Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa)

Para la versión en español de este perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Shell por actividades en Nigeria, haga clic acá.

Pour la version française de ce profil, cliquez ici.

C русской версией описания этого дела можно ознакомиться здесь.

如欲阅读中文版,请点击此处。

Kiobel v. Shell

Proceedings in the USA

Nigerian Soldier, By SSGT Paul R. Caron, USAF [Public domain], via Wikimedia_CommonsIn 2002, Royal Dutch/Shell was sued in US federal court by Esther Kiobel, the wife of Dr. Barinem Kiobel- an Ogoni activist who was member of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) and eleven other Nigerians from the Ogoni region.  MOSOP campaigned against the environmental damage caused by oil extraction in the Ogoni region of Nigeria and for increased autonomy for the Ogoni ethnic group.  Barinem Kiobel and other members of MOSOP were detained illegally in 1994, held incommunicado in military custody, then tried by a special court established by the military government using procedures in violation of international fair trial standards, convicted of murder and executed.  The suit alleges that Shell, through its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), provided transport to Nigerian troops, allowed company property to be used as staging areas for attacks against the Ogoni and provided food to the soldiers and paid them.  The plaintiffs claimed the defendant companies were complicit in the commission of torture, extrajudicial killing and other violations pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).

In March 2008, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On 16 November 2009, the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was granted asking the court to re-examine the issue of jurisdiction.  The court said in the motion that a direct business relationship between the USA and SPDC must be established in order for ATCA to apply.  On 21 June 2010, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown that this direct business relationship had existed, and the judge dismissed the suit against SPDC.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on 17 September 2010 the court of appeals issued a sweeping opinion addressing ATCA lawsuits involving corporate defendants.  The majority opinion affirmed lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, and it also stated that ATCA could not be used to sue corporations for violations of international law.  A separate opinion was written by the third judge from the appeals court panel, who concurred with the majority in judgment only.  This judge vigorously disagreed with the majority’s reasoning; he wrote that the majority’s opinion dealt a “substantial blow to international law and its undertaking to protect fundamental human rights.”  On 14 October 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the court.  The court of appeals, on 4 February 2011, refused to rehear the case.  The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court in June 2011 asking it to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling.  On 17 October 2011 the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the plaintiffs' appeal in this case.  Oral arguments were held on 28 February 2012.  On 5 March the Supreme Court announced that it would not rule on the case in the current term.  It has asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs and will rehear the case in the next term.  The Court asked the parties to submit briefs on whether the Alien Tort Claims Act allows federal courts to hear lawsuits alleging violations of international law which occur outside the United States.  The Court reheard the case on 1 October 2012.  On 17 April 2013 the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding that ATCA does not apply to conduct outside of the United States.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case.  A special page with all of the documents related to the Supreme Court review of this case is available here.

Proceedings in the Netherlands

In October 2016, Esther Kiobel filed an application with a New York District Court under the US Foreign Legal Assistance Statute to gain access to important documents from the original US case, to be used in a lawsuit against Shell in the Netherlands.  The documents are in the possession of Shell’s lawyers, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.  

On 24 January 2017, Cravath Swaine & Moore were ordered to turn over the documents. On 13 February, the law firm appealed the decision arguing that it will suffer because foreign companies will be disinclined from hiring US lawyers if such wide discovery requests are granted.  A US court of appeals reversed the decision. Esther Kiobel asked the US Supreme Court to review the decison. On 7 January 2019, the US Supreme Court denied her petition.

In June 2017, Esther Kiobel and three other women launched a civil case against Shell in the Netherlands.  They claim the company was complicit in the 1995 killings of their husbands, part of the Ogoni 9 activists who contested Shell's operations and the Nigerian Government over the effects of oil pollution. Shell has denied any involvement in their executions. On 1 May 2019, a Dutch court said it has jurisdiction to hear the case and ruled that Shell should hand over confidential internal documents to the claimants.

