Talk:Koch Industries/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Koch Brothers Exposed

I'm opening this section for discussion about the Koch Brothers Exposed 'see also' link. It certainly follows guidelines, and would seem to be useful to our readers. I would like to better understand the objections of those who wish to omit this link.- MrX 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Is now linked in every article remotely connected to the Kochs. The purpose of "see also" is to provide material reasonably salient to the topic of the article, and not for linkspam. [1]

Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section applies. The link is "tangentially related" to the brothers individually, but the link to Koch Industries is a very long stretch. Collect (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This wikilink is actually long overdue here. The documentary clearly shows a direct, conflict of interest, link between the company Koch Industries and the political activities against situations that might hinder their operations. There is no stretch here at all. Trackinfo (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a notable documentary. It should be linked from every article about the Koch brothers and Koch Industries, and possibly also the Koch Family, either in the body text or in the see also section. Koch Industries has certainly taken note of the film. The beauty of a web-based encyclopedia versus a printed encyclopedia is the ability to hyperlink related topics. Why should we try to hide this one from our readers?- MrX 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Koch "Internal Financing" in Luxemborg

I don't have the skills to edit. I do want to post the following article so that someone else might consider adding an edit. Leerylife (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2014/dec/09/koch-industries-internal-bank-switzerland-video

Appears to be an "investigative editorial", but, alas, give no actual sources for claims as to amounts etc. and laces the whole commentary with "The Koch's are evil people who are buying off the US with ads". Collect (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

VeritasVincitUSA's Edits

I welcome discussion on each of the proposed edits. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

KCBX Chicago Petcoke Controversy

Proposed Addition to Recent News Section

In 2014, the EPA found Koch-subsidiary KCBX, which had been storing uncovered piles of Petroleum coke in Chicago's southeast side, to be in violation of the Clean Air Act.. The same facility was subsequently found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act again in April, 2015.. KCBX's petcoke piles in Chicago have sparked protests and complaints from community members, who allege that petcoke dust from the facility is a public nuisance and potential health hazard. Such complaints regarding KCBX petcoke dust prompted at least two lawsuits that were filed by the Illinois Attorney General against KCBX.

Justification

The KCBX petcoke controversy is clearly relevant and noteworthy. There has been extensive media coverage, both in the Chicago region and nationally, of the debate surrounding KCBX's storage of uncovered petcoke in Chicago. The popular HBO series VICE even dedicated an entire segment to a broader discussion of petcoke in Chicago and its impact on local residents. Given the extensive media coverage, inflamed passions of local residents, and the attorney general's lawsuits, it is difficult to argue that the facts do not merit inclusion. The recent news section is probably the best place for this item given that litigation is still ongoing.

I would be open to including a response/defense from the company following these facts. However, Koch Industries has been largely unsympathetic to the problem; last year it was reported that Koch even threatened to sue the city of Chicago for trying to further regulate the petcoke piles.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This ongoing petcoke controversy has been more widely covered than other "recent news" items and, is substantiated by both authoritative primary source citations (the EPA Notices of Violation are de-facto evidence of the agency's finding of the company to be in violation), and independent, third-party, sources. The treatment is purely factual and does not represent a point of view. In the interest of BALANCE, it would be helpful if somebody could dig up a defense or response from the company that does not make it look even worse than the facts do; however, such a response should not be required (particularly if the company actually has not responded sympathetically to the issue). I will leave the floor open for a couple more days for objections or revisions. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

"Key Legal and Regulatory Events" Section

I propose adding a Key Legal and Regulatory Events section following "Koch Industries" in company history. My proposed title for the new section is neutral in language, and parallels similar sections for other large controversial companies, like Bank Of America ("Fraud"), JPMorgan Chase ("Controversies"), Walmart ("Criticism"), Monsanto ("Legal Actions and Controversies"), etc.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• strong Oppose, unless you also want to include the awards and positive reports from regulatory agencies; even if not, it's a significant degradation of the existing format. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I am open to including the one notable and significant positive mention from the EPA that is on the INVISTA page provided, however, that the language you proposed pulling is coupled with a factual description of what the company did to receive the praise/award. If this section starts becoming a "snow job" of immaterial "awards", however, I would propose restoring balance by consolidating all of the significant negative regulatory items in this section as per my original edit (for now, it would only contain the three negative items that are not placed in the subsidiary sections). As an example, I would be open to concluding the section with:

Koch-subsidiary INVISTA was recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 for proactively self-reporting, as part of a settlement that involved paying a $1.7 million civil penalty, and spending up to an estimated $500 million to correct environmental violations in seven states. This represented the largest settlement in the history of the EPA Audit program, which started in 1995. According to the EPA, "the emission reductions resulting from correcting these violations will result in estimated annual human health benefits valued at over $325 million, including 30 fewer premature deaths per year, 2,000 fewer days/year when people would miss school or work, and over 9,000 fewer cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms."

Would you agree to have the three items I proposed adding to this section atop this final item? - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I still oppose the section as being an orthogonal organization system, leaving it a difficult, and inherently POV, decision as to which section a paragraph is to be placed in.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, where do you propose putting items, such as these, which do not have dedicated subsidiary pages or pertain to the parent company? Should I create subsidiary pages for INVISTA and KoSa, and add the "Oil Theft" and "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" items (which pertain to Koch Industries) to the main Koch Industries history? Both items are substantially more notable and worthy of mention than the 2010 change to the health plan design. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If added, they should be in an appropriate subsection consistent with the current subsectioning. As I said before, the INVISTA item should (if appropriate) be on the Invista subpage, and that subpage excepted in the Invista section here; whether that dispute should appear in this article is a separate consideration. I don't think KoSa's "sins" should appear in this article at all, unless a reliable source commenting on it also says that Koch Industries "controls" the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Detailed justifications for adding each item have been posted for roughly two days, and no rebuttal/objection has been made to present an argument that they should be omitted in that time. As per Rolling Stone, the "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" item pertains to "Koch Industries" and should appear under that item if it is not part of a dedicated Legal and Regulatory events section. Per the "KoSa Price Fixing" justification, a reliable source suggests that KoSa was not only controlled, but 100% owned, by Koch Industries at the time of the settlement (and presumably remains so today). Bloomberg News also sought fit to mention the KoSa price fixing episode in the context of Koch Industries. Pleas raise objections to the inclusion of specific items in the relevant section. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

Proposed Addition to New Key Legal and Regulatory Events Section

In 1980, Koch Industries pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, and four other felonies, in federal court. The pleas related to the company’s illegal use of straw buyers in a federal land lease lottery.

Justification

As part of a lengthy investigative article, the Rolling Stone reported on these felony guilty pleas. The company's lengthy retort, which Rolling Stone also published in its entirety, did not dispute the factual accuracy of this claim.

The Rolling Stone is a reliable independent secondary source, and this article was widely circulated online. Even credible allegations of civil fraud against other large companies, like Bank Of America, have been given prominent placement on the companies' Wikipedia pages. These felony guilty pleas, especially conspiracy to commit fraud, are noteworthy and warrant prominent inclusion in the article.

The proposed treatment is objective, and limited to the facts.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Per AR's objection to the creation of the Legal and Regulatory Events page, the appropriate placement for this event would be under "Koch Industries", the corporate entity to which it is attributed. I will leave this edit summary up for a couple more days to see if there are any objections raised. In the absence of objections to the content, I intend to make this edit within the next couple of days. It is clearly more noteworthy than information already included, and the treatment is objective, limited to verifiable facts, and substantiated by a reliable, independent, third-party source (and was not even refuted by the company in its rebuttal to the publication). - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Oil Theft

Proposed Addition to New Key Legal and Regulatory Events Section

In 1989, a United States Senate committee concluded that Koch Oil intentionally stole crude oil by fraudulently mismeasuring the oil it was purchasing. Koch Oil’s records showed that it ended each of the years between 1986 and 1988 with substantially more barrels of oil than it paid for—documenting roughly $31 million of excess oil. The investigation was referred to U.S. Attorney of Newark, who chose not to pursue a criminal indictment against Koch Industries in 1992. However, Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit in 2001, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts. The settlement came after a 1999 civil jury found that the company mismeasured the oil it was purchasing, consistent with the findings of the Senate report.

