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.
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.
It's not up to Chevron to decide whether they are liable to clean this pollution.
> 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.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-canada-ecuador/can...
Are you incapable of understanding those words?
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.
Cleaning up those things is certainly a better use of money than buying more cars for CEOs.