In the past thirty years, claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) by non-U.S. citizens against U.S. corporations has increased exponentially. The ATS was passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and allows non-U.S. citizens to bring civil suits in U.S. federal courts for violations of customary international law. The statute has been used to bring claims against corporations and government officials. Beginning with a landmark case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, in 2004, the Court attempted to limit claims allowed under the ATS to those comparable to international law claims envisioned in the 18th century, when the ATS was originally enacted, such as those involving ambassadors, safe conduct, or piracy. Most recently, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the U.S. Supreme Court significantly constrained the reach of the ATS over activities that occur on foreign soil, setting a minimum standard that activities must substantially touch and concern the United States. Most recently, the Fourth Circuit upheld Kiobel narrow reading of the ATS in Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology (2013), and found that the ATS did not apply to activities occurring on foreign soil despite the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a U.S.-based corporation, contracted by the U.S. government, and was working with the U.S. military during the course of the alleged activities.
The case that will likely determine the extent and survival of the ATS is the pending Doe v. Chiquita suit, brought by Colombian citizens against the U.S. corporation, Chiquita Brands International, Inc. for funding and arming terrorist organizations in Colombia. Like CACI, Chiquita is a U.S.-based company and has a U.S.-based board of directors that approved paym...
ange v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008).
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1663 (2012), citing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 724 (2004).
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1667 (2012).
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1672 (2012), citing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 715 (2004).
Al Shimari, 657 F.Supp.2d at 726“27 (quoting Sosa, 542 U.S. at 729).
The court cites Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 243 (2d Cir. 1995) to explain that Torture and summary execution ... are proscribed by international law only when committed by state officials or under color of law.In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. Alien Tort Statute & S'holder Derivative Litig., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., LLC, 643 F.3d at 1020-21 (2011).
ADS HERE !!!