Justification

The absence of any discussion about this episode in the company's history was, by far, the biggest error of omission. First off, the report of the independent Senate investigation was damning. For example:

"Koch Oil, the largest purchaser of Indian oil in the country, was engaged in a widespread and sophisticated scheme to steal crude oil from Indians and others through fraudulent mismeasuring and reporting. The Committee sent its investigators into the field to conduct covert surveillance and caught Koch stealing from Indians on six separate occasions. By further investigation, the Committee determined that Koch was engaged in systematic theft, stealing millions in Oklahoma alone."

Then, the decision not to pursue criminal indictments was marred by controversy (see the BusinessWeek article, above). The US Attorney (Timothy Leonard) overseeing the case was granted a "waiver of conflict [of interest] rules" and allowed to oversee the case even though "Koch Industries purchased oil from wells in which Leonard and his family had royalty interests."

Furthermore, the jury that ultimatly heard the civil case based on the facts in the Senate report found them credible. Bloomberg News ultimately weighed in in 2011, describing the "Koch method":

The [civil] case came to trial in 1999. Former company employees testified that Koch Industries trained them to steal.

Phil Dubose, who worked for Koch Industries from 1968 to 1994, told the jury how the scheme worked.

“The Koch Method is to cheat the producer out of crude oil,” he said.

He testified that he was able to steal 2,000 barrels a month from one customer.

“You used every available tool to mismeasure the crude oil in Koch’s favor,” says Dubose, who is now retired.

What really makes it surprising that this incident is not included in the article, however, is that the entire episode represented an unusually public, vitriolic, more than decade-long incident in the company's history. In a CBS News article, Bill Koch is actually quoted as saying that Koch Industries, under his own brother's leadership, engined in "(o)rganized crime. And management driven from the top down."

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This item also relates primarily to "Koch Industries" (it was the named lead defendant in the False Claims Act case and thereby alleged, and found by the jury, to have orchestrated the theft).. As with the other entries, I will leave the floor open for a couple more days for initial objections and revision requests. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Fatal Pipeline Explosion

Replace the Existing Text:

An investigation conducted by the NTSB found that the pipe section which failed had not been shown to have excessive corrosion in a 1995 inspection. Regulations at the time did not provide criteria for "adequate cathodic protection."[30] Koch also stated that the bacteria-induced corrosion acted quicker than had ever previously been recorded in the industry. The explosion was the only event of its kind in the company’s history. In 1999, a Texas jury found that negligence had led to the rupture of the Koch pipeline and awarded the victims' families $296 million.[21][31]

With the New Text:

In 1999, a civil jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in conjunction with a fatal 1996 pipeline explosion. The jury’s $296 million judgment, in Smalley v. Koch Industries, is the largest compensatory damages verdict in a corporate wrongful death case in the history of American jurisprudence, and was substantially higher than the $100 million sought by the plantiff. Koch Industries paid $3.5 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount allowed under Texas law, and appealed the record $296 million verdict. The case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum

Problems with the Existing Text

The existing text is both misleading and WP:UNDUE, as it gives disproportionate weight to the company's verison of events when the jury's verdict reflects a complete repudiation of that view.

The NTSB report, itself, is available online and the one-sentence probable cause summary states explicitly that "the probable cause of this accident was the failure of Koch to adequately protect its pipeline from corrosion." The facts from the report presented in the current text are cherry-picked, and do not reflect the final conclusion of the report's authors--which is not even mentioned.

The sentence beginning "Koch also stated" presents the company's viewpoint without allocating "equal time" to the version of events that the jury accepted. The verdict was reported by CBS News(see our citation) as "negligence and malice" while it is presented above as mere "negligence". Furthermore, the noteworthy (and, indeed, historic) nature of the magnitude of the jury's verdict is not mentioned.

