How Dow Chemical Can End the Bhopal Tragedy

Superfreak said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually under cradle to grave liability laws they both are. To illustrate an example using BP not only can BP be held legally liable for the entire cost of cleaning up the oil spill, so can all of their contractors. The same is true with Bhopal, under these types of litigation previous settlements mean exactly squat. Once you have been identified as a PRP in a hazardous waste spill situation like these you can be held legaly liable for the entire cost of remediating the mess. Even if alls you did was purchase the property after the incident occurred. The governments involved don't give a rats ass about who is at fault. They only care about who is going to pay to clean up the mess and they will go after those who have the deepest pockets regardless of how minute or tangential their involvment might be. To be named a PRP in an environmental hazardous waste/materials incident is one of the worst calamities that could befall a business.
 
Superfreak said:
Also Tom.... you know what else the article says...
Click to expand...


I am surprised that the article says that when it clearly also says that they are liable under international law.

  • The Indian government should take responsibility for the Bhopal site.
    Both India and the U.S. adhere to the "polluter pays" principle, which states that the producer of pollution must pay for its consequences. Union Carbide was the polluter, and the continued existence of severe health problems and toxic waste in Bhopal shows that Union Carbide never fulfilled its responsibility. Further, Union Carbide signed a lease with the Indian government, promising to return the site "in its original condition." Even though the Indian government does in fact own the site now, Union Carbide failed to fulfill its original obligation.
  • If Union Carbide owned the Bhopal plant, Dow bears no responsibility.
    In 1984, Union Carbide owned the plant. A decade later, Union Carbide claimed that the plant was sold during an auction in 1994. However, contradictory to that claim, the plant was no longer on the books at the time of the auction. Instead, the Indian government had shut down the plant, and the legal ramifications of the pollution were still being resolved. In 2001, Dow acquired Union Carbide for $11.6 billion and the two entities became one and the same. So when we write "Dow," think "Union Carbide." Union Carbide describes the relationship in its annual report: "Union Carbide's business activities comprise components of Dow's global operations rather than stand-alone operations."
  • 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.
  • There is no precedent for Dow assuming Union Carbide's liabilities.
    A Dow spokesperson has pointed out that providing funds for Bhopal is out of the question since it would open up the company for additional liabilities. However, after purchasing Union Carbide in 2001, Dow acknowledged its responsibility for asbestos liabilities from American incidents involving Union Carbide dating back to 1972. In fact, Dow set aside $2.2 billion to resolve the asbestos issues. So Dow recognizes that "successor liability" applies, yet it ignores the inherited liabilities of the Bhopal disaster.
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
You keep ignoring one important part of your own article:

The Indian government's $470 million settlement with Union Carbide...

The Indian government's $470 million settlement with Union Carbide...

The Indian government's $470 million settlement with Union Carbide...

The Indian government's $470 million settlement with Union Carbide...
Click to expand...
You are ignoring one important legal facts.


Those settlements don't matter.


Those settlements don't matter.

Those settlements don't matter.

Those settlements don't matter.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Provide documented proof that "...they bought Union Carbide because they thought they could get away with buyng the assets and avoiding the liabilities..." or STFU. :palm:
Click to expand...
That's a silly question. When ever you buy a capital asset like this you purchase both the assets and liabilities. If you own ABC company and they buy XYZ company and XYZ company owed Acme Contractors a million dollars than ABC companies assumes that liability to Acme Contractors when they purchase XYZ company.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You are ignoring one important legal facts.


Those settlements don't matter.


Those settlements don't matter.

Those settlements don't matter.

Those settlements don't matter.
Click to expand...

The only ones ignoring legal fact, are you and Tom; because:

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

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

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

Superfreak said:
The US courts have ruled on that and NO international court has said otherwise. Another point you two twits continue to ignore.
Click to expand...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's a silly question. When ever you buy a capital asset like this you purchase both the assets and liabilities. If you own ABC company and they buy XYZ company and XYZ company owed Acme Contractors a million dollars than ABC companies assumes that liability to Acme Contractors when they purchase XYZ company.
Click to expand...

