carbide.

Eveready Industries should be liable.
While Eveready Industries did purchase Union Carbide India Limited, Union Carbide's Indian subsidiary, in 1994, the Bhopal plant had long been closed, so there was no transfer of the site and its liability to Eveready. Union Carbide owned and operated the Bhopal site, so Union Carbide (and now Dow) should be held liable according to the "polluter pays" principle.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

NO.

Your choice if you want to be viewed as nothing more then a mewing, whiney child.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Eveready Industries should be liable.
While Eveready Industries did purchase Union Carbide India Limited, Union Carbide's Indian subsidiary, in 1994, the Bhopal plant had long been closed, so there was no transfer of the site and its liability to Eveready. Union Carbide owned and operated the Bhopal site, so Union Carbide (and now Dow) should be held liable according to the "polluter pays" principle.

Your opinion has been refuted, earlier.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Another poster has refuted you continually trying to make your comment fact.
I guess you decided to overlook and ignore it.

Because you say something doesn't make it so, indeed the opposite is often the case.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Your opinion has been refuted, earlier.

No it hasn't.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because you say something doesn't make it so, indeed the opposite is often the case.

And in your case, it is automatically untrue.

By the way:
In your hurry to respond, I never said it was me; I said it was another poster.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No it hasn't.

It most certainly was; but in your desire to flog the dead horse, you have dismissed it and instead have decided to stick with your flawed reasoning.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Your choice if you want to be viewed as nothing more then a mewing, whiney child.

Because I learnt a long time ago not to get into a pointless argument with you, you just don't have the props. I remind you of the old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because I learnt a long time ago not to get into a pointless argument with you, you just don't have the props. I remind you of the old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

<translation>
It's really hard for me to present my stupid opinions as fact, when everyone keeps showing that they're nothing more then stupid opinions.
</translation>

Don't blame me for you acting like a mewing, whiney child.
You have the option of bettering yourself.

 

[cancel2 2022]

No, they are not. Which is why your article states quite clearly that they are NOT legally obligated to do anything. A settlement was reached long before they bought Union. Again, you cannot tell a company 'yes, this was settled and taken care of' and then ten years later tell them 'just kidding'.

BP is legally responsible for all of the clean up and damage. They have not paid up. Get them to pay up Tom. Why are they not paying up Tom? This was actually THEIR mess. Unlike Dow, they did not buy a company 17 years after said company made a mess. Why is BP so negligent Tom?

I say they are liable and you say they are not, well tough, I reject you rarguments and your pathetic attempt to change the subject. BP has paid everything they were asked to pay but I am sure there are a fair number of bogus claims.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I say they are liable and you say they are not, well tough, I reject you arguments and your pathetic attempt to change the subject. BP has paid everything they were asked to pay but I am sure there are a fair number of bogus claims.

By "bogus" do you mean like your pathetic attempts to hold Dow accountable for something that they're not responsible for?

BP needs to pay more; because it's the right thing to do, according to Tom's logic.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, they are not legally responsible.



So despite the BS from Tom, the site clean up was included in the transition in 1994 when McLeod purchased UCIL. Hence, it was long gone before Dow bought Union Carbide.

Again, as I said, it's cradle to grave liability. Once you have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) if your in for an ounce your in for a pound from a legal stand point and you are liable until the situation has been completely remediated (grave). What ever agreement or contracts which may have been in place prior to being a PRP are legally irrelevent ( I know...a scary thought but that's really how it works). It may not seem right but that is how it works from a legal stand point. Legal liability is assessed to a PRP not according to how significant a role they contributed to the mess but it is assessed according to the PRP's ability to pay to clean up the mess. That's why companies and financial institutions hire people like me to do tier one and two environmental site assesments on property transactions so as to avoid these sort of legal liabilities whch can be disastrously costly. Just the act of purchasing a property that had previously been responsible for a hazardous waste spill would make you a PRP even though you had absolutely nothing to do with their operation when the spill occurred. That's one of the big factors that keep many brownsfield sites from being rehabilitated even though some could easily be put to good use.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Eveready Industries should be liable.
While Eveready Industries did purchase Union Carbide India Limited, Union Carbide's Indian subsidiary, in 1994, the Bhopal plant had long been closed, so there was no transfer of the site and its liability to Eveready. Union Carbide owned and operated the Bhopal site, so Union Carbide (and now Dow) should be held liable according to the "polluter pays" principle.

which is incorrect... the lease for the land and the responsibility for the clean up belong to Eveready. Period. UCIL was a subsidiary of Union Carbide. It was the one responsible for the disaster. UCIL was sold in its entirety to McLeod, who renamed it Eveready. The company that was responsible for the mess was no longer a part of the Union Carbide that was later purchased by Dow. No matter how much you whine, that is the facts of this case. UCIL was 51% owned by Union Carbide, 49% owned by the Indian government.