The current version does not describe the subsequent appeal and resolution of the case.

Additional Justification

The version of events the jury believed is even more unfavorable to the company than our neutral and objective version suggests. According to the CBS News article cited above:

Danny Smalley filed suit against Koch Industries. His attorney, Ted Lyon, says the investigation exposed a pattern of negligence and coverup involving the pipeline known as Sterling One. Lyon describes the pipeline as like "Swiss Cheese."

"They admitted to me if they had done things the way they should have, my child and Jason would still be alive," says Danny Smalley. "They said, 'We're sorry Mr. Smalley, that your child lost her life and Jason lost his life.' Sorry doesn’t get it. They’re not sorry. The only thing they looked at was the bottom dollar. How much money would they lose if they shut the pipeline down. They didn’t care, all they wanted was the money."

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In looking at the text I would tend to agree that the current could use improvement. I do not think your text is an improvement. Jury awards are notoriously unpredictable and juries are not experts in the subject mater. I think it would be best to find the views of reliable third parties to describe what happened as a retrospective (articles published around the time of the event should also be discounted as later facts may change the understood progression of events). The views of the plaintiff attorneys at best are opinions and can not be taken as reliable. The last quote again is an appeal to emotion by the plaintiff. We can not accept it as reliable. I don't think this is a change for the better but I do think the original could be improved. As posted I would reject your changes as focusing too heavily on the plaintiff arguments and jury award before appeal. It would be better to stick with reliable sources covering the facts of the case. Springee (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not propose using the prejudicial quotes in my language (which was focused specifically on the outcome of the case and the historic and noteworthy nature of the jury verdict). The current treatment of the NTSB report is clearly misleading, and it appears the current language describing the verdict is inadequate per CBS News. The one sentence probable cause summary of the NTSB investigation would be relevant, is as brief as the current treatment of the report, and reflects the independent "expert" view that you describe. It is worth noting that the phrase "failure of Koch to adequately protect" would seem to support a civil claim for negligence, though I am not an expert on NTSB investigations.

You state that my version "focus[es] too heavy on the platiff arguments" but my proposal does not mention the plaintiffs' arguments at all. I merely referenced the plaintiff's arguments (which prevailed) as additional support for my language. I also disagree that the retrospective "views of [other] reliable third-parties" should be given greater weight than the views of 12 independent third-parties who heard the case at the time (though such views should certainly be given some weight).

The historic nature of the jury verdict is both noteworthy and relevant and, while juries may not be subject matter experts, fair treatment of a legal case requires both accurately describing the verdict ("negligence and malice" per CBS News) and attributing at least equal weight to the version of events that is supported by "the preponderance of the evidence" in the view of the plurality of jury members who hear the case. There is no justification for anything resembling the current language (which gives far more weight to defendants' arguments, cherry-picks facts from an NTSB report that are not consistent with its conclusion, does not accurately reflect the verdict per CBS News, and does not note the historic nature of the verdict).

I will prepare alternative language that incorporates the NTSB's probable cause conclusion (the summary of the independent "expert" view), and gives less weight to the appeals process and settlement of the case. However, if you suggest that a discussion of the company's defense (like the current language) merits inclusion, then the plaintiff's case also merits discussion (most notably, the plantiffs' allegations that an investigation revealed "negligence and coverup" and that the company admitted "if they had done things the way they should have, my child and Jason would still be alive"). Judging by the verdict, the jury was extremely and unusually unsympathetic to the defendant's arguments. I see no reason for us to give them undue deference. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) (corrected to read "defendant's" in last sentence)

