abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

[PDF] In re South African Apartheid Litigation - Order

Based on the arguments submitted in the letters summarized above, I conclude that it is appropriate to provide plaintiffs an opportunity to brief the issue of whether a corporation may be liable for a violation of the [Alien Tort Statute]. I reach this conclusion based on the Second Circuit's recent decision in Licci to refer the issue of corporate liability under the ATS to the district court, despite the Second Circuit's 2010 decision in Kiobel. Because I also conclude that plaintiffs have failed to show that they could plausibly plead that the actions of Daimler or Rhinematall- the foreign defendants - touch and concern the United States with sufficient force to rebut the presumption against the extraterritorial reach of the ATS, these defendants are hereby DISMISSED.