Compensation from Union Carbide

The Government of India passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act that gave the government rights to represent all victims in or outside India.[5]

UCC offered US $350 million, the insurance sum.[5] The Government of India claimed US$ 3.3 billion from UCC.[5] In 1989, a settlement was reached under which UCC agreed to pay US$470 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a full and final settlement of its civil and criminal liability.[5]

When UCC wanted to sell its shares in UCIL, it was directed by the Supreme Court to finance a 500-bed hospital for the medical care of the survivors. Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) was inaugurated in 1998. It was obliged to give free care for survivors for eight years.[5]

A US court rejected the law suit blaming UCC for causing soil and water pollution around the site of the plant and ruled that responsibility for remedial measures or related claims rested with the State Government and not with UCC.[40]

 

[cancel2 2022]

Again, as I said, it's cradle to grave liability. Once you have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) if your in for an ounce your in for a pound from a legal stand point and you are liable until the situation has been completely remediated (grave). What ever agreement or contracts which may have been in place prior to being a PRP are legally irrelevent ( I know...a scary thought but that's really how it works). It may not seem right but that is how it works from a legal stand point. That's why companies and financial institutions hire people like me to do tier one and two environmental site assesments on property transactions so as to avoid these sort of legal liabilities whch can be disastrously costly. Just the act of purchasing a property that had previously been responsible for a hazardous waste spill could make you a PRP even though you had absolutely nothing to do with their operation when the spill occurred. That's one of the big factors that keep many brownsfield sites from being rehabilitated even though some could easily be put to good use.

The article says that, you say that and I say that but the combined genius of SF and USF say otherwise. I would like to know how USF gained such an intimate knowledge of international law, he is obviously wasted looking after juveniles in AZ.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again, as I said, it's cradle to grave liability. Once you have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) if your in for an ounce your in for a pound from a legal stand point and you are liable until the situation has been completely remediated (grave). What ever agreement or contracts which may have been in place prior to being a PRP are legally irrelevent ( I know...a scary thought but that's really how it works). It may not seem right but that is how it works from a legal stand point. That's why companies and financial institutions hire people like me to do tier one and two environmental site assesments on property transactions so as to avoid these sort of legal liabilities whch can be disastrously costly. Just the act of purchasing a property that had previously been responsible for a hazardous waste spill could make you a PRP even though you had absolutely nothing to do with their operation when the spill occurred. That's one of the big factors that keep many brownsfield sites from being rehabilitated even though some could easily be put to good use.

Once again for the demwitted Mutt... NO, they are not legally responsible. The company responsible was SOLD prior to Dow ever buying it. The US courts stated quite correctly that the two companies were separate entities. The subsidiary is responsible cradle to the grave, not the parent company. The Indian government owned 49% of the company. The UCIL (a separate legal entity from UC) was SOLD in 1994 to McLeod. That included the site. That is a transfer of liability as they purchased assets and liabilities of UCIL. I know you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, but you are wrong.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The article says that, you say that and I say that but the combined genius of SF and USF say otherwise. I would like to know how USF gained such an intimate knowledge of international law, he is obviously wasted looking after juveniles in AZ.

LMAO... you two twits are pretending you understand international law, but you continue to fail to recognize what a legal entity is. You fail to differentiate between UCIL and UC. You fail to acknowledge that the entirety of UCIL (its assets and liabilities) was sold in 1994 to McLeod. You fail to recognize that it is McLeod that takes over responsibility for ALL of UCIL. There was nothing remaining of UCIL on UC's books after the sale. A sale that was approved by the Indian Government (the other OWNER of UCIL).

This issue was resolved as far as UC was concerned when they sold UCIL (a separate legal entity... one which was responsible for the accident).

The US courts have ruled on that and NO international court has said otherwise. Another point you two twits continue to ignore.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The article says that, you say that and I say that but the combined genius of SF and USF say otherwise. I would like to know how USF gained such an intimate knowledge of international law, he is obviously wasted looking after juveniles in AZ.

Also Tom.... you know what else the article says...

A solution to this continuing tragedy
Dow's management team, employees, and shareholders should capitalize on the unique opportunity the company has as a sponsor of the 2012 Olympic Games. While Dow has no legal obligation, Dow has an ethical obligation to right this wrong, a move that will end up benefiting Dow in the long run. Independent of the Indian government, Dow should create a Bhopal relief fund immediately to accomplish the following:

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The article says that, you say that and I say that but the combined genius of SF and USF say otherwise. I would like to know how USF gained such an intimate knowledge of international law, he is obviously wasted looking after juveniles in AZ.

AWWWWWWWW, isn't that cute.

Timmie finds it necessary to go this route, just because it's been shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Do you feel better now, timmie?