Revised Proposal For Discussion

An investigation conducted by the NTSB concluded that "the probable cause of this accident was the failure of Koch to adequately protect its pipeline from corrosion." One of the victim's families filed a civil wrongful death suit against Koch Industries and, in 1999, a jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice. The jury’s $296 million judgment, in Smalley v. Koch Industries, is the largest-ever compensatory damages verdict in a United States corporate wrongful death case.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the existing language is imprecise (the verdict), misleading (the NTSB report), and biased (UNDUE presentation of defense argument), I intend to replace the old language with the new "revised proposal" language later today unless there is a specific argument made that the new language suffers from greater deficiencies than the existing text. I am, of course, open to additional improvements to the revised language in the interim (to be made either in talk now or inline later with a justification posted here). In this case, there is a sense of urgency given the significant problems with the current language. Even Springee, the only user to object to the proposal to date, admits "the current [language] could use improvement." His specific objections to the original proposed change have been addressed by the revised proposal. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your rewrite swings things too far in the other direction. The original text provides some clear justifications for the company to not realize anything was wrong with the pipeline. Are those explanations true? I'm not sure I like including the magnitude of the award given how often jury awards are cut down. Look at the Ford Pinto cases. In historical retrospective Ford was largely found to have not behaved in an egregious fashion. I think the best thing here would be blending some of the facts that you have added with those from the original passage. Springee (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On balance, the independent expert NTSB report (and, particularly, its conclusion) is highly unsympathetic to the company's view. If you want to include cherry-picked facts that support the company's defense, then it is necessary (at the very least) to introduce the rebuttal facts that the report found more convincing and supportive of the its conclusion. For example, the current language says: the pipeline "had not been shown to have excessive corrosion in a 1995 [internal] inspection". However, the report also presents a fact that supports both the overall conclusion that the pipeline inspection was "inadequate" and the defense claims of "negligence and coverup":

"The [independent post-accident investigation] found indications of severe corrosion were identified in about 15 lengths of pipe. These areas were not identified during the May 1995 [internal] inspection as having either moderate or severe corrosion."

Furthermore, the existing language presents an unsourced Koch assertion regarding the unusual speed of bacteria corrosion. Meanwhile, the NTSB report indicates that rapid corrosion was to be expected given that:

Low soil resistivity readings of 507 ohm-cm at the rupture site, 862 ohm-cm 50 feet north of the rupture site, and 1,149 ohm-cm 50 feet south of the rupture site were recorded. Soil resistivity values at these levels generally indicate highly corrosive soil. (emphasis mine)

If you believe that much time should be allotted to unsourced Koch assertions and cherry-picked facts supporting the company's defense, then BALANCE requires that at least "equal time" be given to the plaintiff's assertions and the facts supporting the plaintiff's case (which the jury found more credible). Somehow, I don't think you want to re-litigate the case on this page. If you have a counter-proposal to the language I proposed, which you believe is not imprecise, biased, and/or misleading, I would certainly like to see it presented and defended. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much time to look at this. I think the initial passage seems to be very short on citations. When I searched for information much of what I found was blogs which we generally can't use as a RS. Rolling Stones is a questionable source in my view. This is because often they go with the shocking rather than really carefully considered work. Look at their stance on vaccines a while back. They ran a very critical anti-vax article that later was shown to be just flat wrong. The NTSB report does seem to be one of the more reliable sources thus far. The Iran article is an inappropriate citation in this case. We don't need it to verify the initial verdict and it clearly only mentions the value in passing. Anyway, I think this still needs work. I agree that the current entry seems too dismissive but I don't think you are improving things by going too far in the other direction. I'm not sure how much I can look into this for the next day or so. Springee (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone was not cited in my proposal here (it was cited elsewhere, and only to establish a verifiable objective fact--not support a POV), and I don't know what "Iran" is. Here, the NTSB report, CBS News, and Bloomberg News are cited in the most recent proposal. The NTSB report and Bloomberg article are already cited elsewhere in the article, and all three sources are cited merely to establish objective, verifiable facts. The CBS News article is cited because it describes the verdict accurately ("negligence and malice"). The proposed language suffers from none of the established deficiencies in the existing language; as such, I will post the new language and you are welcome to propose a revision when you have more time. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not support the new language as better than the existing entry and will revert if posted as proposed. Please don't jump the gun.Springee (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of support (without presenting alternative language or a compelling case why the existing language is better) is duly noted. You are welcome to revert, and post both a justification for your reversion and your proposed new language. However, I want my proposed change, with a reference to this discussion, "on-the-record" on the main page. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reverted. Note that making changes when talk discussions are active is a sign of disruptive editing. You have already done the WP:BOLD change. It was reverted, now we need to discuss. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the "Consensus" page, "editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor." By your own admission, the existing language "could use improvement". You have not provided justification for your assertion that the existing language is superior to my edit; as such, I politely request a reason why you believe it should not remain in effect until we can, together, come up with an even better substitute for the problematic existing language. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