 

- "Nigeria: Widows of Ogoni Leaders Killed By Abacha Sue Shell in Netherlands", Oladeinde Olawoyin, Premium Times (Nigeria), 29 Jun 2017
- "Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Apr 2013
- "Views on Kiobel v. Shell", Salil Tripathi, Institute for Human Rights and Business, 9 Oct 2012
- "Alien torts in America's courts", Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 8 Oct 2012
- "Shell, Corporate Responsibility and Respect for the Law", Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, 3 Oct 2012
- "Argument recap: In search of an [Alien Tort Statute] compromise", Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 Oct 2012
- "Supreme Court may narrow law in human rights cases", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 1 Oct 2012
- "The U.S. Supreme Court must preserve the Alien Tort Statute for international corporate human rights cases", Marco Simons, EarthRights International, 13 Jun 2012
- "Torture Suits Against Companies Including Shell Draw U.S. High Court Review", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Oct 2011
- "US court upholds key Shell ruling in Nigeria case", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 4 Feb 2011
- "2nd Circuit Rejects Corporate Liability in Alien Tort Cases", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 20 Sep 2010
- “Nigeria Torture Case Decision Exempts Companies From U.S. Alien Tort Law”, Bob Van Voris & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, 17 Sep 2010
“Judge Kimba Wood Dismisses Defendant from Aliant Tort Statute Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”, Russell Jackson, Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, 25 Jun 2010

Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
- [PDF] Opinion of US Supreme Court, 17 Apr 2013
Petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel) - Supplemental Reply Brief, 31 Aug 2012
Respondents/defendants (Shell) - Supplemental Brief, 1 Aug 2012
- [PDF] Supplemental brief for petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel), 6 Jun 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Respondents, 27 Jan 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Petitioners, 14 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 6 Jun 2011
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., 4 Feb 2011 [order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing]
- [PDF] Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 14 Oct 2010
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Order affirming District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit, 17 Sep 2010
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] Opinion and Order [regarding 2008 motion to dismiss], 21 Jun 2010
Opinion and Order re Plainitffs' motion for reconsideration, 16 Nov 2009
Opinion and Order, 25 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamation League as amici curiae in support of petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Earth Rights Intl. as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011

Wiwa v. Shell
An earlier, related claim was filed by Ken Wiwa (son of the late Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa who was executed together with Barinem Kiobel  in 1995) and other members of MOSOP in 1996.  The Wiwa lawsuit was filed against the same defendant companies as the Kiobel lawsuit.  This lawsuit alleged that the Nigerian military government and security forces committed human rights violations, including torture and summary execution of MOSOP members, to suppress MOSOP’s activities and that Royal Dutch/Shell was complicit in the commission of these abuses.  The plaintiffs won several pre-trial rulings, including on motions by the defendants to dismiss the case. 

In early June 2009, the parties announced that they had agreed to a settlement in the case for $15.5 million.  The settlement provides compensation for the ten plaintiffs and covers a portion of the plaintiffs’ legal costs.  The settlement also establishes The Kiisi Trust, intended to benefit the Ogoni people, which will be governed by independent trustees.  This trust is to fund initiatives in Ogoni such as education, women’s programmes, adult literacy and small enterprise support.

- “Shell settles human rights suit for $15.5M”, Chris Kahn, Associated Press, 8 Jun 2009
- [video] Shell in court over alleged Nigeria crimes, Al Jazeera English, 3 Jun 2009
- "Shell must defend Nigerian rights suit, judge says", David Glovin, Bloomberg, 23 Apr 2009
- “Shell Faces Human Rights Grilling”, Tim Webb, Independent [UK], 11 Apr 2004
- “Big Oil and an Activist's Death: Family Sues to Probe Role Played by Shell in Nigerian's Execution”, Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, 03 Jun 2001

- Shell:
 - Shell in Nigeria: Issues
 - Shell settles Wiwa case with humanitarian gesture, 8 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Statement of the Plaintiffs in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, Lucky Doobee, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, Karalolo Kogbara, Blessing Kpuinen, James N-nah, Friday Nuate, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., Michael Vizor, Owens Wiwa, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Statement of Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, 8 Jun 2009

- EarthRights International (NGO representing plaintiffs):Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) [includes links to court opinions and plaintiffs’ complaints filed in this case]

- Center for Constitutional Rights (NGO representing plaintiffs):
 - Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [synopsis]
 - [PDF] On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund, 8 Jun 2009

- The Case Against Shell [joint project of EarthRights International and Center for Constitutional Rights]: Wiwa v. Shell

- US Circuit Court for the Second Circuit:
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell, 14 Sep 2000 [reversal of lower court’s dismissal of the case]

