Amicus Curiae Brief — Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

Supreme Court brief2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 10-1491

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

ESTHER KIOBEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND

ON BEHALF OF HER LATE HUSBAND,

DR. BARINEM KIOBEL, et ai.,

Petitioners,

ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO. et al.,

Respondents.

On Warr or CERTIORARI TO THE

Unrrep States Court oF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND Circurr

_ eM ————___—

BRIEF OF PRODUCT LIABILITY ADVISORY

COUNSEL, INC., AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

ANNE E. Conen

Counsel of Record

Of Counsel: Davip W. Rivkin

Huacu F. Youna, Jr. Ero. N. GuLay

Propuct LIABILITY Susan E. Moser

Apvisory CounsgEL, INc. DeBEVOISE & PLimpton LLP

1850 Centennial Park Drive 919 Third Avenue

Suite 510 New York, NY 10022

Reston, VA 20191 (212) 909-6000

(703) 264-5300 aecohen@debevoise.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

February 3, 2012

CDL_— lll OOO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE \..0.0.....0000..000000000 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................:ccccccccseeeee 2

IT Saleen catdiniainttpitlacrnscsaitesiatinnnimiaiavensislindussanss 4

I, ATS Lawsuits Are Excessively Costly,

Complex, and Time-Consuming...................... 4

I. Corporate Role in Alleged Conduct is

Indirect and Attenuated.................0000000.0000... 12

lil. ATS Lawsuits Unfairly Cause

Corporations to Suffer Notoriety and

Reputational Damage ....................0000cccecceeeee 20

SIT cepiseclccisses atic ndoccarioccnhiolec ec mide tae 25

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

List of Current Corporate Members of PLAC...App. 1

APPENDIX B

Table of ATS Cases Brought Against

Corporate Defendants ..................0.0000004. App. 5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Abecassis v. Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D.

2 | SEO eee Re SER ne ee De aaa: Be 14, 15

Abrams v. Société Nationale des Chemins de

Fer Frangais, 175 F. Supp. 2d 423

, Se en ee 15

Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, No. 09-1237,

2010 WL 744237 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2010)....... 15

Aguilar v. Imperial Nurseries, No. 07-193 (D.

Conn. filed Feb. 8, 2007) ..0.00000.00...cccccccocccocccceeee 20

Al Shimari v. CACI Int'l, Inc., 658 F.3d 413

CORB Che. BBE DD ...ccccccecccccecoccoseceesnccoescocesecces, 12, 15

Al-Quraishi v. Nakhia, 728 F. Supp. 2d 702

Be Pe SE on nietces xsspascinnsetetseesanitsnsicoaseniccunes 15

Al-Taee v. L-3 Serv., No. 08-12790 (E.D. Mich.

filed Jume 30, 2008) ..............ccccccccccccccccccceccecceeee 16

Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.,

578 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009)........................... 7

Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132

I anlicscesscoiristocnpnstscacensdicavsiesroomcseg ses 11

NIE lise csinintuiinnchaniie ettrsasoncice oad cuceddccasiase cs cas 13, 15

Baloco ex rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., Inc.,

640 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2011)..0000000 ccc. 16

ill

Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 198 F. App’x 32

ee ee IS en Lt eh acladeseenanniaiotiaiienh 7

Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d

I a is ccnectavheuats 16

Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir.

as GNA ERR SR ESS Se GE STE oe hele tae React a 7

Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 114 F. Supp. 2d

ee aaaauasea 15

Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621 F.3d 1116 (9th

eee as 6, 8, 13, 17

Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d

1019 (W.D. Wash. 20085) ..............0::cc:eceeee. 14, 15

Daventree Ltd. v. Republic of Azer., 349 F ..

Supp. 2d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).............:::cccceee. 11

Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 317 F.3d 1005 (9th

Ra I siectseccaouticsneadesietimininavncsedectumesadmumrentens 15

Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-7307

CET Coed, Gia The: BE; BD ccceccvseversevesersseesss 19

Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C.

I ee eacenensceenieneraure 13

Doe v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D.

IRIE AIS AE ct Comes tarry Lever tat lien vaeh 17, 19

Estate of Manook v. Research Triangle Inst.,

Int'l, 759 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D.N.C. 2010) 12, 15

Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., Inc.,

256 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Ala. 2003)............. 16

Fiourts v. The Turkish Cypriot Comty, No. 10-

1225 (D.D.C. filed July 20, 2010)............... 13, 16

Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., LLC,

643 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2011).........0..........eeeee 11

Genocide Victims of Krajina v. L-3 Serv., Inc.,

No. 10-5197, 2011 WL 3625055 (N.D. IIL.

I i Tsnenionionsiqaaen 15

Giraldo v. Drummond Co., Inc., No. 09-1041

(N.D. Ala. filed Sept. 29, 2011)................... 16, 18

Gonzalez-Vera v. Kissinger, 449 F.3d 1260

(D.C. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S.

I aieinisatacianindiokucsencdenhctignidaidansconsindieini 11

Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411 (9th

ANA el ae te Ree Ses cae eh Dy 10

Hereros ex rel. Riruako v. Deutsche Afrika-

Linien Gmbit & Co., 232 F. App’x 90 (3d

Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar

Nemzeti Bank, No. 10-1884, 2011 WL

1900340 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2011) ...........00000000.. 15

Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F. Supp. 2d 10

SINE EE: MII ss scciecdatonictnncmpactienceesnaeneaoenutccass 15

In re Agent Orange Product Liab. Litig., 373

PP, Damen. Di F GIG. 0. BE aecccecevesceesscvceccnsssss q

In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. Alien Tort

Statute and S‘holder Derivative Litig., 792

F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ...... 8, 9, 16, 18

In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 633 F. Supp. 2d

RE II so scscondennetenienevemvesiniesscssostinss 8

In re World War Il Era Japanese Forced

Labor Litig., 164 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (N.D.

ai aa seaaretemnadupennphbitonnonswnss 15

In re XE Serv. Alien Tort Litig., 665 F. Supp.

Sp IL. WANs GID vcccessevscensnctesocesnonesene 12, 16

lwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d

RN iirc sscortinnascenatstenmmuresioncemvecns 16

Jama Vv. Esmor Corr. Services, Inc., 577 F.3d

I censsumsoes 7

Jarallah v. Xe, No. 09-631 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar.

I IO et RO, 16

Kaplan v. Al Jazeera, No. 10-5298 (S.D.N.Y.

iE RRA se ee ea a 15

Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’ Bank Ltd., 509

F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2007) ..............ces0ee0e 7,8, 14, 15

Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’ Bank Ltd., 504

F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007), aff'd, Am. Isuzu

Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, 128 S. Ct. 2424

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 642 F.3d

I I ss eeasenasteensiinniatepeies 3

Kruman v. Christie’s Int] PLC, 129 F. Supp.

NI I i. ss cnsiniasiencemenenseernsoncties 11

Licci v. Am. Express. Bank Ltd., 704 F. Supp.

Be CE OID iscsecidstersandscsossesessoseseonesoe 15

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 269 F.R.D. 186

4k 15

Magnifico v. Villanueva, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1217

RED. Pl. GG GD. csnesneninccscectocncinacunneaeee 20

| | ENNIO En NESE 6 11

Margallo-Gans v. Farrell, No. 09-4026 (D.S.D.

ft SS | ner 20

Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 759 F. Supp. 2d

ok 8 ke) ee 14

Maugein v. Newmont Mining Corp., 298 F.

Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2004) .000000....00cccccccccee. 11

Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d

LL ae | MT 11

Mohamed v. Erinys Int'l] Ltd., No. 09-3362

(S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 28, 2010) ...0.000...0..ccccccccce. 16

Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614

F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010)..........ccccccceececceeeeeeeees 16

Mujyica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.

Supp. 2d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2005) .................. 16, 18

Orkin v. Swiss Confederation, No. 11—1414,

2011 WL 4822343 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2011)........ 10

Ponce-Rubio v. North Brevard, Inc., No. 03-

738 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 3, 2003) ...........000000... 20

vil

Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman

Energy, Inc., 453 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y.

Cs icccsntinoesseenavesensercoces %

Presbyterian Church Of Sudan v. Talisman

Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009)6, 9, 14, 16, 17

Prince Hotel, SA v. Blake Marine Grp., 433 F.

App’x 706 (11th Cir. 2011.00.00... cece 10

Roe v. Unocal Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D.

a casidainicencecconconces 14

Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., No.

11-8957 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 20, 2011)....... 16, 18

Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.

ee sccuseusacscccesece 7, 12, 15

Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, Nos. 02-56256, 02-

56390, 09-56381, 2011 WL 5041927 (9th

os sanssuatnsene 6, 12, 16

Shiguango v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., No.

06-4982 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 25, 2009)............ 18

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252

SE 7, 16, 19

Sinaltrainal v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 06-61623

(S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 31, 2006) ..0...0.000.00ccccccceee 16

Siswinarti v. Jennifer Shien Ng, No. 05-4171

(D.N.J. filed Aug. 16, 2005) ...0.0.0...00000-.0cccccccccs. 20

Vill

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)2, 3, 10

Tamam v. Fransabank Sal 677 F. Supp. 2d

eo SS ae ern 15

Thang Hong Luu v. Inti Inv. Trade & Serv.

Grp., No. 11-182 (S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 13,

STING. shedacsinchigiabendstiddddininenevenstnnssauamaianamaacine: 20

Turedi v. Coca-Cola Co., 460 F. Supp. 2d 507

8 4 a eee 8,17

Turedi v. Coca-Cola Co., 343 F App’x 623 (2d

Be i cesinnaiidcinenneciovscicoeuspdesammansnessaniitinindestanddcens 19

Victims of the Hungarian Holocaust v.

Hungarian State Railways, No. 10-868

(N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 9, 2010) .................:c0ccc00e 15

Viet. Ass’n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow

Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008) ....... 7,15

Whiteman Vv. Fed. Rep. of Austria, No. 00-8006

(S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 12, 2002) .....................0064. 15

Wiwa v. Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nigeria

Ltd., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) ............000000..... 17

Wiwa v. Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nigeria

Ltd., 335 F. App’x 81 (2d Cir. 2009)............... 7,9

STATUTES & RULES

Ey © BO 6 ORME P vvaesecsncdnccscemctopaceseces passim

eS GUNS HIT COTO east vacevcrosunsendcecncncecomeunacin: 1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

2009 Performance Recognition, CHEVRON,

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/corpo

rate

responsibility/2009/performancerecognition

/ (ast updated May, 2010) ..00..0..........ccccceeeeeee 25

Awards in Citizenship 2010, EXXONMOBIL,

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/com

munity_ccr_awards.aspx (last visited Feb.

Red in eaemee ets cela Se, oe 25

Neela Banerjee, Lawsuit Says Exxon Aided

Rights Abuses, N.Y. TIMES, June 21, 2001...... 22

Bataween, Coca-Cola 1s Guilty of Jewish

Persecution Denial’, POINT OF NO RETURN

(Nov. 22, 2009),

http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/1 1/

coca-cola-is-guilty-of-jewish. html. .................... 24

Edwin Black, Coca-Cola Accused of Near-

Criminal Collusion in Egypt’s Anti-Jewish

Ethnic Cleansing, CUTTING EDGE NEWS,

Sept. 21, 2009,

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.

SPORES satcsiniicivnsicediadenedonssmnniviovieds 22

Michael Blanding, Coke is Death: The

Softdrink Giant’s Abysmal Human Rights

Record is Finally Catching Up With It,

NATION, April 19, 2006, available at

http://www.alternet.org/story/34976/coke_i

Oe a cnsnccccnauaniinnsnicensincicasieoosianinace 23

Tom Carter, Outside Investors Face ‘Slave

Labor’ Suit; WASH. TIMES, Apr. 9, 2001..........

The Case Against Shell: "The Hanging of Ken

Saro-Wiwa Showed the True Cost of Oil’

AXIS OF LoGIc (June 4, 2009),

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Articl

ee ceaubeneddenekasemamiieas

Maureen Chigbo, How Shel/ Promotes

Criminal Gangs in Niger Delta,

NEWSWATCH (Oct. 27, 2011),

http://www.newswatchngr.com/index.php?o

ption=com_content&task=view&id=3628&!

RRR aia Sa, Sie ENE pect A UR dae ETON

JONATHAN DRIMMER, U.S. CHAMBER INST. FOR

LEGAL REFORM, THINK GLOBALLY, SUE

LOCALLY: OUT-OF-COURT TACTICS

EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFFS, THEIR LAWYERS,

AND THEIR ADVOCATES IN TRANSNATIONAL

.. 4° . . 5c cere See

Exxon ‘Helped Torture in Indonesia’, BBC

NEWS, June 22, 2001,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/140173

REPEC OPS AT SE NEE Y, Re a eee ee

Natalie Fine, The Evil Behind Coca-Cola, THE

WESLEYAN ARGUS (Nov. 9, 2010),

http://wesleyanargus.com/20 10/1 1/09/the-

Stuart Graham, ‘Barclays Financed the Slave

Trade’, MAIL & GUARDIAN ONLINE, May 28,

2005, http-://mg.co.za/article/2005-05-28-

barclays-financed-the-slave-trade..................

. 23

. 24

.. 24

Global Award for Sustainability,

http://goldenpeacockawards.com/ past-

winners/global-award-for-

sustainability.html (last visited Feb. 1,

I ree oa ee ere a een

Karen Gullo, Rio Tinto Genocide Claims

Reinstated by U.S. Appeals Court,

BLOOMBERG, Oct. 25, 2011,

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20 1 1-10-

25/rio-tinto-genocide-claims-reinstated-by-

COIS 8. ce nccccccesoscccccsseesessccssesevecees

GARY CLYDE HUFBAUER & NICHOLAS K.

MITROKOSTAS, AWAKENING MONSTER: THE

ALIEN TORT STATUTE OF 1789 (2003)..............

Indonesia — Exxon Oil Faces Murder Charges,

FACT OVER FICTION (July 9, 2011),

http://www. factoverfiction.com/article/1109

SPOS EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE SEE EEE EEE EEE EERE EEE EH EH HEHEHE HOE HO

Gabriel Katsh, Fueling Genocide: Talisman

Energy and the Sudanese Slaughter,

MULTINATIONAL MONITOR (Oct. 2000),

http://www. multinationalmonitor.org/mm2

000/102000/katsh. html. «0.0.0.0... eee

Erik Larson & Joshua Goodman, Murders

May Lead to Damages Tailspin for

Chiquita (Update 2), BLOOMBERG, Apr. 2,

2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news

?pid=20601109&sid=aqsoW_J3nbOU&refe

OR ee eee ere eo

LAWYERS FoR CIVIL JUSTICE ET AL, LITIGATION

Cost SURVEY OF MAJOR COMPANIES (2010) ...

.. 23

» 22

xil

EMERY G. LEE III & THOMAS E. WILLGING,

LITIGATION COSTS IN CIVIL CASES:

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS (2010)...................002.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation 2009 Social

Responsibility Report at 9, available at

http://www.oxy.com/sr/Documents/OxySR_

Oil Giant Sued Over Aceh Evils, WEEKEND

AUSTRALIAN, June 23, 2001. .............0000..00000..

Mike Pflanz, Shel/ ‘Played Role in Activist

Executions’, TELEGRAPH, May 25, 2009,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsby

sector/energy/5383923/Shell-played-role-in-

activist-executions. html. ..................0..cccccneeee

Rio Tinto Called into PNG War Crimes Case,

ASIA PULSE, Oct. 37, BOUL ......2.20.02.ccsesesescccceses

Shirah, Does Torture Go Better With Coke?

UNBOSSED (Nov. 22, 2005),

http://unbossed.com/? p=410 ..........................

Social Responsibility, CHIQUITA,

http://www.chiquita.com/The-Chiquita-

Difference/Social-Responsibility.aspx (last

whaltod Pols. 1, BOUGD .........cccccccccccecccccecsesssees ye

Society, SHELL, http://www.

shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/environment_

society/shell_in_the_society/ (last visited

Sy a SIE isintaliseusestaictnansaeheacktacteligaalerscceeaiads

. 22

Xili

Soaraway, Coca-Cola's Use of Paramilitary

Death Squads in Colombia, BUZZNET (Jan.

30, 2007),

http://soaraway.buzznet.com/user/journal/]

08568/coca-colas-use-paramilitary-death/. .....

SPDC wins two Corporate Social

Responsibility Awards, SHELL (Sept. 29,

2010), http://www.shell.com.ng/

home/content/nga/aboutshell/media_centre/

news_and_media_releases/2010/csr_award....

Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary,

Table C-5, U.S. Courts (June 30, 2011),

http://www.uscourts.gov/

uscourts/Statistics/StatisticalTablesForT

heFederalJudiciary/2011/C05Jun11.pdf. .......

Jonathan Stempel, /ndonesia Torture Case vs

ExxonMobil Revived, REUTERS, July 8,

2011,

http://www.reuters.com/article/20 1 1/07/08/

us-exxonmobil-indonesia-

idUSTRE76744G20110708..............00000eeee

Suit in U.S. Over Murders in Colombia, N.Y.

I: GE Cit CIT aekicrnscascasivsacecisnnemeiinnsasitininacs

Kyle Whitmire, Colombian Killings Land U.S.

Company in American Court, WALL ST. J.,

ate

Workplace and Human Rights, COCA-COLA CO,

http://www.thecocacolacompany.com/sust

ainabilityreport/in-our-company/healthy-

communities/workplace-and-human-

rights.html (last visited Feb. 1, 2012).............

. 23

This brief is filed on behalf of the Product

Liability Advisory Council, Inc. as amicus curiae in

support of Respondents.!

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory

Council, Inc. (“PLAC”) is a non-profit association of

over 100 corporate members representing a broad

cross-section of American and international product

manufacturers,2 who seek to contribute to the

improvement and reform of law in the United States

and elsewhere, especially that governing the liability

of manufacturers of products. Since 1983, PLAC has

filed 956 briefs as amicus curiae in both state and

federal courts, including 95 in this Court, presenting

the perspective of product manufacturers seeking

fairness and balance in the application and

development of the law as it affects product liability

and similar claims

PLAC is well situated to address issues raised

in this matter. PLAC member companies are

leaders in the energy, automotive, pharmaceutical,

! Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amicus affirms that

no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in

part, nor did any person or entity, other than amicus or its

counsel, make a monetary contribution to the preparation

or submission of this brief. The parties have consented to

the filing of this brief in letters that are filed with the

Clerk of the Court.

2 A list of PLAC ’s current corporate membership is included

as Appendix A to this brief. Shell Oil Company is a PLAC

member.

food and other industries that have been involved in

actions alleging violations of international norms

under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350

(“ATS”). Many PLAC members have headquarters

or operations outside the United States, and some

PLAC members or their related entities have been

named as defendants in ATS litigation. PLAC

respectfully submits this brief as amicus curiae to

address certain arguments made by Petitioners

regarding the state of ATS litigation in the federal

courts and to describe the cost of such litigation on

corporate defendants.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692

(2004), this Court limited claims under the ATS to

violations of international norms with content no

“less definite” and of the same level of “acceptance

among civilized nations” as the “historical paradigms

familiar” in 1789. Jd. at 732. Even when a norm

might meet requirements of definiteness and

acceptance, the Court further emphasized the need

to exercise “an element of judgment about the

practical consequences of making that cause

available to litigants in the federal courts.” Jd. at

732-33.

Chief Judge Jacobs addressed such prudential

concerns in his opinion below, concurring in denial of

rehearing and rehearing en banc. Kiobe/ v. Royal

Dutch Petroleum Co., 642 F.3d 268, 271-72 (2d Cir.

2011) (prohibiting ATS actions against corporations

would “promote international comity, . . . administer

efficient handling of cases, and .. . avoid the use of

our courts to extort settlements”). In particular,

Judge Jacobs noted that artful pleading “would delay

dismissal of ATS suits against corporations; and the

invasive discovery that ensues could coerce

settlements that have no relation to the prospect of

success on the ultimate merits.” /d. at 271. Among

the other factors counseling against allowing ATS

claims to go forward against corporate defendants

were “bad public relations or boycotts” and “pressure

to remove contingent reserves from the corporate

balance sheetls].” /d.

Petitioners argue that Judge Jacobs’ concerns

are overblown and unsupported. They say that

“there have been only a handful of settlements in

corporate ATS cases in the last two decades... .

Many cases have been dismissed and a relatively

small number of cases are pending.” Pet’rs’ Br. at

57, n.55. Petitioners contend further that “ATS

cases against corporations constitute an insignificant

portion of the dockets of federal courts,” id. at 60,

and “the courts have an arsenal of tools to limit ATS

cases deemed not to meet the exacting standards in

Sosa,” id. at 59. See also Kiobel, 642 F.3d at 274

(Leval, J., dissenting) (noting that courts have the

power to reduce excessive jury verdicts). In closing

their brief, Petitioners say that the “policy reasons

expressed in Chief Judge Jacobs’ opinion” would

“shield the I.G. Farbens of today’s world from tort

liability for complicity in international law violations

such as genocide and crimes against humanity.”

Pet’rs’ Br. at 61.

In response to Petitioners’ arguments

regarding the “arsenal” of procedural devices

available to protect corporate defendants from

insubstantial or inappropriate ATS claims, amicus

undertook a review of reported cases and PACER

district court docket records involving ATS claims

that name corporate defendants. That exercise

indicates that approximately half of the ATS cases

have been brought against corporate defendants;

that the vast majority have been filed in the past

dozen years; that such cases take significantly longer

to resolve than federal civil cases on average; that

very few involve direct conduct by the accused

corporate defendant; that, simply as a function of

time and the cost of defense, including physical and

temporal distance from the site of the alleged

conduct, ATS cases can be extraordinarily expensive

to litigate; and that in addition to the settlement

pressure noted by Judge Jacobs, the reputational

impact of being accused of genocide and other

heinous acts require corporations to defend

themselves vigorously.

ARGUMENT

I. ATS Lawsuits Are Excessively Costly,

Complex, and Time-Consuming

Most ATS claims against corporate defendants

are based on the direct conduct not of those entities

but rather of third-parties in countries far from the

federal district courts in which the cases are filed,

often occurring decades ago, allegedly in violation of

international law norms. Almost by definition, such

cases involve significant legal research, briefing, and

motions, as well as intensive and time-consuming

fact-gathering.

The number of ATS claims naming corporate

defendants has risen steadily in recent years.

Review by amicus’ indicates that of the

approximately 245 ATS _ cases identified,

approximately 120 name at least one corporate

defendant.4 Moreover, the research showed that of

those 120 actions, 88% were filed on or after 2000,

and 48% were filed on or after 2008. See also

JONATHAN DRIMMER, U.S. CHAMBER INST. FOR LEGAL

REFORM, THINK GLOBALLY, SUE LOCALLY: OUT-OF-

COURT TACTICS EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFFS, THEIR

LAWYERS, AND THEIR ADVOCATES IN TRANSNATIONAL

TorRT CASES 5 (2010) (noting that roughly one-third

of the corporate cases involving ATS claims remain

pending before federal trial or appellate courts).

ATS cases impose substantial litigation costs.

They take significantly longer on average to resolve

than do federal civil cases, can involve a large

number of parties and counsel, and frequently result

in multiple trips to the Courts of Appeals (in

addition to trips overseas to view premises and meet

witnesses). Amicus’ research indicates that out of 59

cases brought against corporations for which there is

a reported decision and where the ATS claims are a

3 See Appendix B for a chart that lists all ATS cases naming

at least one corporate defendant.

4 The amicus’ review of ATS cases was based on reported

decisions and district court docket records and included

both closed and open cases. A total of 245 lawsuits were

identified raising an ATS claim. This calculation counted

as one action similar or related cases that were later

consolidated, and, as a result, represents a conservative

estimate.

primary focus of the action,5 the average length-of-

time from filing until final disposition or until its

current status® was over 63 months, or over five

years. Such cases that are taken to the Courts of

Appeals take even longer, lasting an average of over

85 months, or more than seven years. By

comparison, the median time for a civil action in the

federal court system is 7.3 months from filing to

disposition. See Statistical Tables for the Federal

Judiciary, Table C-5, U.S. Courts (June 30, 2011),

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/Statisti

calTablesForTheFederal

Judiciary/2011/C05Jun11.pd*.

Although the present case has been in

litigation for over nine years, see Resp’ts Br. at 45,

others have gone on even longer. See, e.g., Sarei v.

Rio Tinto, PLC, Nos. 02-56256, 02-56390, 09-5638 1,

2011 WL 5041927 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2011) (pending

case in litigation for approximately 11 years);

Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.

2010) (ATS portion of pending case litigated for eight

years); Presbyterian Church Of Sudan v. Talisman

Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (litigated

For purposes of the length-of-time analysis, amicus did not

include cases where international-law violations were not

alleged or where bare allegations of “violations of

international law” were simply tacked on to a laundry hist

of other causes of action.

6 Amicus review includes cases that are still pending. For

those cases, the date of the last docket entry was used,

rather than the final disposition. As such, the actual

average length to closure will ultimately be longer once

those cases are resolved.

for approximately nine years); Aldana v. Del Monte

Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 578 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.

2009) (litigated for approximately eight years); Jama

v. Esmor Corr. Services, Inc., 577 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.

2009) (litigated for approximately 13 years);

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th

Cir. 2009) (dismissed after eight years); Wiwa v.

Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nigeria Ltd., 335 F.

App’x 81 (2d Cir. 2009) (litigated for 13 years);

Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’ Bank Ltd., 509 F.3d 148

(2d Cir. 2007) (pending case in litigation for

approximately nine years); Bano v. Union Carbide

Corp., 198 F. App’x 32 (2d Cir. 2006) (litigated for

over 20 years): Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440

(2d Cir. 2000) (ATS claims dismissed after eight

years). Multiple appeals are sometimes taken in

these matters, adding to the time and resources

expended. Amicus’ review indicates that an ATS

case involving a corporate defendant that reaches

the Courts of Appeals is appealed, including

certiorari petitions to this Court, an average of about

two times during the pendency of the action.

In addition to lasting years, many ATS cases

name numerous corporate defendants, and involve a

significant number of counsel.?7 See, e.g., Saleh v.

Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (litigated for

over four years, involving five corporate defendants

and ten law firms, including two representing

corporate defendants, six representing individual

defendants, and two representing plaintiffs); Viet.

Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co.,

7 When calculating the number of counsel, information from

the case’s district court docket was used.

517 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008) (litigated for four years,

involving 36 corporate defendants and 20 law firms,

including 11 representing corporate defendants, and

nine representing plaintiffs); Jz re S. Afr. Apartheid

Litig., 633 F. Supp. 2d 117 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (litigated

for approximately nine years, involving 43 corporate

defendants and 27 law firms, including nine

representing plaintiffs, and 18 representing

corporate defendants). Corporate defendants often

retain several experts to write reports and testify on

a number of issues, including public international

law, and the domestic law, legal structure and

general conditions of the country where the alleged

conduct occurred. See, e.g., In re Agent Orange

Product Liability Litig., 373 F. Supp. 2d 7 (E.D.N.Y.

2005) (six expert reports on international law

submitted by defendants); Turedi v. Coca Cola Co.,

460 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (four expert

reports on Turkish law submitted by defendants

filed); Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman

Energy, Inc., 453 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

(four expert reports on political violence and

community development in Sudan).

A sample of docket sheets from ATS cases

shows significant litigation activity over the course

of many years, with multiple briefing rounds,

numerous amended complaints, and several reported

court opinions. See, e.g., Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’]

Bank Ltd., 509 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2007) (four

complaints, seven rounds of briefing, and six court

opinions reflected in 80-page district court docket

sheet); Bowoto, 621 F.3d 1116 (nine complaints, 29

reported court opinions, and 2,326 docket entries in

254-page district court docket sheet); Jn re Chiquita

Brands Int'l, Inc. Alien Tort Statute and S’holder

Derivative Litig., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D. Fla.

2011) (three complaints, two reported court opinions,

and 508 docket entries in 490-page district court

docket sheet); Wiwa, 335 F. App’x 81 (six complaints,

twelve reported court opinions, and 525 docket

entries in 106-page district court docket sheet);

Presbyterian Church Of Sudan, 582 F.3d 244 (three

complaints, 13 reported court opinions, and 435

docket entries in 72-page district court docket sheet).

Common sense alone indicates that the

complexity, size, and duration of ATS lawsuits give

rise to enormous litigation costs. Studies about

general litigation costs show that in major cases that

survive the dismissal phase, the average outside

legal costs (excluding discovery) borne by Fortune

200 companies is $2,019,248 per case, while the

average cost of discovery can range from $2,354,868

to $9,759,900 per case. LAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE

ET AL, LITIGATION COST SURVEY OF MAJOR COMPANIES

3, app. 1 at 14 (2010). Other studies have confirmed

that higher stakes and longer processing times

result in greater litigation costs, with a 1% increase

in stakes associated with a 0.25% increase in

reported costs, and a 1% increase in case duration

associated with a 0.26% increase in costs, all else

equal. EMERY G. LEE III & THOMAS E. WILLGING,

LITIGATION COSTS IN CIVIL CASES: MULTIVARIATE

ANALYSIS 7 (2010). Factual complexity also is

associated with higher litigation costs. Jd The

studies support the proposition that ATS lawsuits

are especially expensive to defend — they last for

long periods of time, are factually and legally

complex, and involve transnational discovery and

litigation practice, high monetary and reputational

stakes, and allegations of conduct so heinous that

the defendant has almost no choice but to defend

itself vigorously. Further, ATS-related suits

typically also involve costs associated with experts

and correspondent counsel in the country in which

the alleged conduct occurred, which adds to the

already high price tag.

Petitioners attempt to minimize the costs and

burdens for defendants associated with ATS

litigation. See Pet’rs’. Br. at 57-61. They contend

that “courts have an arsenal of tools to limit ATS

cases deemed not to meet the exacting standards in

Sosa,” id. at 59., and that, despite the number of law

firms representing claimants involved in the cases

cited above, “[tlhe obstacles facing ATS plaintiffs

suing corporations are daunting.” /d. at 60. But

even cases that are almost patently defective under

Sosa can last for years and involve significant costs.

See, e.g., Orkin v. Swiss Confederation, No. 11—1414,

2011 WL 4822343 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2011) (after 22

months, holding that defendant’s passive receipt of a

Van Gogh drawing sold under political and economic

duress for safe passage out of Nazi Germany is an

insufficiently-pled international law violation);

Prince Hotel, SA v. Blake Marine Grp., 433 F. App’x

706 (11th Cir. 2011) (after litigating for one year,

affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction when misrepresentation, in the form of

unpaid hotel charges, was pled as an ATS violation);

see also Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411

(9th Cir. 1995) (after litigating for four years,

affirming dismissal of ATS claim when violations

alleged were fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and

misappropriation of funds); Daventree Ltd. v.

Republic of Azer., 349 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D.N.Y.

2004) (after four years, dismissing claims of investor

fraud and extortion brought under the ATS); Arndt

v. UBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132, 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

(dismissing ATS claim when plaintiffs’ causes of

action were “predicated on garden’ variety

commercial claims, including ffraud, unjust

enrichment, conversion and misrepresentation”);

Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 299

(E.D. La. 2001) (six years after complaint was filed,

holding ATS pleading deficient when law of nations

violation alleged was wrongful termination);

Kruman v. Christie's Int’. PLC, 129 F. Supp. 2d 620,

627 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (dismissing plaintiffs’ ATS claim

based on an accusation of price fixing as “borderling]

on the frivolous”); Maugein v. Newmont Mining

Corp., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2004) (after

three years, dismissing for failure to state a claim

when plaintiff alleged bribery, extortion and

defamation as violations of ATS).

In support of their contention that federal

courts know how to dispose of cases on inappropriate

forum or other bases, Petitioners list several ATS

cases which eventually were dismissed. However,

these citations illustrate how costly and time-

consuming rejected ATS lawsuits are for

corporations. Of the six cases noted, see Pet’rs’ Br.

at 59-60, n.57-59, four lasted several years before

they were dismissed. Gonzalez-Vera v. Kissinger,

449 F.3d 1260 (D.C. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S.

1206 (2007) (litigated for over four years); Mamani v.

Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2011) (litigated for

three-and-a-half years); Flomo v. Firestone Natural

Rubber Co., LLC, 643 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2011)

(litigated for over five years); Sarei, 2011 WL

5041927 (litigated for 11 years). Despite ultimate

success, defendants spend years accused of genocide

and other almost unimaginable categories of evil.

II. Corporate Role in Alleged Conduct is Indirect

and Attenuated

Corporate defendants in ATS cases are rarely

direct or even indirect actors in the conduct alleged

to be in violation of an international norm.’ ATS

suits often attempt to hold corporations liable for

violations of international law committed by other

parties, because the direct actor is a government

protected from liability on account of sovereign

immunity, an individual state actor against whom

large damage awards cannot be sought, or a party no

longer in existence.

In matters where Plaintiffs cannot reach a

protected actor, the ATS has been used to allege that

a corporation aided and _ abetted violations

6 Most ATS suits which allege direct corporate violations of

international law are brought against private security

contractors deployed in active war zones. See, eg., A/

Shimari v. CACI Int, Inc., 658 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2011)

(private military contractor accused of war crimes and

torture while providing interrogation services at Abu

Ghraib prison during Iraq War): Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580

F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (same); Estate of Manook v.

Research Triangle Inst., Int7, 759 F. Supp. 2d 674

(E.D.N.C. 2010) (private military contractor accused of war

crimes for allegedly killing civilians during Iraq War): Jn

re XE Serv. Alien Tort Litig., 665 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Va.

2009) (same).

committed by local police, military forces, private

security contractors, among others, during

international or civil conflict situations.2 In many

instances, lawsuits are brought against corporations

that do business in countries engaged in

international or civil conflict and seek to hold the

corporation liable for the alleged abuses actually

committed by government forces. These lawsuits

effectively name the corporation as a surrogate for

governments immune from civil liability in U.S.

courts.'!° Unlike the typical domestic tort litigation

® ATS lawsuits relate to conduct arising in roughly 60

different countries, most commonly from troubled regions

of the world with authoritarian or non-democratic

governments, such as the Middle East (23% of ATS

lawsuits) and Iraq in particular; South America (20%) and

Colombia in particular: Africa (15%) and Nigeria in

particular: and Asia (15%). DRIMMER, THINK GLOBALLY,

SUE LOCALLY, at 18.

10 See, e.g., Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 550 F.3d 822 (9th Cir.

2008) (Rio Tinto accused of aiding and abetting war crimes

committed by military forces in Papua New Guinea): Aziz

v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (by supplying

Iraqi government with chemical products that were then

used to manufacture mustard gas, Alcolac allegedly aided

and abetted war crimes committed by Iraqi military):

Fiouris v. The Turkish Cypriot Comty, No. 10-1225 (D.D.C.

filed July 20, 2010) (HSBC's continuing operation in

Northern Cyprus allegedly aided and _ abetted

international-law violations committed during and after

Turkey's invasion of the island): Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,

654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Exxon’s Indonesian

subsidiary allegedly aided and abetted war crimes

committed by Indonesian military during efforts to protect

corporation's operations); Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621

F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2010) (Chevron's Nigerian subsidiary

allegedly aided and abetted extrajudicial killings and

regime, where a corporation being sued for

attenuated conduct can often implead and/or seek

indemnity from the actor responsible for the direct

conduct, the nature of ATS claims limits the ability

of the distant defendant to spread the risk and

responsibility.

The classes of ATS suits are not confined to

recent conflicts; rather, in the last decade, dozens of

ATS lawsuits have been filed seeking to hold

torture committed by Nigerian military during attempt to

intervene in local population’s unlawful occupation of

corporation's oil facilities); Roe v. Unocal Corp., 70 F.

Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (Unocal subsidiary

allegedly aided and abetted forced labor imposed by

Myanmar military during construction of oil pipeline);

Khulumani v. Barclay Nat? Bank Ltd, 509 F.3d 148 (2d

Cir. 2007) (dozens of multinational corporations that did

business in South Africa during apartheid accused of

aiding and abetting human rights abuses committed by

apartheid regime); Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp.

2d 1019 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (Caterpillar accused of aiding

and abetting alleged war crimes committed by Israeli

military using Caterpillars machinery in Gaza Strip);

Abecassis v. Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

(U.S. corporations that allegedly violated terms of Iraq Oil

for Food program accused of indirectly financing, and

aiding and abetting in, Palestinian terrorism committed

against Israel): Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 759 F. Supp. 2d

297 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Chevron accused of aiding and

abetting human rights abuses committed by Saddam

Hussein’s regime due to violations of sanctions and Iraq

Oil for Food program, which provided illicit income to Iraq

government): Presbyterian Church Of Sudan v. Talisman

Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (Talisman’s

indirect subsidiary allegedly aided and abetted genocide

and war crimes committed by Sudanese military during

operations designed to protect subsidiary’s facilities).

corporations accountable for war crimes and other

international-law violations committed by military,

political or police forces during war and other

conflict scenarios occurring over the course of the

last century or more.!! The distance in time between

The ATS has been used as a basis for litigation over the

Second World War, see, « g., Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 317

F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2003); Jn re World War II Era

Japanese Forced Labor Litig., 164 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (N.D.

Cal. 2001); Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar

Nemzeti Bank, No. 10-1884, 2011 WL 1900340 (N_D. Il

May 18, 2011); Abrams v. Société Nationale des Chemins

de Fer Francais, 1715 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2001):

Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 114 F. Supp. 2d 117 (E.D.N_Y.

2000); Jwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424

(D.N.J. 1999); Victims of the Hungarian Holocaust v.

Hungarian State Railways, No. 10-868, (N.D. Ill. filed Feb.

9, 2010); Whiteman v. Fed. Rep. of Austria, No. 00-8006

(S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 12, 2002); the Vietnam War, see, e.z.,

Viet. Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co.,

517 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008); South Africa’s Apartheid

regime, see, e.g, Khulumani, 509 F.3d 148; Germany's

1890-1916 occupation of South Africa, see, e.g, Hereros ex

rel Riruako v. Deutsche Afrika-Linien Gmbit & Co., 232 F .

App’x 90 (3d Cir. 2007); the Arab-Israeli conflict, see, e.z.,

Abecassis, 785 F. Supp. 2d 614; Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC.

269 F.R.D. 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Licci v. Am. Express.

Bank Lid., 704 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Tamam v.

Fransabank Sal, 677 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2010):

Carrie, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019; Kaplan v. Al Jazeera, No. 10-

5298 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 18, 2011); the Conflict in the

former Yugoslavia, see, e.g., Genocide Victims of Krajina v.

L-3 Serv., Inc., No. 10-5197, 2011 WL 3625055 (N.D. II.

Aug. 17, 2011); the Iran-Iraq War, see, e.g., Aziz, 658 F.3d

388; the Iraq War (2003-2011), see, e.g., Al Shimari, 658

F.3d 413; Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009);

Estate of Manook., 759 F. Supp. 2d 674; Jbrahim v. Titan

Corp., 391 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2005); A/-Quraishi v.

Nakhla, 728 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Md. 2010); Adhikari v.

Daoud & Partners, No. 09-1237, 2010 WL 744237 (S.D.

the date the conduct took place and the date of filing

in these cases adds yet another layer of cost,

complexity, and attenuation.

In many of these cases, parent companies,

which are often even further removed from the

alleged wrongdoing, are also named. See, e.g., Sarei,

2011 WL 5041927, at *1, 29 (Anglo-Australian global

parent company of subsidiary operating in Papua

New Guinea liable for actions committed by military

forces there); Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644

F.3d 909, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2011) (German parent

company of Mercedes-Benz Argentina accused of

Tex. Mar. 1, 2010); Ja re XE Services Alien Tort Litig., 665

F. Supp. 2d 569; Mohamed v. Erinys Int7 Ltd., No. 09-3362

(S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 28, 2010); Jarallah v. Xe, No. 09-631

(S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 27, 2009); Al-Taee v. L-3 Serv., No.

08-12790 (E.D. Mich. filed June 30, 2008): Argentina's

“Dirty War,” see, e.g, Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,

644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011); the Global War on Terror,

see, e.g., Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d

1070 (9th Cir. 2010); civil war in Sudan, see, e.g.,

Presbyterian Church of Sudan, 582 F.3d 244; the Turkish

invasion of Cyprus, see, e.g., Fiourts v. Turkish Cypriot

Cmty, No. 10-1225 (D.D.C. filed July 20, 2010); and civil

conflict in Colombia, see, e.g, Baloco ex rel. Tapia v.

Drummond Co., Inc., 640 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 201):

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir.

2009); In re Chiquita Brands Inti, Inc. Alien Tort Statute

aud S‘holder Derivative Litig., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D.

Fla. 2011); Muyica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.

Supp. 2d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Estate of Rodriquez v.

Drummond Co., Inc., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Ala.

2003); Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., No. 11-8957

(C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 20, 2011); Giraldo v. Drummond

Company, Inc., No. 09-1041 (N.D. Ala. filed Sept. 29,

2011); Sinaltrainal v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 06-61623 (S_D.

Fla. filed Oct. 31, 2006).

complicity in torture of local plant workers by

Argentine security forces); Bowoto, 621 F.3d at 1120-

22 (American parent corporation of foreign

subsidiary accused of aiding and abetting war crimes

committed by Nigerian military during operation

designed to protect oil facilities against attack);

Presbyterian Church Of Sudan, 582 F.3d at 249-51

(Canadian parent corporation of indirect subsidiary

that held minority stake in consortium established

to develop oil fields in Sudan was accused of aiding

and abetting war crimes committed by Sudanese

military forces providing security to oil project);

Tiiredi v. Coca-Cola Co., 460 F. Supp. 2d 507, 509-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2006), afd, 343 F. App’x 623 (2d Cir.

2009) (Coca-Cola accused of aiding and abetting

torture and other misconduct by local police clearing

a sit-in by drivers of company hired by local bottler

to deliver product); Doe v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp.

2d 1057, 1064-66 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (corporations and

their subsidiaries accused of aiding and abetting

forced labor by purchasing cocoa from Ivory Coast

cocoa farms that allegedly employed child slaves).

Several of these ATS suits target corporations

for liability arising from efforts by local security

forces to protect the company’s personnel and

operations from violence and sabotage committed by

local populations during an internal conflict. See,

e.g. Sarei, 550 F.3d at 825 (Rio Tinto sought

assistance from government after local residents

sabotaged Rio Tinto’s mine and forced its closure);

Bowoto, 621 F.3d at 1121-22 (local protesters

occupied Chevron’s oil platform until they were

disbanded by Nigerian military); Wiwa v. Shell

Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nigeria Ltd., 226 F.3d 88, 92

(2d Cir. 2000) (Shell sought assistance from Nigerian

military after local population protested and

disrupted its oil exploration and development

operations); Mujica, 381 F. Supp. 2d at 1168-69,

1189 (Occidental sought assistance from Colombian

security forces after left-wing insurgents engaged in

violence and sabotage against its oil pipeline):

Saldana, No. 11-8957 (same); Giraldo, No. 09-1041

(Drummond sought assistance from local security

forces after sustained guerilla attacks against its

coal mining operations); Shiguango v. Occidental

Petroleum Corp., No. 06-4982 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug.

25, 2009) (Occidental sought assistance from

Ecuadorian military in response to protests that

disrupted its operations); Jn re Chiquita Brands

Int, Inc., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (allegations that

Chiquita formed an agreement with United Self-

Defense Forces of Colombia paramilitaries to secure

plantations and minimize guerilla presence in the

area).

Corporations in these suits often are caught in

the middle of conflicts between local populations and

their authoritarian governments, placing them in a

delicate political situation. The corporations are

blamed for the abuses committed by government

security forces attempting to allow the corporation to

do business in the country. Continued ATS

litigation that seeks to hold corporations liable for

the actions of governments with poor human rights

records could result in multinational corporations

simply pulling out of those countries, which are often

in desperate need of foreign investment and jobs.

See, e.g., Khulumani, 504 F.3d at 297 (2d Cir. 2007)

(Korman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in

part), affd, American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza,

128 S. Ct. 2424 (2008) (noting the “chilling effect

that actions of this kind may have on future foreign

investment in developing countries.”); GARY CLYDE

HUFBAUER & NICHOLAS K. MITROKOSTAS, AWAKENING

MONSTER: THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE OF 1789 40

(2003) (“Conservatively we calculate that $55 billion

of U.S. [foreign direct investment] could be deterred

by ATS suits.”).

Some ATS suits seek to hold corporations

responsible for the actions of third parties, such as

licensees and suppliers, which may have a business

relationship with the corporation, but are not part of

its corporate structure. See, e.g. Sinaltrainal v.

Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009)

(claims against Coca-Cola include acts committed by

independent bottlers in Colombia); Turedi v. Coca-

Cola Co., 343 F. App’x 623 (2d Cir. 2009) (claims

against Coca-Cola involve acts committed by Turkish

police on behalf of independent Turkish companies

licensed to bottle and deliver Coca-Cola products);

Doe v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (ATS

claims brought against Nestle for allegedly

purchasing cocoa from and providing support to

independent farms in the Ivory Coast that used child

labor); Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-7307

(C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 23, 2005) (claims brought

against Wal-Mart for the poor working conditions at

suppliers’ garment factories in China, Bangladesh,

Indonesia, Swaziland, and Nicaragua).!2

2 Several recent ATS cases have been brought by domestic

or farm workers alleging various kinds of employer

misconduct. Although some of the alleged misconduct

actually takes place in the United States, other suits

iil. ATS Lawsuits Unfairly Cause Corporations to

Suffer Notoriety and Reputational Damage

Being accused of genocide in federal court

causes significant reputational harm, regardless of

the actual merits of the allegations. Companies

named as defendants in ATS suits are routinely

accused of the vilest categories of misconduct —

genocide, war crimes, torture, and crimes against

humanity — judged by a civil and not criminal

standard of proof, without the exercise of

prosecutorial discretion, based on conduct usually

thousands of miles, and perhaps decades, away by

often unrelated parties out of their control. The

closing paragraph of Petitioners’ brief illustrates

involve abuses occurring abroad. See, e.g. Magnifico v.

Villanueva, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1221-22 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

(citizens of the Philippines bring claims for forced labor

and human trafficking after being induced to come work

under coercion in the United States); Margallo-Gans v.

Farrell, No. 09-4026 (D.S.D. filed Oct. 16, 2009) (Filipino

workers who came to United States for work accuse

defendants of human trafficking and involuntary

servitude); Thang Hong Luu v. Int7 Inv. Trade & Serv.

Grp., No. 11-182 (S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 13, 2011) (claims

against Vietnamese labor export companies that promised

Vietnamese workers jobs in the United States); Aguilar v.

Imperial Nurseries, No. 07-193 (D. Conn. filed Feb. 8,

2007) (plaintiffs came to the United States to work and

were allegedly subjected to unsuitable conditions, coercion

and intimidation); Siswinarti v. Jennifer Shien Ng, No. 05-

4171 (D.NJ. filed Aug. 16, 2005) (plaintiff came to the

United States from Indonesia to work as a domestic

servant and was threatened, abused and coerced): Ponce-

Rubio v. North Brevard, Inc., No. 03-738 (M.D. Fla. filed

Oct. 3, 2003) (claim for various breaches of work contracts

brought by Mexican migrant agricultural workers).

why corporate defendants may feel they cannot treat

ATS claims, no matter how attenuated or far-

fetched, as frivolous or nuisance actions. Affirming

the Second Circuit decision, Petitioners write, would

“shield the I.G. Farbens of today’s world from tort

liability for complicity in international law violations

such as genocide or crimes against humanity|.]”

Pet’rs’. Br. at 61. Although Chief Judge Jacobs

focused on pressures to settle ATS cases, an equally

powerful impetus may in fact be for a corporate

defendant to defend itself vigorously, as perhaps

reflected in the length of time such cases last.

The reputational harm that arises from public

outcries against corporations accused of the type of

conduct alleged in ATS suits is not merely a hit to

the character of the corporation. The i:apact of such

publicity undermines the ability of a corporation to

function normally and provide goods and services to

the public. Multinational corporations facing ATS

suits, as pointed out by Judge Jacobs below, may

need to maintain high contingency reserves to cover

the potential liability, which negatively impacts the

corporations in a variety of ways, including the

ability to seek investors, and to serve its

shareholders and employees.

The reputational hit that may be taken by

corporate defendants is illustrated by the negative

and overheated publicity generated by accusations of

genocide and torture. See, e.g., Rio Tinto Called into

PNG War Crimes Case;'3 Suit in U.S. Over Murders

13 ~=ASIA PULSE, Oct. 27, 2011.

in Colombia;‘4 Colombian Killings Land U.S.

Company in American Court,5 Outside Investors

Face ‘Slave Labor’ Suit; Oil Giant Sued Over Aceh

Evils? Lawsuit Says Exxon Aided Rights Abuses,'*

Exxon ‘Helped Torture in Indonesia’;*® Coca-Cola

Accused of Near-Criminal Collusion in Egypt’s Anti-

Jewish Ethnic Cleansing;*® Shell ‘Played Role in

Activist Executions;?! Murders May Lead to

Damages Tailspin for Chiquita;?? Rio Tinto Genocide

Claims Reinstated by U.S. Appeals Court;?3

44 = NLY. TIMES, July 13, 2007, at C4.

4 Kyle Whitmire, WALL ST. J., Oct. 6, 2003, at Al.

146 Tom Carter, WASH. TIMES, Apr. 9, 2001, at 11.

17 WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN, June 23, 2001, at 11.

18 Neela Banerjee, N.Y. TIMES, June 21, 2001, at C1.

18 BBC NEWS, June 22, 2001,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hvV/business/1401733.stm.

20 Edwin Black, CUTTING EDGE NEwsS, Sept. 21, 2009,

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php’article=116

08.

21 Mike Pflanz, TELEGRAPH, May 25, 2009,

http:/Awww.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/5

383923/Shell-played-role-in-activist-executions. htm].

22 ~=Erik Larson & Joshua Goodman, BLOOMBERG, Apr. 2,

2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?

pid=20601109&sid=aqsoW_J3nbOU &refer=home.

23 ~Karen Gullo, BLOOMBERG, Oct. 25, 2011,

http-//mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20 1 1-10-25/rio-tinto-

genocide-claims-reinstated-by-u-s-appeals-court-1-.

Indonesia Torture Case vs ExxonMobil Revived,‘

‘Barclays Financed the Slave Trade;*® Coke is

Death: The Softdrink Giant's Abysmal Human

Rights Record ts Finally Catching Up With It.26

The blogosphere rhetoric is even harsher and

more sensational. Blogosphere reaction to alleged

corporate complicity in international human rights

abuses often will show up in any internet search of

the corporation’s name, adding to the far-reaching

prejudicial impact of such suits. See, e.g., /ndonesia

— Exxon Oil Faces Murder Charges;*"” Fueling

Genocide: Talisman Energy and the Sudanese

Slaughter:*® Coca-Cola's Use of Paramilitary Death

Squads in Colombia;*® The Case Against Shell: 'The

Hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa Showed the True Cost of

24 ~=6©Jonathan Stempel, REUTERS, July 8, 2011,

http:/Awww.reuters.com/article/20 1 1/07/08/us-exxonmobil-

indonesia‘idUSTRE76744G201 10708.

25 Stuart Graham, MAIL & GUARDIAN ONLINE, May 28, 2005,

http://mg.co.za/article/2005-05-28-barclays-financed-the-

slave-trade.

26 Michael Blanding, NATION, April 19, 2006, available at

http://www.alternet.org/story/34976/coke_is_death/?page=2

27, FACT OVER FICTION (July 9, 2011),

http:/Awww.factoverfiction.com/article/1109.

28 Gabriel Katsh, MULTINATIONAL MONITOR (Oct. 2000),

http://www. multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/102000/kat

sh. html.

29 +Soaraway, BUZZNET (Jan. 30, 2007),

http://soaraway.buzznet.com/user/journal/108568/coca-

colas-use-paramilitary-death/.

Oil;°> How Shell Promotes Criminal Gangs in Niger

Delta\ Coca-Cola is Guilty of Jewish Persecution

Denial’32 The Evil Behind Coca-Cola;33 Does Torture

Go Better With Coke®4

The depiction of ATS corporate defendants as

the “I.G. Farbens of today” is inconsistent with the

commitments by many companies to corporate social

responsibility and to standards based on

international human rights and labor rights

norms.*5 Along with the cost of litigation, the

30 = AXIS OF LOGIC (June 4, 2009),

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55924.shtml.

3! Maureen Chigbo, NEWSWATCH (Oct. 27, 2011),

http:/Awww.newswatchngr.com/index.php?option=com_cont

ent&task=view &id=3628&Itemid=1.

32 Bataween, POINT OF No RETURN (Nov. 22, 2009),

http:/jewishrefugees_blogspot .com/2009/1 1/coca-cola-is-

guilty-of-jewish. htm].

33. Natalie Fine, THE WESLEYAN ARGUS (Nov. 9, 2010),

http://wesleyanargus.com/2010/1 1/09/the-evil-behind-coca-

cola/.

34 ~=Shirah, UNBOSSED (Nov. 22, 2005), http://unbossed.com/?

p=410.

%S See, e.g. SPDC wins two Corporate Social Responsibility

Awards, SHEL] (Sept. 29, 2010), http://Awww.shell.com.ng/

home/content/nga/aboutshell/media_centre/news_and_med

ia_releases/2010/csr_award; Society, SHELL, http://www.

shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/environment_society/shell_in

_the_society/ (last visited Feb. 1, 2012); Social

Responsibility, CHIQUITA, http:/Awww.chiquita.com/The-

Chiquita-Difference/Social-Responsibility.aspx (last visited

Feb. 1, 2012); Workplace and Human Rights, COCA-COLA

CO, http://www.thecocacolacompany.com/sustainability

practical consequences of being compared to Hitler

and Eichmann are significant.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

court of appeals should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted.

ANNE E. COHEN

(Counsel of Record)

Of Counsel: aecohen@debevoise com

HUGH F. YOUNG, JR. DAVID W. RIVKIN

PRODUCT LIABILITY EROL N. GULAY

SUSAN E. MOSER

ADVISORY COUNSEL, INC.

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

1850 Centennial Park Drive

Suite 510 919 Third Avenue

Reston, VA 20191 New York, NY 10022

(212) 909-6000

(703) 264-5300

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

February 3, 2012

report/in-our-company/healthy-communities/workplace-

and-human-rights.html (last visited Feb. 1, 2012); Global

Award for Sustainability, http://goldenpeacockawards.com/

past-winners/global-award-for-sustainability. htm! (last

visited Feb. 1, 2012); 2009 Performance Recognition,

CHEVRON, http:/Awww.chevron.com/globalissues/corporate

responsibility/2009/performancerecognition/ (last updated

May, 2010); Awards in Citizenship 2010, EXXONMOBIL,

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_ccr_aw

ards.aspx (last visited Feb. 1, 2012); Occidental Petroleum

Corporation 2009 Social Responsibility Report at 9,

available at http:/www.oxy.com/sr/Documents/OxySR_09.

pdf.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

LIST OF CURRENT CORPORATE MEMBERS OF

Altec, Inc.

Altria Client Services

Inc.

Astec Industries

Bayer Corporation

Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

BIC Corporation

Biro Manufacturing

Company, Inc.

BMW of North

America, LLC

Boehringer Ingelheim

Corporation

The Boeing Company

Bombardier

Recreational Products,

Inc.

BP America Inc.

Bridgestone Americas,

Inc.

Brown-Forman

Corporation

Caterpillar Inc.

Chrysler Group LLC

Cirrus Design

Corporation

CLAAS of America Inc.

Continental Tire the

Americas LLC

Cooper Tire & Rubber

Company

Crown Cork & Seal

Company, Inc.

Crown Equipment

Corporation

Daimler Trucks North

America LLC

Deere & Company

The Dow Chemical

Company

E.I. DuPont du

Nemours and

Company

Emerson Electric Co.

Engineered Controls

International, LLC

Environmental

Solutions Group

Estee Lauder

Companies

Exxon Mobil

Corporation

FMC Corporation

Ford Motor Company

General Electric

Company

General Motors

Corporation

GlaxoSmithKline

The Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Company

App. 2

Great Dane Limited

Partnership

Harley-Davidson

Motor Company

Hawker Beechcraft

Corporation

Honda North America,

Inc.

Hyundai Motor

America

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

Isuzu North America

Corporation

Jaguar Land Rover

North America, LLC

Jarden Corporation

Johnson & Johnson

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Kawasaki Motors

Corp., U.S.A.

Kia Motors America,

Inc.

Kolcraft Enterprises,

Inc.

Lincoln Electric

Company

Magna International

Inc.

Marucci Sports, L.L.C.

Mazak Corporation

Mazda Motor of

America, Inc.

Medtronic, Inc.

Merck & Co., Inc.

Meritor WABCO

Michelin North

America, Inc.

Microsoft Corporation

Mitsubishi Motors

North America, Inc.

Mueller Water

Products

Mutual

Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc.

Navistar, Inc.

Niro Inc.

App. 3

Nissan North America,

Inc.

Novartis

Pharmaceuticals

Corporation

PACCAR Inc.

Panasonic Corporation

of North America

Pella Corporation

Pfizer Inc.

Polaris Industries, Inc.

Porsche Cars North

America, Inc.

Purdue Pharma L.P.

Remington Arms

Company, Inc.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco

Company

Schindler Elevator

Corporation

SCM Group USA Inc.

Shell Oil Company

The Sherwin-Williams

Company

Smith & Nephew, Inc.

St. Jude Medical, Inc.

Stanley Black &

Decker, Inc.

Subaru of America,

Inc.

Techtronic Industries

North America Inc.

Teva Pharmaceuticals

USA, Inc.

Thor Industries, Inc.

TK Holdings Inc.

The Toro Company

Toyota Motor Sales,

USA, Inc.

Vermeer

Manufacturing

Company

The Viking

Corporation

Volkswagen Group of

America, Inc.

App. 4

Volvo Cars of North

America, Inc.

Whirlpool Corporation

Yamaha Motor

Corporation, U.S.A.

Yokohama Tire

Corporation

Zimmer, Inc.

App. 5

APPENDIX B

TABLE OF ATS CASES BROUGHT AGAINST

CORPORATE DEFENDANTS

This table sets out all cases identified by

amicus as alleging claims under the Alien Tort

Statute against corporate defendants. The data

reflected in the table — the number of named

corporate defendants, number of law firms involved

in the litigation, and the duration of the case from

filing to most recent status or final disposition —

comes primarily from district court docket sheets

available on PACER.

Shaded cases were included in the average

length-of-time calculation discussed on pages 5-6,

supra. These cases brought substantive claims

alleging a well-established violation of international

law, such as genocide, war crimes, torture,

extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, and

others. Cases in bold are those that are still open

and pending.

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm | Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.2 3 4 5

Sarai v. Rio 2 4 4 11 yrs.

Tinto, PLC, No. 2 (P)

00-11695, 2011

WL 5041927 2 (D)

(9th Cir. Oct. 25,

2011)

' Case citations refer to the most recent reported decision:

docket numbers are from the district court.

2 This column lists the number of corporate defendants named

in the lawsuit.

3 Law firm data comes from district court docket sheets. The

numbers reflect the total number of law firms representing

plaintiffs and corporate defendants. These figures include

non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations,

law school clinics, and other legal service providers that may

have represented a plaintiff or corporate defendant. Shaded

cases break out the number of law firms that represented

plaintiffs and corporate defendants.

‘ This data comes from district court docket sheets. It reflects

the number of times the case was appealed to a higher court.

5 The duration reflects how long the ATS claims survived.

This data is based on the most specific information available

from reported cases and docket sheets.

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm | Appeals} Duration

Case Name! Def.? 3 4 5

Orkin v. Swiss 2 2 1 l yr., 10

Confederation, 1 (P) mos.

No. 09-10013,

2011 WL 1 (D)

4822343 (2d Cir.

Oct. 12, 2011)

Al Shimari v. 3 6 2 3 yrs., 1

CACT Intern., 2 (P) mo.

Inc., No. 08-827,

658 F.3d 413 4 (D)

(4th Cir. 2011)

Aziz v. Alcolac, 3 6 l 2.5 yrs.

Inc., No. 10-

1908, 658 F.3d 3)

388 (4th Cir. 3 (D)

2011)

Doe v. Exxon 4 5 2 4 yrs., 1

Mobil Corp., No. 3 (P) mo.

07-1022, 654

F.3d 11 (D.C. 2 (D)

Cir. 2011)

Prince Hotel, l 3 l 1 yr.

SA v. Blake 1 (P)

Marine Group,

No. 10-0424, 2 (D)

433 Fed. Appx.

706 (11th Cir.

2011)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm! Appeals | Duration

Case Name? Def.2 3 4 6

Baloco ex rel. 2 5 1 2 yrs., 2

Tapia Vv. 3 (P) mos.

Drummond Co.,

Inc., No. 09- 2 (D)

16216, 640 F.3d

1338 (11th Cir.

2011)

Bauman v. 2 7 1 7 yrs., 4

DaimlerChrysle mos.

r Carp., No. 04- 5 ®)

194, 644 F.3d 2 (D)

908 (9th Cir.

2011)

Liu Bo Shan v. 1] 3 l l yr., 7

China Const. 9 (P) mos.

Bank Corp.,

421, No. 09- 1 (D)

8566, Fed.

Appx. 89 (2d

Cir. 2011)

Kiobel v. Royal 3 3 3 9 yrs., 4

Dutch 2 (P) mos.

Petroleum Co.,

No. 02-7618, 1 (D)

621 F.3d 111

(2d Cir. 2010)

Cir. 2009)

i No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm | Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 3 4 6

Bowoto v. 3 18 3 8 yrs.

Chevron Carp., 13

No. 99-2506, (P)

621 F.3d 1116

(9th Cir. 2010) 5 (D)

Mohamed v. 1 4 3 4 yrs.

Jeppesen

Dataplan, Inc., 3 (P)

No. 07-2798, 1 (D)

614 F.3d 1070

(9th Cir. 2010)

Presbyterian l 6 3 9 yrs.

Church Of

Sudan v. 3 (P)

Talisman 3 (D)

Energy, Inc.,

No. 01-9882,

582 F.3d 244

(2d Cir. 2009)

Saleh v. Titan 5 5 l 4 yrs.,

Corp., Nos. 04- 3 (P) 3 mos.

1248, 05-1165,

580 F.3d 1 (D.C. 2 (D)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 3 4 5

Aldana v. Del 5 4 2 8 yrs.

Monte Fresh 3 (P)

Produce N.A.,

Inc., No. 01- 1 (D)

3399, 678 F.3d

1283 (11th Cir.

2009)

Jama v. Esmor l 4 3 13 yrs.

Correctional 2 (P)

Services, Inc.,

No. 97-3093, 2 (D)

577 F.3d 169

(3d Cir. 2009)

Sinaltrainal v. 7 12 l 8 yrs., l

Coca-Cola Co., 6 (P) mo

Nos. 01-3208,

02-20258, 02- 6 (D)

20259, 02-

20260, 578 F.3d

1252 (11th Cir.

2009)

Turedi v. Coca- 3 3 1 3 yrs., 8

Cola Co., No. l (P) mos.

05-9635, 343

Fed. Appx. 623 2 (D)

(2d Cir. 2009)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 3 4 5

Wiwa v. Shell 3 8 2 13 yrs., 7

Petroleum Dev. 6 (P) mos.

Co. of Nigeria

Ltd., Nos. 96- 2 (D)

8386, 01-1909,

02-7618, 335

Fed. Appx. 81

(2d Cir. 2009)

Abdullahi v. l 3 2 9 yrs., 6

Pfizer, Inc., No. 1 (P) mos.

01-8118, 562

F.3d 163 (2d 2 (D)

Cir. 2009)

Abagninin v. 7 5 1 2 yrs.

AMVAC 1 (P)

Chemical Corp.,

No. 07-56326, 4 (D)

545 F.3d 733

(9th Cir. 2008)

Vietnam Ass'n 36 20 1 | 4yrs.

for Victims of 9 (P)

Agent Orange v.

Dow Chemical 11

Co., No. 04-400, (D)

517 F.3d 104

(2d Cir. 2008)

Case Name?

Appeals

Duration

Khulumani v.

Barclay Nat.

Bank Ltd., Nos.

02-10062, 02-

4712, 02-6218,

03-1023, 03-

1024, 03-1025,

03-1026, 03-

4524, 02-1499,

509 F.3d 148

(2d Cir. 2007)

6 (D)

9 yrs.

Hereros ex rel.

Riruako v.

Deutsche

Afrika -Linien

Gmbit & Co.,

No. 05-1872,

232 Fed. Appx.

90 (3d Cir.

2007)

2 yrs.

Bano v. Union

Carbide Corp.,

No. 99-11329,

198 Fed. Appx.

32 (2d Cir.

2006)

28 yrs.

3 No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm/ Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.2 3 4 $

Flores v. 1 2 1 3 yrs.

Southern Peru 1 (P)

Copper Corp.,

No. 00-9812, 1 (D)

343 F.3d 140

(2d Cir. 2003)

Deutsch v. 52 42 N/A N/A

Turner Corp.,

No. 00-4405,

317 F.3d 1005

(9th Cir. 2003)6

Aguinda v. l 4 4 13 yrs.

Texaco, Inc., No.

93-7527, 303 3 P)

F.3d 470 (2d 1 (D)

Cir. 2002)

6 This case was part of a series of cases brought against

German and Japanese corporations doing business during

the Second World War for their alleged complicity in war

crimes. Some of the cases were consolidated, while others

were not. Due to the difficulty in determining a single filing

date and the number of times any or all of the relevant

actions were appealed, the table shows only the number of

corporate defendants and law firms that participated in the

cited case.

Airways, No. 77-

7201, 572 F.2d

913 (2d Cir.

1978)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals | Duration

Case Name’ Def.? 8 4 5

Bigio v. Coca- 2 4 3 8 yrs.

Cola Co., No.

97-2858, 239 3 ®)

F.3d 440 (2d 1 (D)

Cir. 2000)

Beanal v. 2 4 l 3.5 yrs.

Freeport-

McMoran, Inc., 2 ®)

No. 96-1474, 2 (D)

197 F.3d 161

(5th Cir. 1999)

Hamid vy. Price 21 4 1 4 yrs.

Waterhouse,

Nos. 92-56085,

92-56198, 92-

56199, 51 F.3d

1411 (9th Cir.

1995)

Benjamins v. 3 3 0 4 yrs.

British

European

Appeals

Duration

No. 10-5197,

2011 WL

36250655 (N.D.

Ill. Aug. 17,

2011)

In re Chiquita

Brands Intern.,

Inc. Alien Tort

Statute and

Shareholder

Derivative

Litig., No. 08-

01916, 792 F.

Supp. 2d 1301

(S.D. Fla. 2011)

7 (D)

3 yrs.,

4 mos.

No. 10-1884,

2011 WL

1900340 (N.D.

Ill. May 18,

2011)

2 (P)

8 (D)

1.5 yrs.

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.2 3 4 ad

Magnifico v. 2 4 0 1 yr.,

Villanueva, No. 3 (P) 2 mos.

10-80771, 783 F.

Supp. 2d 1217 1 (D)

(S.D. Fla. 2011)

Abecassis v. 5 7 0 2 yrs.

Wyatt, No. 09—

3884, 786 F.

Supp. 2d 614

(S.D. Tex. 2011)

Mastafa v. 2 4 1 3 mos.

Chevron Carp., 1 (P)

No. 10-5646,

759 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D)

297 (S.D.N.Y.

2010)

Flomo v. 5 5 1 5 yrs.,

Firestone 3 (P) 3 mos.

Natural Rubber

Co., No. 06- 2 (D)

00627, 744 F.

Supp. 2d 810

(S.D. Ind. 2010)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm/| Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.2 8 4 5

Arias v. 4 5 0 10 yrs.

Dyncorp, Nos.

01-1908, 07- 4)

1042, 738 F. 1 (D)

Supp. 2d 46

(D.D.C. 2010)

In re Terrorist 160 90 2 8 yrs.

Attacks on

September 11,

2001, No. 03-

1570, 740 F.

Supp. 2d 494

(S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Doe v. Nestle, 7 10 l 5 yrs.,

SA, No. 05- 4 (P) 2 mos.

5133, 748 F.

Supp. 2d 1057 6 (D)

(C.D. Cal. 2010)

Estate of | 2 6 l 3 yrs.,

Manook v. 2 mos.

Research

Triangle

Institute,

Intern., Nos. 10-

72, 10-73, 759 F.

Supp. 2d 674

(E.D.N.C. 2010)

App. 18

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals} Duration

Case Name! Def.2 3 4 a

Al-Quraishi v. 8 6 2 3.5 yrs.

NakhAla, No. 08- 4 (P)

1696, 728 F.

Supp. 2d 702 (D. 2 (D)

Md. 2010)

Linde v. Arab 4 17 0 7.5 yrs.

Bank, PLC, No. 11

04-2799, 269 (P)

F.R.D. 186

(E.D.N.Y. 2010) 6 (D)

Licci v. 2 4 1 3 yrs.,

American Exp. 5 mos.

Bank Lid., No.

08-7253, 704 F.

Supp. 2d 403

(S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Adhikari v. 10 8 0 2 yrs.,

Daoud & 4 (P) 8 mos.

Partners, No.

09-1237, 2010 4 (D)

WL 744237

(S.D. Tex. Mar.

1, 2010)

het

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm! Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 8 - 5

Tamam Vv. 5 7 0 1.5 yrs.

Fransabank Sai, 1 (P)

No. 08-6156,

677 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D)

720 (S.D.N.Y.

2010)

In re XE ll 4 0 7 mos.

Services Alien 2 (P)

Tort Litig., Nos.

09-615, 09-616, 2 (D)

09-617, 09-618,

09-645, 665 F.

Supp. 2d 569

(E.D. Va. 2009)

In re South 43 27 2 9 yrs.,

African 9 (P) 11 mos.

Apartheid

Litig., No. 02- 18

MDL-1499, 633 (D)

F. Supp. 2d 117

(S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Al Shimari v. 3 6 2 3 yrs.,

CACTI Premier 2 (P) 5 mos.

Tech., Inc., No.

08-827, 657 F. 4 (D)

Supp. 2d 700

(E.D. Va. 2009)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm | Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.2 3 4 6

Roe v. 6 5 1 5 yrs.,

Bridgestone 3 (P) 9 mos.

Corp., No. 06-

0627, 257 2 (D)

F.R.D. 169 (S.D.

Ind. 2009)

Chowdhury v. 1 2 1 3 yrs.,

WorldTel 1 (P) 9 mos.

Bangladesh

Holding, Lid., 1 (D)

No. 08-1659,

588 F. Supp. 2d

375 (E.D.N.Y.

2008)

Liceav.Curacaol 1 | 71| 1 4 yrs.,

Drydock Co., 4 (P) 5 mos.

Inc., No. 06-

22128, 584 F. 3 (D)

Supp. 2d 1355

(S.D. Fla. 2008)

Aikpitanhi v. l 7 0 5 mos.

Iberia Airlines 2 (P)

of Spain, No. 07-

14468, 553 F. 1 (D)

Supp. 2d 872

(E.D. Mich Mar.

31, 2008)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm/| Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 3 4 5

Corrie v. 1 5 0 8 mos.

Caterpillar,

Inc., No. 05- 3 ®)

5192, 403 F. 2 (D)

Supp. 2d 1019

(W.D. Wash.

2005)

Ibrahim v. Titan 2 5 ] 7 yrs.

Corp., No. 04-

1248, 391 F.

Supp. 2d 10

(D.D.C. 2005)

Muzjica v. 2 10 1 8 yrs.,

Occidental 5 (P) 8 mos.

Petroleum

Carp., No. 03- 5 (D)

2860, 381 F.

Supp. 2d 1164

(C.D. Cal. 2005)

Daventree Ltd. l 3 0 4 yrs.

v. Rep. of

Azerbaiyan, No.

02-6356, 349 F.

Supp. 2d 736

(S.D.N.Y. 2004) is

No. “a

No. Law

Corp. | Firm | Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 3 4 5

Arndt v. UBS 2 4 0 7 mos.

AG, No. 04-751, om

342 F. Supp. 2d

132 (E.D.N.Y. 1 (D)

2004)

In re African- 18 24 l 9 yrs.

American Slave

Descendants

Litig., No. MDL-

1491, No. 02-

7764, 304 F.

Supp. 2d 1027

(N.D. Ill. 2004)

Maugein v. 4 8 l 3 yrs.

Newmont

Mining Corp., 1 ®)

No. 02-204, 298 7 (D)

F. Supp. 2d

1124 (D. Colo.

2004)

Anderman v. 7 12 l 2.5 yrs.

Federal Rep. of 1 (P)

Austria, No. 01—

01769, 256 F. 1]

Supp. 2d 1098 (D)

(C.D. Cal. 2003)

Case Name!

Appeals

Estate of

Rodriquez v.

Drummond Co.,

Inc., No. 02-

0665, 256 F.

Supp. 2d 1250

(N.D. Ala. 2003)

Abrams v.

Societe

Nationale des

Chemins de Fer

Francais, No.

00-5326, 175 F.

Supp. 2d 423

(E.D.N.Y. 2001)

Mendonca v.

Tidewater, Inc.,

No. 00-2284,

159 F. Supp. 2d

299 (E.D. La.

2001)

5.5 yrs.

6 yrs.

Aruman v.

Christie's

Intern. PLC.

No. 00 °6322,

129 F. Supp. 2d

620 (S.D.N_Y.

2001)

9.5 yrs.

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals | Duration

Case Name! Def.? 8 4 5

Bodner v. 9 15 0 5 yrs.

Banque Paribas, 11

Nos. 97-7433, (Pp)

98-7851, 114 F.

Supp. 2d 117 4 (D)

(E.D.N.Y. 2000)

Bao Ge v. Li 2 5 l 4 yrs.

Peng, No. 98-

1986, 201 F.

Supp. 2d 14

(D.D.C. 2000)

Iwanowa Vv. 2 3 l 1.5 yrs.

Ford Motor Co., l (P)

No. 98-959, 67

F. Supp. 2d 424 2 (D)

(D.N.J. 1999)

Roe v. Unocal 3 10 l 4 yrs.

Corp., No. 96-

6112, 70 F. 6 (P)

Supp. 2d 1073 4 (D)

(C.D. Cal. 1999)

No.

No. Law

Corp. | Firm| Appeals} Duration

Case Name! Def. 8 4 5

National 3 10 1 4 yrs.

Coalition

Union of Burma 4 (D)

v. Unocal, Inc.,

No. 96-6112,

176 F.R.D. 329

(C.D. Cal. 1997)

Eastman Kodak 1 4 0 2.5 yrs.

Co. v. Kaviin, 2 (P)

Nos. 96-2218,

96-2219, 978 F. 1 (D)

Supp. 1078

(S.D. Fla. 1997)

Pleadings’

Wang Xiaoning 3 2 1 7 mos.

v. Yahoo! Inc.,

No. 07-2151,

2007 WL

1511131 (N_D.

Cal. filed Apr.

18, 2007)

7 The remaining cases are ones for which there are no

reported decisions, but which have docket sheets and filings.

Case Name!

Appeals

Guzman-

Martinez v.

Corrections

Corp. of

America, No.

11-2390, 2011

WL 6062622 (D.

Corp., No. 11-

8957, 2011 WL

5142961 (C.D.

Cal. filed Oct.

20, 2011)

2 mos.

Doe v. Nevelef®

No. 11-907,

2011 WL

5027754 (W.D.

Tex. filed Oct.

19, 2011)

2 mos.

Inc., No. 09-

1041, 2011 WL

4863942 (N.D.

Ala. filed Sept.

29, 2011)

4 mos.

Lim v.

Government of

Singapore, No.

11-50172, 2011

WL 2428948

(N.D. Ill. filed

June 14, 2011)

Daobin v. Cisco

Systema, Inc.,

No. 11-1538,

2011 WL

3962879 (D. Md.

filed June 6,

2011)

N/A 0

1 day

6 mos.

Tymoshenko v.

Firtash, No. 11-

2794, 2011 WL

1560364

(S.D.N.Y. filed

Apr. 26, 2011) :

8 mos.

Duration

Case Name!

Appeals

Doe I v. Cisco

Systems, Inc.,

No. 11-02449,

2011 WL

1338057 (E.D.

Tex. filed May

19, 2011)

Hidalgo v.

Siemens AG,

No. 11-20107,

2011 WL 74581

(S.D. Fla. filed

Jan. 11, 2011)

6 mos.

Ge v. Shanghai

Municipal

Branch

Committee of

Chinese

Communist

Party, No. 10-

7964, 2010 WL

4235973

(S.D.N.Y. filed

Oct. 10, 2010)

7 mos.

Case Name! _

Saharkhiz v.

No. 10-912,

2010 WL

3375217 (E.D.

Va. filed Aug.

16, 2010)

Appeals

Doe v.

Drummond Co.,

Inc., No. 09-

1041, 2010 WL

2572422 (N.D.

Ala. filed June

14, 2010)

Mohamed v.

Erinys

Internationa!

Ltd., No. 09-

3362, 2010 WL

2679426 (S.D.

Tex. filed Apr.

28, 2010)

Bleier v.

Deutschiand,

No. 08-6254,

2009 WL

4679371 (N.D.

Ill. filed Sept.

17, 2009)

1 yr.,

8 mos.

Case Name!

Appeals

Shiguango v.

Occidental

Petroleum

Corp., No. 06-

4982, 2009 WL

2921372 (C.D.

Cal. filed Aug.

10, 2006)

Hassoon v. Xe,

No. 09-647,

2009 WL

1953283 (S.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 1,

2009)

2 mos.

Jarallah v. Xe,

No. 09-631,

2009 WL

1350958 (S.D.

Cal. filed Mar.

27, 2009)

2 mos.

Al-Razzagq v. Xe,

No. 09-626,

2009 WL

1350956 (S.D.

Cal. filed Mar.

26, 2009) a

2 mos.

Case Name!

Appeals

Sa'‘adoon v. Xe,

No. 09-561,

2009 WL

761253 (S.D.

Cal. filed Mar.

19, 2009)

Zhen v. Yahoo!,

Inc., No. 08-

1068, 2009 WL

1241004 (N.D.

Cal. filed Feb.

26, 2009)

Al-Taee v.L-3 |

Services, No.

08-12790, 2008

WL 2598173

(E.D. Mich. filed

June 30, 2008)

2 yrs.,

I month

Zheng v. Yahoo,

Inc., No. 08-

1068, 2008 WL.

4056779 (N.D.

Cal. filed June

16, 2008)

Case Name!

Appeals

Cunzhu v.

Yahoo! Inc., No.

08-1068, 2008

WL 1894039

(N.D. Cal. filed

Feb. 22, 2008)

Manook v.

Unity Resources

Group, No. 08-

096, 2008 WL

310879 (D.D.C.

filed Jan 17,

2008)

Sinaltrainal v.

Nestle USA,

Inc., No. 06-

61623, 2006 WL

3668381 (S.D.

Fla. filed Oct.

31, 2006)

1 mo.

Doe I v. Wal-

Mart Stores,

Inc., No. 05-

07307, 2005 WL

4049637 (C.D.

Cal. filed Dec.

23, 2005)

3 yrs.,

7 mos.

Case Name!

Appeals

Bera v. Shell

Petroleum

Development

Company of

Nigeria Ltd.,

No. 11-8169,

2011 WL

5522680

(S.D.N.Y. filed

Nov. 14, 2011)

Okpabi v. Royal |

Dutch Shell,

PLC, No. 11-

14572, 2011 WL

5027193 (E.D.

Mich. filed Oct.

18, 2011)

Duration

—

2 mos.

Kaplan v. Al

Jazeera, No. 10-

5298, 2011 WL

2941526

(S.D.N.Y. filed

July 18, 2011)

4 mos.

Case Name!

Luu v. Int’l Inv.

Trade & Service

Group, No. 11-

0182, 2011 WL

1398984 (S.D.

Tex. filed Apr.

13, 2011)

Cooper hill Inv.

Ltd. v. Rep. of

Seychelles, No.

11-962, 2011

WL 601962

(S.D.N.Y. filed —

Feb. 14,2011) |

Fiouris v. |

Turkish Cypriot

Community, No.

10-1225, 2010

WL 7378418

(D.D.C. filed

July 20, 2010)

Diaz v. Grupo

Mexico, Inc., No.

10-355, 2010

WL 1944094 (D.

Ariz. filed Mar.

22, 2010)

—~+-- —

Appeals

Duration

9 mos.

7 mos.

Bast) CE)

l yr., 10

mos.

Case Name’?

filed Feb. 9,

2010)

660777 (N.D. Il.

Margallo-Gans

v. Farrell, No.

09-4026, 2009

WL 5120729

(D.S.D. filed

Oct. 16, 2009)

Vieira v. Eli

Lilly and Co.,

No. 09-0495,

2009 WL

3150953 (S.D.

Ind. filed Sept.

25, 2009)

Appeals

9 mos.

a — —_——_+4

1.5 yrs.

Guanipa Vv.

Chavez, No. 09-

20999, 2009 WL

1392253 (S.D.

Fla. filed May

12, 2009)

4 mos.

Case Name!

Tamam Vv.

Fransabank Sa/

No. 08-6156,

2009 WL

3639930

(S.D.N.Y. filed

Feb. 17, 2009)

Licci v.

American

Express Bank

Ltd., No. 08-

07253, 2009 WL

3639957

(S.D.N_LY. filed

Jan. 22, 2009)

Ahmed v. Dubai.

Islamic Bank,

No. 08-21564,

2008 WL

2935356 (S.D.

Fla. filed June

2, 2008)

Appeals

Duration

$$ $_____ —--

1.5 yrs. |

yrs.

3 —eeee

NVA

Aguilar v.

Imperial

Nurseries, No.

07-0193, 2007

WL 1183549 (D.

Conn. filed Feb.

8, 2007)

3 mos.

Corp. Firm | Appeals | Duration

Case Name' | Def? | 3 . 5

Siswinarti v. ] 2 0 2 yrs.,

Jennifer Shien 7 mos.

Ng, No. 05-

4171, 2005 WL

2511406 (D.N.J.

filed Aug. 16,

2005)

Ponce-Rubio v. ] l yr.,

North Brevard, 2 mos.

Inc., No. 03-738,

2003 WL

23772118 (M.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 3,

2003)

Whiteman Vv. 9 8 l 5 yrs.

Fed. Rep. of

Austria, No. 00-

8006, 2002 WL

34593773

(S.D.N_LY. filed

Nov. 12, 2002) |

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.