dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 48 of 56used WAPT to control all aspects of UCIL’s business when UCILitself participated in WAPT and the Bhopal Task Force. Indeed,if UCC were in a position of plenary control, there would be noneed to consult UCIL about its suggestions for the Bhopalstrategic plan, or any other plans, at all.Even if the Court accepts that UCC, through WAPT, approvedthe 1981 strategic plan for the Bhopal Plant, that fact does notcompel piercing the corporate veil. Legally, “[t]he mereassertion that a corporate parent is or was involved in thedecision-making process of its subsidiary, or that it controlledthe legitimate policies of its subsidiary, will not shiftliabilities among distinct corporate entities.” Truglia v. KFCCorp., 692 F. Supp. 271, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Moreover, thereis no evidence to suggest that UCC’s approval power extendedbeyond the strategic plan to other areas of UCIL’s operations.A fresh review of the expanded summary judgment record onlyconfirms the Court’s previous finding that “nothing about theneed for approval of a strategic plan indicates that UCCcontrolled every step UCIL took at Bhopal to implement thatstrategy.” Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 2010 WL 5158645 at *3.Moreover, the WAPT documents contain “no references whatsoeverto pollution or environmental concerns. . . . It is simply notreasonable to infer that the strategic planning documents’silence on the issue of UCC’s participation in environmental48