Governance News from Manifest - ISSN 1745 - 1132

  Home | About | Archive | Register | Conferences | Factboxes | Bookshop |  Publications

<< Return to Best Practice Index | Next Story >>

 

 

Best Practice & Ethics

Dow accused of leaving investors in dark over Bhopal liabilities

 

Amnesty International USA has accused Dow Chemical of secretly pressuring the Indian government to rid the company of its legal liabilities over the Bhopal toxic chemical disaster, and has called on the US Securities and Exchange Commission to open an investigation.

 

Sanford Lewis, an attorney who has represented Dow shareholders including Amnesty International, said letters written by the company provide “strong evidence” Dow believes legal liabilities connected to Bhopal present a barrier to investing in India.

 

Lewis said the company has not disclosed this to its investors, and is furthermore attempting to bypass the Indian courts by directly pressuring the executive branch.

 

For instance, an 8 November 2006 letter from Dow to Ronen Sen, the Indian ambassador to the US, requested that the Indian government “withdraw its application for a financial deposit against remediation costs [for Bhopal cleanup]. Certainly a withdrawal of application would be a positive, tangible demonstration that the GOI [Government of India] means what it says about Dow’s lack of responsibility in the matter”.

 

Amnesty's request to the SEC asks the regulator to investigate whether Dow has failed to disclose pertinent information to shareholders. Furthermore, Dow investors are being asked to support a shareholder resolution requesting the company report on any steps taken to address of the needs of survivors of the Bhopal disaster.

 

Amy O’Meara of Amnesty said: “Looking at these letters, it seems that Dow’s refusal to address the human rights of the Bhopal survivors may be having a serious, but undisclosed, financial impact. Shareholders have a right to know the facts”.

 

Links

Amnesty International USA

Dow Chemical

Indian government

US Securities and Exchange Commission

 

May 2007

   

<< Return to Best Practice Index | Next Story >>