Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law Alien Tort Case Developments: Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Apply Kiobel’s “Touch and Concern” Standard

by Foley Hoag LLP - Corporate Social Responsibility
Contact

In the lastAlien Tort Gavel month, two federal appellate courts have issued decisions in cases filed against U.S.-based corporations pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). Both courts applied the “touch and concern” standard established by the Supreme Court in its 2012 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum with one court finding that jurisdiction was proper and the other court finding that “there is no jurisdiction” because all relevant conduct took place outside the United States.

As previously discussed, in Kiobel, the Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to all cases filed pursuant to the ATS. This presumption may be overcome when “claims touch and concern the territory of the United States” with “sufficient force.” The Supreme Court held that more than a “mere corporate presence” in the United States was necessary to displace the presumption.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision in Al Shimari v. CACI

In a decision issued in late June, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the presumption against extraterritoriality did not apply to claims brought by Iraqi plaintiffs against a U.S. government contractor that provided certain interrogation-related services to the U.S. military in Iraq. The plaintiffs had filed suit under ATS alleging that they had been subject to torture and other mistreatment while held at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision represents the first time since the Supreme Court’s decision that a federal appellate court has found that claims in an ATS case sufficiently “touch and concern” the United States so as to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality. With this finding, the court held that the district court had erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ ATS claims.

In its decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that “a fact-based analysis is required…to determine whether courts may exercise jurisdiction over certain ATS claims.” The court observed that the Supreme Court had held that “claims” must touch and concern the United States, not the “alleged tortious conduct.” Based on this observation, the court then stated that it must “consider a broader range of facts than the location where the plaintiffs actually sustained their injuries” including “the parties’ identities and their relationship to the causes of action” in evaluating whether jurisdiction is appropriate.

Ultimately, in finding that the Al Shimari plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to as to overcome the presumption, the court relied on the following factors concerning the defendant contractor, CACI Premier Technology, Inc.:

  • Contractor is a U.S. corporation;
  • The employees of contractor whose conduct is at issue in the case are U.S. citizens;
  • Contractor’s contract was issued in the United States by the U.S. Department of Interior;
  • Contractor’s employees were required to obtain security clearances from the U.S. Department of Defense; and
  • Plaintiffs alleged that managers of the contractor based in the United States approved, encouraged, and/or attempted to cover up the alleged misconduct in Iraq.

Notably, the Court also relied upon “the express intent of Congress, through the enactment of the Torture Victims Protection Act and 18 U.S.C. 2340A, to provide aliens access to United States courts and to hold citizens of the United States accountable for acts of torture committed abroad.”

The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision in In re Chiquita Brands International, Inc.

In a decision issued in late July, the Eleventh Circuit held that jurisdiction was not proper in a ATS case brought by Colombian plaintiffs against Chiquita Brands International (“Chiquita”) alleging that the company knew, or should have known, that its material support for the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (“AUC”), a paramilitary organization, would lead to the death or torture of their family members.

Notably, in March 2007, Chiquita admitted that it had provided payments to the AUC, stating that it had done so in order to ensure the protection of Chiquita employees and banana plantations in Colombia. At the time of its admission, the company agreed to pay a $25 million fine for providing funds to an organization on the United States’ list of terrorist organizations and to cooperate in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Since the company’s admission, more than 4,000 Colombian plaintiffs have filed suit against the company pursuant to the ATS and the Torture Victim Protection Act.

In contrast to the Fourth Circuit’s fact-based analysis, the Eleventh Circuit observed that “our ultimate disposition is not dependent on specificity of fact.” Noting that the defendants in Kiobel were not U.S. corporations and that Chiquita is U.S.-based, the court stated that “the distinction between the corporations does not lead us to any indication of a congressional intent to make the [ATS] apply to extraterritorial torts.” After stating that all relevant conduct at issue in the case took place outside the United States, the court stated simply “[t]here is no jurisdiction.”

The court noted that past decisions have found that extraterritorial torture falls within the category of claims violating international law that are properly heard pursuant to the ATS, citing both Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (2d Cir. 1980) and the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Al Shimari. The court found, however, that “this is by no means a unanimous conclusion of the circuits”, citing the D.C. Circuit’s pre-Kiobel decision in Saleh v. Titan Corp. (D.C. Cir. 2010).  Ultimately, the Court stated that

we reiterate that the ATS does not apply extraterritorially… There is no allegation that any torture occurred on U.S. territory, or that any other act constituting a tort in terms of the ATS touched or concerned the territory of the United States with any force.

Notably, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision prompted a vigorous dissent from Judge Martin in which she stated that plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality. Specifically, she cited the fact that Chiquita is headquartered and incorporated within the territory of the United States. She also observed that plaintiffs

allege that Chiquita participated in a campaign of torture and murder in Colombia by reviewing, approving, and concealing a scheme of payments and weapons shipments to Colombian terrorist organizations, all from within their corporate offices in the territory of the United States. (emphasis added)

In so stating, she found that “plaintiffs seek relief in a United States court for violations of international law committed by United States citizens while on United States soil.  Certainly, these extraterritorial claims ‘touch and concern the territory of the United States’ with great force.”

Judge Martin’s reliance on an allegation that key decisions regarding corporate conduct outside the United States were made in the United States adopts similar reasoning to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Al Shimari. In citing Al Shimari, Judge Martin sought to distinguish the allegations at issue in In re Chiquita from a situation in which plaintiffs are seeking to hold “an American company vicariously liable for the unauthorized actions of its subsidiaries overseas”, citing the Second Circuit’s post-Kiobel decision in Balintulo v. Daimler AG (2d Cir. 2013) in which the court found that plaintiffs had not displaced the presumption against extraterritoriality.

*     *     *     *

In reviewing these opinions, it is clear that Judge Martin is correct in observing that “[t]he Kiobel opinion offers little assistance about what kinds of domestic connections would be necessary to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality.” It is striking that the majority in In re Chiquita did not address Judge Martin’s emphasis on the issue of where key decisions were made regarding extraterritorial conduct. That said, looking ahead, it would not be surprising if future courts look to Judge Martin’s dissent in trying to address the uncertainties left by the Kiobel opinion. While some hoped that Kiobel would resolve many of the key jurisdictional questions raised by ATS claims, it seems likely that there will be much more litigation to come before greater clarity emerges as to the appropriate parameters of these cases.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Corporate Social Responsibility | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Corporate Social Responsibility
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Corporate Social Responsibility on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.