International Trade & Foreign Policy
 Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Statute
Corrie, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc.
No. C05-5192FDB
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Finding that the issue before the court should be resolved by the political branches, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of ATS claims against the manufacturer of a military bulldozer that ran over and killed a peace activist in the Gaza Strip. The suit, which was filed by the activist’s family, alleged among other things that the manufacturer aided and abetted war crimes in violation of the law of nations. The district court held that Israeli tort law provided adequate remedies for the plaintiffs and that the Torture Victims Protection Act provides exclusive remedies for allegations of extrajudicial killing under color of foreign law. In its brief, NCLC made clear that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide for corporate or aiding and abetting liability.
Amicus brief filed 6/14/06. Decision 9/17/07.
 View brief
 The Right of National Treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement
United Parcel Service v. Government of Canada
NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration Panel
The NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration panel dismissed UPS's complaint that the Government of Canada has not provided a level playing field in the domestic courier market. NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the arbitral panel to adopt the strict World Trade Organization definition of the right of national treatment when it interpreted the analogous provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The right of national treatment requires that companies from other NAFTA member countries enjoy the same rights of access to markets as do domestic companies.
Amicus brief filed 10/20/05. Decision 6/11/07.
View brief
 Federal Preemption of State Regulation of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Commerce
Doe, et al. v. Wal-Mart
No. 05-7307
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Employees of Wal-Mart's foreign suppliers have sued in California federal court to require Wal-Mart to intervene to improve the labor conditions at the foreign suppliers' plants. In its brief, NCLC argues that the Constitution assigns the responsibility to resolve such issues to the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government, and therefore the plaintiffs' claims are preempted under established Supreme Court precedent.
Amicus brief filed 9/06/06.
View brief
Agent Orange and Alien Tort Statute
Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, et al. v. Dow Chemical, et al.
No. 05-1953 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit NCLC has asked the Second Circuit to uphold a district court's dismissal of claims brought by Vietnam nationals against U.S. corporations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for harm suffered from the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. The district judge reached the right result in dismissing the cases, but improperly opined on corporate liability under ATS and time limits for filing suits inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. Because the plaintiffs cannot find their cause of action in international law or federal statutory law, they are asking U.S. courts to create a federal common-law cause of action for damages. NCLC notes in its brief that ATS lawsuits have the potential to cause diplomatic friction between governments, as well as stifle trade and foreign investment. Amicus brief filed 2/15/06.
View brief
Federal Court Jurisdiction over Antitrust Conduct in Foreign Markets
Christie's International PLC, et al. v. Kruman, et al.
No. 02-340
U. S. Supreme Court
Although this case was settled earlier this year, the class notification and approval procedure was not completed until recently, at which time the petition for cert. in the case was dismissed. In supporting cert., NCLC argued that participants in wholly foreign transactions should not be allowed to pursue antitrust claims for treble damages in federal court for injuries suffered abroad when there is no anticompetitive effect on U. S. commerce.
Amicus brief in support of petition for cert. filed 10/7/02. Petition for cert. dismissed 8/7/03.
Alien Torts Claim Act
Doe, et al. v. Unocal Corporation, et al.
Nos. 00-56603, 00-56628, 00-57195 and 00-57197
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
NCLC had urged the Ninth Circuit, on rehearing en banc, to reconsider its decision in In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 25 F.3d 1467 (1994), and to hold that the Judiciary Act of 1789, 28 U.S.C. 1350 (also known as the Alien Torts Claim Act) is a jurisdictional statute only and does not provide a for a cause of action. The plaintiffs in this action allege that under the Alien Torts Claim Act a U. S. company may be liable for human rights violations committed by a foreign country's military or government in connection with the U. S. company's overseas projects or investments. NCLC argued that such an interpretation of the statute not only holds U. S. companies liable for actions of foreign governments but also harms U. S. interests and the global economy.
Motion for leave to file amicus brief and amicus brief filed 4/29/03. Motion for leave to file amicus brief denied 5/21/03.
State Interference with Foreign Policy
American Insurance Association, American Re-Insurance, et al. v. Low, Commissioner of Insurance
No. 00-1296
U.S. Supreme Court
NCLC had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether California law -- which requires foreign insurance companies to either provide information about Holocaust-era insurance policies they issued abroad or have their affiliates who have no control over the parent company be suspended from doing business in the state -- interferes with U.S. foreign policy efforts to resolve these claims and adversely impacts interstate and foreign commerce.
Amicus brief in support of petition for certiorari filed 7/27/01. Petition for cert. withdrawn by petitioner and case dismissed 1/29/02.
|
Share This Page
