UNION CARBIDES BHOPAL PLANT (A) On midnight December 3, 1984, methyl isocyanate gas began leaking from a Union

Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. Methyl isocyanate (MIC) is a chemical used in making pesticides. 10,000 gallons of the highly toxic gas was forming a deadly cloud that covered 25 square miles and killed or injured over 100,000 people. Experts were still unsure what caused the massive gas leak. But the real problem came as the gas began to seep into the air. The MIC should have passed through a vent scrubber, a small chimney-like filled with caustic soda solution, which renders the gas harmless. But the vent scrubber failed to work. As many as 100,000 survivors may be left with permanent disabilities and more than 2,500 killed. Bhopal was a joint venture between Union Carbide from US, the Indian government, and a number of private Indian companies. In 1975 the Indian government granted Union Carbide a license to manufacture pesticides. The company was set up with 51% majority ownership by Union Carbide, with the other 49% in the hands of private Indian companies and individuals. Because of the disaster, the company has been badly shaken. The damage claims are sure to be enormous and could be driven into bankruptcy court. The companys stock dropped precipitously, wiping out 27% of its market value. For the time being, there is no way to estimate how much financial damage Carbide will suffer. Substantial legal hurdles, lawyers for the victims, and perhaps even the India government will fight to get American courts to hear the cases. US juries routinely make awards in amounts unfathomable in India. Even by conservative estimates of the Bhopal devastation, Carbide and its insurer could be looking at a legal bill above $5 billion, about equal to the companys net worth. Union of India (UOI) decided to bring suit in the United States, although numerous lawsuits had been instituted by victims in India, the Indian courts did not have jurisdiction over UCC, the parent company, which is a defendant in the United States actions. But in fact, the plant has been constructed and managed by Indians in India. The vast majority of material witnesses and documentary proof bearing on causation of and liability for the accident is located in India, not the United States, and would be more accessible to an Indian court than to a United States court. The UOI, which is itself a plaintiff and states that it now represents the Indian plaintiffs formerly represented by American counsel, is firmly opposed to the $350 million settlement as inadequate. UCC contends that Indian courts, while providing an adequate alternative forum, do not observe due process standards that would required as a matter of course in this country. Indian court in Bhopal issued a temporary order freezing its assets throughout the world and the possibility of serious prejudice to it if UOI is permitted to have the double and conflicting status of both plaintiff and co-defendant. The concept of shared jurisdictions is both illusory and unrealistic. The parties cannot simultaneously submit to both jurisdictions the resolution of the pre-trial and trial issues when there is only one consolidated case pending in one court. Any denial by the Indian courts of due process can be raised by UCC as a defense to the plaintiffs later attempt to enforce a resulting judgment against UCC in this country.