Alien encounters - global companies must be wary of the controversial US Alien Tort Claims Act
In recent years, non-US plaintiffs have increasingly turned to American courts – and a rarely used statute called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) – in an attempt to hold multinational corporations liable for their alleged responsibility for conduct committed outside the US by others, including genocide, torture, war crimes and other human rights abuses. Recent US court decisions, including an important ruling by a federal appellate court in New York, have signalled what may be a sharp restriction on the ability of plaintiffs to stretch the ATCA to cover alleged violations of international law by corporate defendants. These decisions, however, are far from uniform in their treatment of corporate defendants, strongly suggesting that corporations remain at substantial risk of being hauled to the US courts for alleged human rights abuses committed by others outside the US.
June 01, 2011 at 07:03 PM
5 minute read
Gibson Dunn's Lee Dunst and Brian Lutz argue that global companies still need to be wary of the US' controversial Alien Tort Claims Act
In recent years, non-US plaintiffs have increasingly turned to American courts – and a rarely used statute called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) – in an attempt to hold multinational corporations liable for their alleged responsibility for conduct committed outside the US by others, including genocide, torture, war crimes and other human rights abuses.
Recent US court decisions, including an important ruling by a federal appellate court in New York, have signalled what may be a sharp restriction on the ability of plaintiffs to stretch the ATCA to cover alleged violations of international law by corporate defendants.
These decisions, however, are far from uniform in their treatment of corporate defendants, strongly suggesting that corporations remain at substantial risk of being hauled to the US courts for alleged human rights abuses committed by others outside the US.
The ATCA, as one appellate court has noted, is "unlike any other kind in American law and of a kind apparently unknown to any other legal system in the world" in that it requires US courts to look to international law to ascertain the scope of liability under US law. The statute grants US federal courts jurisdiction over claims "by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States".
To answer the threshold question of whether conduct violates the law of nations, US courts must determine whether the conduct in question violates "customary international law" meaning, as one court put it, that the legal principle is among the "specific and universally accepted rules that the nations of the world treat as binding in their dealings with one another".
And while there is little question that human rights violations such as genocide or torture violate accepted principles of international law, what is less clear is whether, as a matter of customary international law, corporations, rather than individuals, may be held liable for similar human rights violations.
For years, US courts assumed that the jurisdictional reach of the ATCA extended to cover corporations. Accordingly, courts permitted lawsuits brought under the ATCA to proceed, for example, against oil companies accused of aiding and abetting the Nigerian Government's crackdown on environmental activists; against food companies accused of aiding and abetting crimes committed by paramilitary organisations; against a drug company for allegedly performing testing on humans without their consent; and against various companies accused of aiding and abetting South African apartheid.
In late 2010, however, a federal appeals court in New York issued a landmark decision holding that the ATCA did not confer federal court jurisdiction over corporate defendants because corporate liability was not an accepted principle of international law. In Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum, Nigerian residents sought to hold oil companies liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations committed by the Nigerian Government.
The court, after conducting a review of various international tribunals (the Nuremberg Tribunal and criminal tribunals held for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda), international treaties and works of international legal scholars, found that, while corporations could be held liable for violations of the law of the various nations in which they operated, as a matter of international law, only individuals – not corporations – are subject to liability for human rights violations.
Thus, the court concluded, "corporate liability has not attained a discernible, much less universal, acceptance among nations of the world in their relations inter se, and it cannot, as a result, form the basis of a suit under the [ATCA]".
The Kiobel decision marks an important turning point in ATCA jurisprudence and a significant setback for plaintiffs, but it is by no means the last word on the issue. Indeed, in its wake, other US courts have reached different conclusions as to the jurisdictional reach of the ATCA. A federal appeals court, for example, recently ignored Kiobel altogether and reinstated an ATCA lawsuit against a mining company concerning its alleged responsibility for the murder of the union leaders in Columbia. (See Baloco v Drummond.)
Another federal appeals court also recently reinstated a lawsuit against a car manufacturer for its alleged responsibility for acts committed during Argentina's Dirty War in the 1970s. (See Bauman v DaimlerChrysler Corp.) And a federal district court in California recently concluded that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles may be subject to jurisdiction under the ATCA for failure to prevent sexual abuse by a priest. (See Doe v Mahony.)
At the same time, the New York federal courts continue to follow Kiobel in concluding that they lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear an ATCA claim against a corporate defendant. (See Shan v China Constr Bank Corp; In re Motors Liquidation Co.)
As these divergent opinions demonstrate, Kiobel's impact on other US courts remains to be seen. For the time being, though, some US courts remain sympathetic to claims brought against corporations under the ATCA. The US Supreme Court ultimately may need to resolve this split in authority on the jurisdictional reach of the ATCA.
The issue is unlikely to be resolved in the near term, however, leaving multinational corporations and institutions still vulnerable to lawsuits in US courts over their alleged complicity in international human rights violations occurring far beyond US borders.
Lee Dunst (pictured first) is a partner and Brian Lutz (pictured second) is an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClaus von Wobeser: Mexico's ‘Godfather of Arbitration’ Becomes Firm’s Honorary Chair
Slaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Trending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250