Alien Tort Statute -- 2015



Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc.   (9th Circuit)

Corporate liability for aiding and abetting under Alien Tort Statute

The Alien Tort Statute continues to be a source of substantial concern for manufacturers that do business abroad and that are alleged to assist regimes accused of various human rights violations. The ATS allows federal courts in the U.S. to hear cases by foreign nationals who allege violations of international law. This case involves allegations that various companies assisted the government of the Ivory Coast to force children to work on cocoa plantations.

The NAM and 4 international law professors joined together in an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to reject opening up the statute to broad claims. We argued not only that the Supreme Court has very narrowly interpreted the kind of conduct that violates international law, but also that the plaintiffs' claims in this case are based on a standard for aiding and abetting liability that does not reflect a well-established, specifically defined and universally agreed-upon rule of customary international law. In addition, settled customary international law does not recognize corporate entity liability, and the ATS should not be extended to imply private rights of action that have a significant potential for interference with the conduct of foreign affairs by the political branches of government.

On December 19, 2013, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s opinion and remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The circuit court concluded that corporations can be held liable under the ATS. The court also determined that a corporation does not need to purposefully act to be liable for aiding and abetting. Rather, any assistance that has a substantial effect, even if the corporation did not specifically intend to aid and abet the crime, is grounds for liability.

However, this decision has been appealed to the full Ninth Circuit for further review, and on Oct. 27, 2014, the NAM filed an amicus brief supporting review. The 3-judge panel announced a standard of criminal intent for an accessory to a crime that infers the defendant has a purpose of facilitating a crime if it has a profit-seeking motive. Our amicus brief argued that this ruling conflicts with the decisions of other federal courts and has no support in international law. Unless corrected, this standard “exposes businesses to the risk of liability for any commercial relationship in countries alleged to have engaged in human rights violations, even when that relationship is entirely lawful as a matter of American foreign economic policy.”

We also argued that the recent Supreme Court decision in Kiobel limits the power of U.S. courts to hear cases arising from activities occurring abroad. That decision recognized a presumption against applying U.S. law extraterritorially to claims arising under the Alien Tort Statute, and there must be claims that “touch and concern the territory of the United States” which are of “sufficient force” to displace the presumption. The Ninth Circuit misapprehended this ruling, claiming that the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply to ATS claims.

Both of these issues are of exceptional importance and affect many companies that have been caught up in ATS allegations. The Ninth Circuit declined to rehear this case on 5/6/15, with 8 judges dissenting.


Related Documents:
NAM amicus brief in support of rehearing  (October 27, 2014)
NAM amicus brief  (October 7, 2011)

 


© 2019 National Association of Manufacturers