3 ms·
Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous prece
by TimPC 6y ago
Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information.
- xeromal 6y agoAgreed, but we should go after our government for a shitty settlement, not Montrose who legally paid their dues.
- webmaven 6y ago> Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information. If the settlement was reached based on incomplete or false information or representations from the company, the government may still have recourse. So even if the settlement per-se remains in force, a substantial fine or even a new criminal case may still be possible.