Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves allegations against Ford Motor Company and IBM for aiding the South African apartheid regime, with claims pursued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) by plaintiffs, members of two classes of black South Africans. The plaintiffs assert that the companies facilitated human rights violations by providing military vehicles and computers to security forces. The district court initially allowed these claims to proceed, even as it dismissed others. The defendants sought interlocutory review, and the case encountered significant developments following the Second Circuit's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which posited that the ATS does not cover corporate claims. The Supreme Court review in Kiobel II emphasized the presumption against extraterritoriality without resolving corporate liability. Consequently, the Second Circuit remanded the case, leading to further legal maneuvering, including dismissals of foreign defendants who could not demonstrate sufficient U.S. connection. The Supreme Court's Daimler AG v. Bauman decision and the ongoing debate in the Second Circuit regarding corporate liability under the ATS have left the issue unresolved. The court has ordered further briefings to address corporate liability in light of these precedents, while the plaintiffs have been granted a chance to amend their complaint to address the extraterritoriality concerns. The case remains a pivotal inquiry into the scope of corporate liability for international law violations under the ATS within the U.S. judiciary framework.
Legal Issues Addressed
Corporate Liability under Alien Tort Statute (ATS)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case examines whether corporations like Ford and IBM can be held liable under the ATS for alleged violations of international law in aiding the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs, members of two classes of black South Africans, claim that Ford and IBM facilitated violations of customary international law by supplying military vehicles and computers to security forces.
Extraterritorial Application of the Alien Tort Statutesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the Supreme Court's Kiobel II decision, focusing on the presumption against extraterritoriality, which requires claims to sufficiently touch and concern the U.S. to displace this presumption.
Reasoning: Kiobel II emphasizes that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS claims, which must sufficiently touch and concern the U.S. to displace this presumption, and that mere corporate presence in multiple countries is insufficient for this purpose.
Personal Jurisdiction over Corporate Defendantssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court's Daimler AG v. Bauman decision clarified that corporate affiliations must be continuous and systematic to render a corporation 'at home' in a state for jurisdictional purposes.
Reasoning: On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Daimler AG v. Bauman, determining that Daimler's contacts with California were insufficient for personal jurisdiction under California’s long-arm statute, as corporate affiliations must be continuous and systematic to render a corporation 'at home' in the state.
Procedural Impact of Kiobel Decisions on ATS Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed claims against certain foreign defendants due to the inability to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality, as guided by the Kiobel II decision.
Reasoning: On December 26, 2013, the court dismissed the foreign defendants, Rheimattal AG and Daimler AG, for failing to plausibly plead that their actions sufficiently touched and concerned the U.S. to counter the ATS's extraterritoriality presumption.
Second Circuit's Stance on Corporate Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Second Circuit has not definitively resolved corporate liability under the ATS, with recent rulings suggesting that the issue remains open and potentially acknowledging corporate liability.
Reasoning: The Second Circuit’s decisions in Licci and Judge Pooler’s concurrence in Chowdhury suggest that Kiobel II has left the question of corporate liability open, as the Licci panel did not treat Kiobel I as binding when remanding the issue.