Who a "Corporate" claims that should also be confronted with the logical downside of this
Not only in Germany legal persons claiming more and more rights that actually just of natural persons. That invented by some law "Corporate", should be better brought to the critic with the critic is only the summit of this development. But a case-law, which partially gives such concerns, necessarily also had to take into account the other side of the medal and use sanctioning instruments on businesses, as it else is only in natural persons.
For example, the discharge. She has been called since 1992 "maintenance". A not quite safe euphemism, because many people may not know that they sound harmlessly "maintenance" actually sign the legal succession of a demonation. A care according to § 1896 BGB represents natural persons to hover himself or others and is arranged if someone "his affairs no matter or partly not" can, without it, or others danger – where the danger also refers to wealthy values.
The prerequisites for a support also meet in a remarkable manner on companies such as BP or some rough banks: Not only, not only that they were harmed by risks that they seemed to have no longer audiobed third parties – they also hose themselves.
According to New York Times, for example, BP already knew about massive security ies in the operation of the on 20 since June 2009. April exploded and on 22. April sunken drilling platform Deep Water Horizon, but did not do anything that had prevented ill. Alone by the end of May, the Group had to spend about one billion US dollars for fruitless occlusion attempts and first reductions.
The damage results not only from the cost of the attempts to stop the Olaustrus, but also from considerable loss of taking in the fishing and tourism industry in the practically entire Southeast of the USA – from Louisiana Uber Mississippi and Alabama to Florida. And because the Oltespich continues to the northeast in the Atlantic, people and companies could be affected by much more US states and countries. The economically difficult environmental damage is not included here, although they were just legal in the sense of the supervision right.
Among other things, among other things, the previously paid amounts were still allowed to be the end of the flagpole: the Dutch Bank Ing estimates the total cost of BP to $ 5.3 billion, the Swiss Credit Suisse is up to 37 billion and the American lawyer Daniel Bencnel Stop up to 50 billion in possibly – a sum, which also has a total of 239 billion dollars made in 2009.
Little surprising so that the share price of BP has fallen a third since the deep-water horizon disaster. The failure of the "Top kill" Named damage limitation attempts resulted in price rates in the amount of 15 percent. A development that also dominates the financial loss of third parties: follow further pits, then British retirement funds are danger, which often build on BP shares. Meanwhile, the rating agencies Fitch and Moody’s also stood down the company’s creditworthiness. Because both continuously hang down to keep it possible, the first supposita lamp were already loud in the media.
For a public care of the Group, it also speaks that the spectacular damage in the Gulf of Mexico is not the only one who has caused BP in recent years: In 2005 there was an explosion with several dead, a three-digit number in the refinery, a three-digit number of injured and a total damage in high over one and a half billion US dollars. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) found out in its investigation of the excursions that, for decades, advanced security recommendations with reference to the costs were reflected or simply ignored.
The Group in Prudhoe Bay in the year held the biggest olshade in North Alaska in Prudhoe Bay. Here employees had made their supervisors aware of the dangers seven years ago, without reacting accordingly. According to the Handelsblatt, corporation could even have acted on the US resists so that they did not make up the lack of deficiency.