SDNY Applies Kiobel II and Holds Corporations May Be Liable under the Alien Tort Statute

by Foley Hoag LLP - Corporate Social Responsibility
Contact

South AfricaIn a mid-April decision in the In re: South African Apartheid Litigation, the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) has tackled one of the most pressing legal questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court last year in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (“Kiobel II”):  Can corporations be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) for violations of “the law of nations”?

The SDNY answered this question in the affirmative, and called upon the parties to brief the second: What acts might sufficiently “touch and concern” the United States to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality?

The plaintiffs in the Apartheid Litigation filed their suit over twelve years ago, alleging that numerous multi-national corporations had aided and abetted tortious conduct by South Africa’s apartheid regime. In the time since, the case has survived multiple motions to dismiss and subsequent appeals, although now only two defendants remain: Ford Motor Company and International Business Machines (“IBM”).

This latest district court ruling comes after the Second Circuit remanded the case following additional briefing in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kiobel II. The plaintiffs in Kiobel were Nigerian citizens who sued Royal Dutch Petroleum and other corporations alleging aiding and abetting of assorted violations of customary international law, all of which took place in Nigeria. The Second Circuit, despite having not done so on at least nine prior occasions, held in “Kiobel I” that the ATS does not confer federal jurisdiction over corporations. In so doing, the Second Circuit became the first (and thus far only) Circuit to come to this conclusion.

The Supreme Court accepted the case and originally heard argument on this question of corporate liability, but in a surprise move, the Supreme Court then requested a second round of argument on the question of whether the ATS could be used to bring claims for “extraterritorial” torts, meaning torts that took place outside the United States and involved only non-U.S. parties. The Court ultimately based its ruling on the latter question, concluding that the presumption against extraterritoriality applied and thus the ATS could not be used in this case to sue for acts that took place exclusively overseas and involved parties without U.S. ties.

In Kiobel II, the Supreme Court explained that in order to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality, the alleged wrongful conduct would have to “touch and concern” the United States with “sufficient force” to displace the presumption, although it did not articulate what force might required in practice. Although the Court’s majority did not directly address the question of corporate liability, it notably stated in dicta that “mere corporate presence” was not enough to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality.

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to address directly the question of corporate liability in the ATS case of Bauman v. Daimler AG, but instead ruled on other grounds, concluding that Daimler did not have sufficient contacts with California to justify exercise of personal jurisdiction under the state’s long-arm statute.

Since Kiobel II, the Ninth Circuit has been the only Circuit to address the corporate liability question directly and it concluded “that corporations can face liability for claimant brought under the Alien Tort Statute.”  In so doing, it pointed to the language in Kiobel II regarding corporate presence and concluded that the Court had “suggest[ed] in dicta that corporations may be liable under the ATS so long as [the] presumption against extraterritorial application is overcome.”

Latching on to this corporate presence language from Kiobel II and the personal jurisdiction analysis from Bauman, and noting favorable subsequent Second Circuit references to the same, the SDNY in the Apartheid Litigation concluded:

The Supreme Court’s opinions in Kiobel II and Daimler directly undermine the central holding of Kiobel I – that corporations cannot be held liable for claims brought under the ATS.  The opinions explicitly recognize that corporate presence alone is insufficient to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality or to permit a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in an ATS case, respectively.

The SDNY then explained:

The Supreme Court has now written two opinions contemplating that certain factors in combination with corporate presence could overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality or permit a court to exercise personal jursidction over a foreign corporation in an ATS case.  This language makes no sense if a corporation is immune from ATS suits as a matter of law.  The Supreme Court’s opinions in Kiobel II and Daimler cannot be squared with Kiobel I’s rationale.

The Apartheid court then challenged the two fundamental conclusions of the Second Circuit in Kiobel I, concluding that:

  • Federal common law determines who is a proper defendant under the ATS, not international law; and
  • Kiobel I was “outright wrong” to say that international law does not recognize corporate liability.

The Apartheid court seemed particularly troubled by the idea that corporations could avoid liability for such serious offenses. Underscoring that just because there have been few cases does not mean that “there is no norm establishing corporate liability for violations such as genocide or torture,” the court quoted the Ninth Circuit case of Sarei v. Rio Tinto and noted:

[T]he implication that an actor may avoid liability merely by incorporating is inconsistent with the universal and absolute nature of the prohibitions established by international norms.

In re: South African Apartheid Litigation remains a case to watch. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for an order finding corporations may be held liable under the ATS, the court invited plaintiffs to move for leave to amend their complaint against the remaining U.S. defendants in light of Kiobel’s “touch and concern” requirement. But in so doing, the court warned plaintiffs that in order for their claims to survive another motion to dismiss, they

must make a preliminary showing that they can plausibly plead that those defendants engaged in actions that ‘touch and concern’ the United States with sufficient force to overcome the presumption against the extraterritorial reach of the ATS, and that those defendants acted not only with the knowledge but with the purpose to aid and abet the South African regime’s tortious conduct as alleged in these complaints.

ATS watchers will not have to wait long for the response, however, as the court ordered that plaintiffs’ motion and supporting papers be filed no later than May 15, defendants’ response be filed by June 12, and plaintiffs’ reply by July 26. We will continue to monitor the case as it goes forward.

 

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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!