dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 52 of 56duties on behalf of the corporation, may be held individuallyliable.” Lopresti v. Terwilliger, 126 F.3d 34, 42 (2d Cir.1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).Plaintiffs contend that Anderson, as a member of UCC’sManagement Committee, participated in the decisions to backintegratethe Bhopal Plant and use unproven technology, and thathe approved or ratified the proposed location for the plantsite. (Compl. 73, 79-80). As discussed above, the backintegrationproject was proposed and executed by UCIL, and theonly unproven technology utilized at Bhopal – that is, the COand 1-naphthol processes – along with the Sevin batchcarbamoylation process, were all developed by UCIL.Plaintiffs also claim that UCC and Anderson approved theconstruction of the Bhopal Plant near residential neighborhoodswhose drinking water could be contaminated. The onlyevidentiary support for this assertion is the ManagementCommittee’s endorsement of UCIL’s 1973 Capital Budget Proposal.However, the Capital Budget Proposal merely describes theproposed plant location as “Bhopal, site of the formulationplant,” a location that had “good rail communications, proximityto sources of raw materials, and low land cost.” (2005 HeckDecl., Ex. D1 at UCC04204). Nothing therein suggests that thearea was residential in 1973 or that UCC management knew it tobe residential. Regardless of the condition of the52