"Over 3 million gallons of crude oil"

Replace the Existing Text:

"for the 300 reported oil spills allegedly attributed to Koch"

With the Following Text:

"for the 300 reported oil spills, involving an aggregate of over 3 million gallons of crude oil, allegedly attributed to Koch"

Justification

The existing text does not give any indication as to the magnitude of the spills in question. Was it 300 teaspoons or 300 million barrels? The 3 million gallons number was widely reported and gives the reader a sense of scale.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

References

300 Oil Spill Settlement

Add New Text:

However, the company refused to disclose a map of pipeline to the EPA, thereby preventing the agency from assessing the extent of the company's responsibility for the reported spills, or to identify other spills attributable to the company.

after the Existing Text:

Koch disputed the EPA figures, saying the EPA did not file claims in over half of the 300 alleged cases, and further, that "Many of these alleged spills are not even listed in the EPA's own oil spill data base."[57]

Justification

The existing article presents Koch's version of events without alloting any time to the rebuttal. In this case, it is understandable that the fact the company refused to supply maps frustrated the EPA's attempts to properly attribute spills to Koch and file claims. The citation I propose even includes a quote from an EPA official expressing how "contentious" the case was.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

References

"Falsifying a Document"

Change the Existing Text:

In April 2001, Koch pleaded guilty to one count, related to wastewater reporting it had self-reported to the government in 1995, according to the company.[39]

To The New Text:

In April 2001, Koch pleaded guilty to falsifying a document.

Justification

In this case, the existing text completely excludes pertinent information in favor of presenting the company's defense. The existing text just says "one count"--"one count" of what? In addition, the company's defense is irrelevant as it they pleaded guilty (which, by definition, involves admitting wrongdoing).

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

References

KoSa Price Fixing

Add New Item to Key Legal and Regulatory Events

In 2002, KoSa, a Koch-affiliated joint-venture, agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $28.5 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix prices and allocate customers.

Justification

This represented a large criminal fine for the company, and an executive was actually sentenced to jail time in connection with the scheme. Koch Industries was a 50% shareholder in the KoSa joint-venture at the time of the misconduct and, at the time of this settlement, owned the entire company. Bloomberg also reported on the Koch/KoSa connection, and the price fixing settlement, in the article cited by the existing Koch Industries Page ("Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales").

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even though you answered one of my questions as to relevance, it might be listed only if the some source both reported on the fine and reported that Koch controlled KoSa. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Two reliable sources reported separately on the fine, and the fact that Koch was the 100% owner of KoSa before the time the fine was assessed. That would seem to meet the burden of proof you established. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Still not adequate for "Koch-affiliated", even if significance were established. Although significance is not established, if it were, a sentence could be added that KI paid the fine after acquisition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct with respect to "affiliated." please consider the more precise phrasing below, and placement under INVISTA. It was a massive criminal fine and an executive went to prison; that pretty well establishes the signficance.

In 2002, KoSa, what had been a 50/50 joint-venture between Koch Industries and Imasab, agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $28.5 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix prices and allocate customers. In 2001, following the misconduct but before the 2002 settlement, Koch acquired the 50% of KoSa it did not own and subsequently merged it into INVISTA.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

For readability....

Just an FYI, @VeritasVincitUSA:, when you create a section with multiple references, it is best to use the template {{reflist talk}} at the bottom of the section in order to keep the references for each discussion separated from each other. This lowers the confusion for editors reading through discussions. Thank you! -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)