3 ms·

“ In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco, including all of its assets and civil liabilities. One of those liabilities was the "Amazon Chernobyl," a 1,700-square-mile

“ In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco, including all of its assets and civil liabilities. One of those liabilities was the "Amazon Chernobyl," a 1,700-square-mile environmental disaster in Ecuador...” My opinion is changed after reading this. It would be tough for me to care about fixing an acquired company’s past deeds. I would simply put in in the queue of places I could fix the environment with the highest impact rather than the queue of places I am personally indebted to solve myself.

hobs 6y ago
Would it be difficult to realize their profits? Why do their misdeeds get a different view?
mulmen 6y ago
Ok so who is going to fix this spot then?
nextaccountic 6y ago
> Chevron insists that Texaco is only responsible for a portion of the damage, has "already cleaned up its share" and attributes any remaining pollution to Ecuador's state-owned national oil company. The government of Ecuador has been clear, in turn, that Chevron is liable for all of the damage. It's not up to Chevron to decide whether they are liable to clean this pollution.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  It is up to a court in a country where they have assets and all those courts have ruled in favour of Chevron.
  - seg_lol 6y ago
    You are quite active in this thread, so it would make sense you read in the article the same thing I did. > Somehow, David beat Goliath. After 18 years of court battles, the coalition won $9.5 billion in damages, based largely on the results of 54 independent judicial site inspections. In all, more than a dozen judges in Ecuador (where Chevron insisted the trial be held) have validated the judgment. In addition, three appellate courts in Canada (where Ecuadorians launched a collective action), including the country's supreme court, have ruled the Ecuadorians have a right to try to enforce their judgment.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      They did indeed win in Ecuador (where Chevron has no assets). But in Canada they lost the actual case. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-canada-ecuador/canadian-court-dismisses-ecuadors-95-billion-claim-against-chevron-canada-idUKKCN1RG2GP https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-canada-ecuador/can...
dagenix 6y ago
> In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco, including all of its assets and civil liabilities. Are you incapable of understanding those words?
aeno 6y ago
They should have thought about that before acquiring Texaco's liabilities. And I bet they have - you can bet this refusal was calculated into the acquisition.
choward 6y ago
What difference does that make? You can't just sell your company to another company and have the liabilities disappear. Imagine how many more mergers we would have exploiting this loophole.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Chevron may be legally liable but not much beyond that. My point is that if there is somewhere else that Chevron could have a dramatically better effect on the environment than this “Amazon Chernobyl”, then I don’t see why they wouldn’t fix that instead.
gear54rus 6y ago
My opinion is they should be forced not only to clean up that particular disaster but also a few others just for trying to put their greedy capitalist wishes above the environmental situation. Cleaning up those things is certainly a better use of money than buying more cars for CEOs.
- mulmen 6y ago
  If you think a car and an environmental disaster have the same price tag you’re off by several orders of magnitude.
JoshTriplett 6y ago
> It would be tough for me to care about fixing an acquired company’s past deeds. When you buy a company, you get everything that comes with it, good or bad. That's a major part of due diligence in mergers and acquisitions. Doesn't matter if you didn't know about it, it's still your responsibility once you own the company.

hobs 6y ago

Would it be difficult to realize their profits? Why do their misdeeds get a different view?

mulmen 6y ago

Ok so who is going to fix this spot then?

nextaccountic 6y ago

> Chevron insists that Texaco is only responsible for a portion of the damage, has "already cleaned up its share" and attributes any remaining pollution to Ecuador's state-owned national oil company. The government of Ecuador has been clear, in turn, that Chevron is liable for all of the damage. It's not up to Chevron to decide whether they are liable to clean this pollution.

MattGaiser 6y ago
It is up to a court in a country where they have assets and all those courts have ruled in favour of Chevron.
- seg_lol 6y ago
  You are quite active in this thread, so it would make sense you read in the article the same thing I did. > Somehow, David beat Goliath. After 18 years of court battles, the coalition won $9.5 billion in damages, based largely on the results of 54 independent judicial site inspections. In all, more than a dozen judges in Ecuador (where Chevron insisted the trial be held) have validated the judgment. In addition, three appellate courts in Canada (where Ecuadorians launched a collective action), including the country's supreme court, have ruled the Ecuadorians have a right to try to enforce their judgment.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    They did indeed win in Ecuador (where Chevron has no assets). But in Canada they lost the actual case. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-canada-ecuador/canadian-court-dismisses-ecuadors-95-billion-claim-against-chevron-canada-idUKKCN1RG2GP https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-canada-ecuador/can...

dagenix 6y ago

> In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco, including all of its assets and civil liabilities. Are you incapable of understanding those words?

aeno 6y ago

They should have thought about that before acquiring Texaco's liabilities. And I bet they have - you can bet this refusal was calculated into the acquisition.

choward 6y ago

What difference does that make? You can't just sell your company to another company and have the liabilities disappear. Imagine how many more mergers we would have exploiting this loophole.

jimbob45 6y ago
Chevron may be legally liable but not much beyond that. My point is that if there is somewhere else that Chevron could have a dramatically better effect on the environment than this “Amazon Chernobyl”, then I don’t see why they wouldn’t fix that instead.

gear54rus 6y ago

My opinion is they should be forced not only to clean up that particular disaster but also a few others just for trying to put their greedy capitalist wishes above the environmental situation. Cleaning up those things is certainly a better use of money than buying more cars for CEOs.

mulmen 6y ago
If you think a car and an environmental disaster have the same price tag you’re off by several orders of magnitude.

JoshTriplett 6y ago

> It would be tough for me to care about fixing an acquired company’s past deeds. When you buy a company, you get everything that comes with it, good or bad. That's a major part of due diligence in mergers and acquisitions. Doesn't matter if you didn't know about it, it's still your responsibility once you own the company.