Taking Action: InBev and Jerry

Jerry maintains that his actions took place under InBev’s direction, as part of a coordinated social media effort. He argues that this is grounds for the corporate veil defence.

InBev has commented that they have volunteered to dedicate a number of funds to the City of London and the private homeowners affected by the spill, according to the property damage inflicted by the spill. They note that they have suspended Jerry and passed him over for a pending promotion; the correspondent raise would have amounted to an additional $20,000/year in personal income for Jerry.

InBev is now appealing the second order, claiming that these actions have already fulfilled their responsibilities remediate, in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle. They hold that any further settlement would constitute double-recovery, and further state that the city’s misconduct has made a proper assessment of the spill’s damages impossible.

Advise the Ministry on the merits of these claims. Is InBev (still) accountable for the spill?

Back