dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 18 of 56employees of the parent and subsidiary corporations to meetperiodically to discuss business matters.”). Plaintiffs offerno legal authority for the proposition that implementing andfollowing an internal review process for a subsidiary’s capitalexpenditures, in and of itself, is tortious conduct; it doesnot, as a matter of law, rise to the level of participation inthe creation of pollution. Furthermore, nothing in the 1973Capital Budget Proposal, the minutes of the UCC ManagementCommittee meeting in which UCC endorsed the Capital BudgetProposal, or the 1977 Review of the Capital Budget Proposalsuggests that UCC directly participated in any pollutingactivity. Instead, these documents indicate that themanufacturing processes and waste disposal systems to beimplemented at the Bhopal Plant were all initially proposed byUCIL. (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D1 at UCC04204-06, UCC04212-14).2. Design of Waste Disposal SystemsNext, Plaintiffs argue that UCC can be held directly liablebecause it designed the faulty waste disposal systems installedat the Bhopal Plant. However, the documents cited simply do notestablish that UCC was responsible for such design. In May 1972negotiations with the Government of India to obtain an allotmentof land on which to construct a pesticide manufacturing plant,UCIL informed public health authorities in Bhopal that “theexact design of the effluent treatment unit is in process . . .18