(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2011) A federal judge in southern Illinois has ordered the Swiss parent company of Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. (SCPI), maker of the herbicide atrazine, to appear in court to defend its actions in a water-contamination lawsuit brought last year by Midwestern public water providers. The suit was filed by the law firm Korein Tillery of St. Louis, MO and holds that Syngenta is responsible for the costs the water utilities incurred in order to clean municipal drinking water supplies of atrazine. The order marked the first time the Swiss company has ever been held subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
The notably detailed opinion by District Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois was handed down the day before Thanksgiving and found that Syngenta AG (SAG) ‚Äď the Basel, Switzerland-based international conglomerate ‚Äď ‚Äúhas organized its group of subsidiary companies, including SCPI, purposefully to limit the jurisdictions in which it is subject to court authority.‚ÄĚ
Judge Gilbert focused on substance over form, however, and exercised jurisdiction because voluminous evidence revealed SAG’s pervasive operational control over SCPI ‚Äď the agrochem giant based in Greensboro, N.C. that manufactures and distributes atrazine. The Judge found that the evidence of actual day-to-day control cited by lead plaintiff’s attorney Stephen M. Tillery undermined SAG’s claim that it is simply a passive financial holding company.
‚ÄúThe evidence shows that SAG exercises an ‚Äėunusually high degree of control over’ and, in fact, dominates SCPI despite multiple layers of corporate ownership between them,‚ÄĚ the Judge wrote. ‚ÄúSAG’s control of SCPI exceeds that which is consistent with investor status, and SAG is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.‚ÄĚ
The ruling means that SAG must now actively defend the lawsuit filed by Korein Tillery and Baron & Budd of Dallas on behalf of 22 public water providers from six Midwestern states. The suit alleges that SAG and SCPI consciously chose to reap considerable profit by continuing to sell atrazine in the U.S., even while knowing that the weed killer’s chemical properties made it certain to contaminate the water sources that water providers use to supply drinking water to the American public. The suit seeks to recover the substantial costs of removing atrazine from drinking water before delivery to customers. It also seeks a declaration that SAG and SCPI will be legally responsible for reimbursing water providers the future costs associated with atrazine removal.
‚ÄúWe included SAG in the lawsuit because it was Syngenta’s Swiss-based management that made the important decisions that ultimately injured our clients,‚ÄĚ Mr. Tillery said. ‚ÄúJudge Gilbert’s ruling vindicates our position that the upper management of foreign companies that earn billions of dollars in the U.S. cannot hide behind convoluted corporate structures to escape answering for their decisions in U.S. courts.‚ÄĚ
Judge Gilbert’s findings largely confirm Mr. Tillery’s contentions about SAG’s direct control over SCPI presented at a jurisdictional hearing in July. In his order, the Judge also found the following:
‚ÄĘ ‚ÄúIt is clear that Illinois has a substantial interest in this litigation in that the allegations are that SAG is responsible for contaminating the water supply of numerous municipalities within the state.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄĘ ‚ÄúIt is worth noting that SAG centralizes uniform marketing in which it represents that ‚ÄėSyngenta’ is a single-integrated globally managed entity. SCPI uses the same corporate insignia, marks and logos as SAG and does not have an independent website for its business.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄĘ ‚ÄúSome SCPI employees take orders from global managers who work for Syngenta entities that have no ownership interest in SCPI. ‚Ä¶ That the formal decision regarding those SCPI employees are technically made by SCPI’s managers does not change the reality that higher levels actually make the real decisions. ‚Ä¶ Indeed, a number of employees of Syngenta entities cannot identify for which Syngenta entity they or their coworkers work.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄĘ ‚ÄúThe defendant bears the burden of showing jurisdiction is unreasonable despite its contacts with the jurisdiction. ‚Ä¶ SAG has not made such a showing. As a preliminary matter, by its actions to control SCPI within this forum, SAG has purposefully availed itself of this forum’s laws such that it should not be surprised that it is being haled into court here.‚ÄĚ
Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and even residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. The herbicide does not cling to soil particles, but washes into surface water or leaches into groundwater, and then finds its way into municipal drinking water. It is the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, with an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine applied in the U.S. annually. It has been linked to a myriad of environmental concerns and health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, birth defects, and cancer, as well as effects on human reproductive systems, as we noted yesterday.
Atrazine is also a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.
Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a petition filed by the group Save the Frogs to ban atrazine. Beyond Pesticides submitted comments earlier this month in support of this petition in which we outline in detail the numerous reasons that this chemical is harmful and unnecessary. Read our full comments here.
Source: Korein Tillery
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.