Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow 71 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • steve2
    steve2

    If this goes to trial - IF - it may transpire that the organization knew about the ( likelihood of) contamination, given it had been for decades the site of a nickel treatment plant AND that earlier parties had pulled out due to this issue.

    As others have noted, buyer beware. Why on earth was due diligence not carried out before papers were signed?

    The organization has already been forced to drop any suit against perhaps the biggest offender, the Canadian company.

    The rest seems pretty predictable: How can you hold smaller players accountable, when the alleged main player cannot be?

    I liked the comments on this thread about the puzzling absence of Jehovah and His holy spirit in guiding His one true people to purchase this parcel of land in the first place - especially given His alleged help in detecting roof leaks on another occasion at Bethel.

    This whole story has the appearance of inexperienced and/or dull-minded lawyers in the organization trying to recoup costs that, had homework been done, before purchase would not have been wasted in the first place.

    Holy spirit tried and found wanting!

  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower
    I was looking for the worst CEOs of the year award to bestow upon this brain dead Governing Body over their piss poor management of Jehovah's money but could find any.
  • Mephis
    Mephis
    Isn't there another similarly contaminated property in the UK which WT recently purchased?
    The new Bethel they're doing here in Britain (Temple Farm) is on land which was waste, and needing cleaning, but nothing like this. Talking more scrap cars and waste from that. They did an ecological report and then came out saying they only needed to bury the contaminated soil. http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Jehovah-s-Witnesses-pen-paper-Temple-Farm/story-23348188-detail/story.html


    Anyone aware of anything which points to the cost of them doing this clean-up?
  • sparky1
    sparky1

    "The title search should have revealed the previous owners and the nature of their business, which should have been a red flag for environmental issues." - JeffT

    Who did the title search? A home schooled newboy Bethelite? The Watchtower lawyers can't be that stupid or are they? At the slightest hint of possible pollution, Watchtower should have reconsidered their options for purchase. At the very least, they should have purchased some time of 'pollution insurance' or required the seller to purchase the insurance to cover any unforeseen difficulties with the property. It seems that the Governing Body(tm) and their team of helpers and legal experts operate from a very naïve and childlike world view.

    "Pollution insurance can be a valuable risk management tool to limit potential environmental liability. It can supplement the traditional methods of allocating risk in a real estate transaction, including proper due diligence , representations and warranties, indemnifications, placing funds in escrow and reducing the purchase price. .... the parties my choose to purchase pollution insurance to transfer risk of certain liabilities to an independent third party insurer."-Gregg A. Nathanson, ESQ.

    Maybe I am way off base . Are their any lawyers or commercial real estate experts posting here that can comment on this?

  • steve2
    steve2

    Maybe I am way off base . Are their any lawyers or commercial real estate experts posting here that can comment on this?

    Sparky1 you are right on the money with your observations! I am neither a lawyer nor real estate expert, but due diligence would have uncovered even a hint of ground contamination - especially since other potentai buyers high-tailed it

    I would welcome being corrected in due course, but the organization's law suit smacks of amateur lawyering to recover costs and oozes incredible naivete.

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    I'm not a lawyer, but I am an accountant with about 25 years of experience in real estate investment and development. That's why I'm shaking my head over this. There are two possibilities:

    1) they knew about the pollution and bought the place anyway. If this is the case, the purchase price should have reflected the cost of clean up. The only way I can see that they have a legal case in this instance is if they can document that the seller lied about the extent of the pollution. Even then they are going to have to explain why their own due diligence didn't uncover that.

    2) they ignored the pollution and bought it anyway. As noted above, just about anybody could figure out the site was likely polluted. This scenario means the GB, or whoever made the decision, ignored the advice of somebody like me and went ahead with the purchase. I doubt they can win in court with this.

    3) they didn't know about the pollution. This means, in essence, they are going to go into court and say "we're idiots and these bad people took advantage of us." This option might be the most entertaining.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    JeffT, do you know who it was that the WTS purchased the land from? Who is named on the purchase agreement as being the seller?

  • sparky1
    sparky1

    3.) They didn't know about the pollution. This means, in essence, they are going to go into court and say "we're idiots and these bad people took advantage of us." This option might be the most entertaining.- JeffT

    This is what my mind conjured up when I read JeffT's post:

    WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...........................A BAD KITTY JUST SHIT IN MY SANDBOX!!!!!! SOMEONE BETTER DO SOMETHING RIGHT AWAY!!!!!!!!

  • sir82
    sir82

    There are two possibilities:

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    And you're an accountant you say?

    Are you in the employ of the WTS by any chance?

  • Pistoff
    Pistoff

    I am sure they knew about it, bought it anyway, and planned all along to sue.

    They LOVE to litigate.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit