Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s effort to restrict and clarify the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), the divergence between judicial interpretations of the law, and the number of ATCA lawsuits, continues to grow. Some courts have construed the ATCA narrowly, as the Supreme Court urged, limiting the cases that can be brought. Others have interpreted the act broadly, recognizing novel claims and theories of liability. Emblematic of that schism are two cases decided last year, one filed in New York involving an energy company’s role in oil development in Sudan, and one in California involving Papua New Guinea mining operations.
These ATCA cases and others like them are part of a rising wave of high-stakes litigation against corporations and their executive officers, and necessitate especially careful attention by in-house counsel regarding overseas operations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
