“According to the workers, the employee explicitly told them not to walk past Cooker 6, as it had been overheating for several days.”

💡 This shows Givaudan had direct, specific warnings from workers on the ground that the equipment was dangerous, yet continued production anyway.

“There’s some indication that the vessel did not vent properly, and that caused an overheating and explosion – over pressurization, if you will.”

💡 Federal investigators confirmed the explosion was caused by a known, preventable equipment failure, not an unforeseeable accident.

“He added that there were signs of possible maintenance issues with that equipment.”

💡 The ATF agent’s statement indicates Givaudan failed to properly maintain the equipment that ultimately killed workers and displaced hundreds.

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this specific facility has exploded from a vessel failure. In 2003, an employee died after a catastrophic vessel failure according to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.”

💡 The same type of failure killed someone 21 years earlier, proving Givaudan never fixed the root cause despite knowing the deadly risks.

“The tank that failed had no relief device for overpressure protection, nor did it have basic process control or alarm instrumentation to prevent process upsets.”

💡 Investigators identified the exact safety systems that were missing in 2003, yet the same type of failure occurred again in 2024.

“There were reportedly no adequate operating procedures or adequate training programs to ensure that operators were aware of the risks of allowing the spray dryer feed tanks to overheat and knew how to respond appropriately.”

💡 Even after the first fatal explosion, Givaudan allegedly failed to implement proper training to prevent overheating hazards.

“Reportedly, Defendant was in the practice of not fixing known safety issues. The employee provided pictures and videos as evidence, showing dangerous conditions inside the plant: steam or smoke filling a room, water pouring from a wall near an electrical outlet, and an oil-like substance leaking from equipment.”

💡 Workers documented and reported multiple safety hazards to federal regulators, yet Givaudan maintained a pattern of not fixing them.

“Between the listed date and time, the victim’s unattached garage was broken into. Entry was from the Payne St Explosion which caused a hole in the side of the garage.”

💡 The explosion itself created vulnerabilities that enabled repeated burglaries, compounding the harm to displaced residents.

“Plaintiffs, along with many other class members, provided notice to Defendant of the burglaries, but did not receive reasonable security to ensure that further burglaries would be prevented.”

💡 Even after being told residents were being victimized, Givaudan failed to protect their property, showing continued disregard.

“Givaudan has not provided compensation for the big ticket items – damage to property caused by the explosion and reasonable, long term housing.”

💡 The company left displaced families to bear the financial burden themselves rather than taking responsibility for the damage it caused.

“While Givaudan has paid lip service to offering some help, class members have had to bear the brunt of the financial impact of the explosion by themselves.”

💡 Givaudan’s public statements about helping do not match the reality faced by people who lost their homes and belongings.

“Defendant had actual, or at least constructive notice, of the hazard that lead to the explosion prior to the event and failed to address it.”

💡 The company knew or should have known the explosion would happen but chose not to prevent it.

“It is extremely foreseeable that even a small explosion, fire, or other nuisance or dangerous event at the Factory would have acute injuries to residents’ and businesses livelihoods and wellbeing located in proximity to the Factory.”

💡 Givaudan operated a dangerous facility in a densely populated residential area where any incident would obviously harm neighbors.

“Indeed, many, if not the majority of individuals located within the evacuation area will never be able to return or have already been forced to permanently leave.”

💡 The explosion didn’t just temporarily displace people; it permanently destroyed their homes and community.

“The conduct of Defendant in knowingly allowing conditions to exist which caused the explosion and then Defendant’s knowing failure to institute reasonable security constitutes gross negligence as it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes.”

💡 The complaint alleges the highest standard of corporate wrongdoing, showing willful disregard for human safety and wellbeing.