NOPE.
You're just trying to simplify everything, so that it doesn't hurt your head; because there's more involved then what you have stated.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then take it up with...oh, I don't know...THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT.
sheesh
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. The Indian government will take it up with them and can make it difficult, if not impossible for DOW to do business in Inda. Ultimately that is the only legal recourse the Indian government has. India is potentially one of the largest growing developing markets for the chemical industry and given the scope of globalization not being able to do business in India until this cradle to grave remediation and compensation issue has been resolved could do significant harm to DOW's bottom line. Ulitmately that will bring them to the negotiating table with the Indian government.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You have it backwards. The Indian government will take it up with them and can make it difficult, if not impossible for DOW to do business in Inda. Ultimately that is the only legal recourse the Indian government has. India is potentially one of the largest growing developing markets for the chemical industry and given the scope of globalization not being able to do business in India until this cradle to grave remediation and compensation issue has been resolved could do significant harm to DOW's bottom line. Ulitmately that will bring them to the negotiating table with the Indian government.
Click to expand...


Not going to happen and this is just posturing, on your part.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am surprised that the article says that when it clearly also says that they are liable under international law.

  • The Indian government should take responsibility for the Bhopal site.
    Both India and the U.S. adhere to the "polluter pays" principle, which states that the producer of pollution must pay for its consequences. Union Carbide was the polluter, and the continued existence of severe health problems and toxic waste in Bhopal shows that Union Carbide never fulfilled its responsibility. Further, Union Carbide signed a lease with the Indian government, promising to return the site "in its original condition." Even though the Indian government does in fact own the site now, Union Carbide failed to fulfill its original obligation.
  • If Union Carbide owned the Bhopal plant, Dow bears no responsibility.
    In 1984, Union Carbide owned the plant. A decade later, Union Carbide claimed that the plant was sold during an auction in 1994. However, contradictory to that claim, the plant was no longer on the books at the time of the auction. Instead, the Indian government had shut down the plant, and the legal ramifications of the pollution were still being resolved. In 2001, Dow acquired Union Carbide for $11.6 billion and the two entities became one and the same. So when we write "Dow," think "Union Carbide." Union Carbide describes the relationship in its annual report: "Union Carbide's business activities comprise components of Dow's global operations rather than stand-alone operations."
  • 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.
  • There is no precedent for Dow assuming Union Carbide's liabilities.
    A Dow spokesperson has pointed out that providing funds for Bhopal is out of the question since it would open up the company for additional liabilities. However, after purchasing Union Carbide in 2001, Dow acknowledged its responsibility for asbestos liabilities from American incidents involving Union Carbide dating back to 1972. In fact, Dow set aside $2.2 billion to resolve the asbestos issues. So Dow recognizes that "successor liability" applies, yet it ignores the inherited liabilities of the Bhopal disaster.
Click to expand...

and again for our extremely slow British friends... the assets and liabilities of UCIL was SOLD in 1994.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's the law in the US too under CERCLA and here's something that will get their gizzards even more. Guess which former congressman was a primary sponser of CERCLA?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's the law in the US too under CERCLA and here's something that will get their gizzards even more. Guess which former congressman was a primary sponser of CERCLA?
Click to expand...

<translation>
MUST...ACCUSE...DOW...AND...IGNORE...ALL...FACTS
</translation>

Superfreak said:
The US courts have ruled on that and NO international court has said otherwise. Another point you two twits continue to ignore.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really? Then how comes in February of 2008 the Indian Chemicals ministries sent Indian Prime Minister Singh an opinion from the Indian Law Ministries that said, and this is a direct quote, "If there is any legal liability, it would have to be borne by DOW Chemical."?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you SF. I'm just trying to explain to you how nasty and unfair these kinds of litigations are. You're talking how things oughta be and I'm trying to explain to you how they really are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top