On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs may not bring claims against corporations domiciled outside the United States in Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) cases....more
For Alien Tort-watchers, all eyes are focused on the Supreme Court and the pending decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which may determine that corporations are not appropriate defendants in cases brought pursuant to the Alien...more
In the emerging area of business and human rights, the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the U.N. Human Rights Council five years ago marked a watershed event. The...more
It’s Friday and time for another overview of developments in the field of business and human rights that we’ve been monitoring. This week’s post includes: updates on litigation in the Doe v. Nestle case; a private...more
Recent class actions have claimed that companies have violated California consumer fraud and unfair competition laws resulting from alleged forced labor in their global supply chains. These state law claims argue that...more
Non-Canadian workers are increasingly suing their employers in Canadian courts for human rights violations allegedly committed outside Canada by the companies themselves or by other entities in their supply chains. This...more
In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013), the United States Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) to alleged violations of international law committed by...more
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum a number of questions remain as to whether corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) for serious violations of human rights....more
In the span of less than a week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., a decision concerning the reach of the Alien Tort Statute, and granted certiorari in Bauman v....more