- US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
- [PDF] Wiwa v Shell – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell - Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 23 Apr 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell – Dismissal of RICO claims against defendants, 18 Mar 2009

Souscrire au flux RSS de cette rubrique

Tous les éléments de cette histoire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Owen Bowcott, Guardian (UK)

The extent of lobbying conducted by Shell and Rio Tinto in seeking legal support from the UK government to dismiss allegations of human rights abuses has been revealed…The documents relate to two…court cases against the firms at the US supreme court over alleged complicity in mistreatment of protesters and people who lived near extraction operations…Shell and Rio Tinto approached the Foreign Office…seeking UK government backing…The FCO initially intervened at the US supreme court with a legal brief supporting Shell…The FCO then added a second, neutral brief…Responding to the claims, the FCO said: "The UK intervened in this case to clarify our position on the proper limits of the extraterritorial application of US law….”…A Shell spokesman said: "Shell companies have the right and the responsibility to make our position known to governments on any matters which affect us…”… Rio Tinto declined to comment on the documents.

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Amnesty International

This book seeks to ground the debate on the human right to remedy in cases of corporate-related abuse in the lived experiences of victims…[It]… focuses on four emblematic cases and exposes how corporate political and financial power intertwined with specific legal obstacles to allow companies to evade accountability and deny, or severely curtail, remedy…The cases are…[the] 1984 Bhopal gas leak in India…[the] case of Omai gold in Guyana...[the] Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea…[and the] dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire…[Trafigura responded that] it is simply wrong to suggest that the issues have not had the right judicial scrutiny...[Union Carbide responded that] [a]ll of the victims’ claims…were resolved a quarter-century ago by a comprehensive settlement…[Includes full responses from Arcelor Mittal, Dow Chemical, Tata Group, Trafigura Beheer, Union Carbide (part of Dow)] [Also refers to BHP Billiton, BP, Shell, Vedanta Resources]

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Claes Cronstedt, Rachel Chambers, Adrienne Margolis, David Rönnegard, Robert C. Thompson, Katherine Tyler

We have come together to work towards the ultimate goal of the creation of an international arbitration tribunal on business and human rights...The Tribunal, while unaffiliated with any governmental organization, would maintain a roster of highly regarded jurists and attorneys who are familiar with human rights law. The Tribunal would act in a fair and impartial manner. The Tribunal would apply tort principles to cases involving business involvement in human rights abuses throughout the world, irrespective of the locus of the crimes, the nationalities of those involved or whether the perpetrators are legal or natural persons...In appropriate cases, the Tribunal would have the authority to award compensation...The Tribunal would likely have wide-ranging subject matter jurisdiction, covering not only the grave abuses that form the core crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court but also all other internationally-recognized human rights...This draft is intended to provide the framework for further discussions...[refers to Shell, Daimler]

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: James Stewart, University of British Columbia in New York University Journal of Intl. Law & Politics (USA)

In November 2013, Swiss authorities announced a criminal investigation into one of the world's largest gold refineries on the basis that the company committed a war crime. The Swiss investigation comes a matter of months after the US Supreme Court decided in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that allegations like these could not give rise to civil liability under the aegis of the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS")...In this paper, I argue that coupling corporate criminal liability with international crimes in national systems, as in this new Swiss case, is the next obvious “discovery” in corporate responsibility. In addition, at least one international court has now adopted corporate criminal liability for international crimes. These moves promise to transcend several of the doctrinal and conceptual problems that plagued the ATS...

Tout lire

Procès
+ English - Cacher

Para la versión en español de este perfil de caso, haga clic acá.

Pour une version française de ce profil, cliquez ici.

Kiobel v. Shell
In 2002, Royal Dutch/Shell was sued in US federal court by Esther Kiobel, the wife of Dr. Barinem Kiobel- an Ogoni activist who was member of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) and eleven other Nigerians from the Ogoni region.  MOSOP campaigned against the environmental damage caused by oil extraction in the Ogoni region of Nigeria and for increased autonomy for the Ogoni ethnic group.  Barinem Kiobel and other members of MOSOP were detained illegally in 1994, held incommunicado in military custody, then tried by a special court established by the military government using procedures in violation of international fair trial standards, convicted of murder and executed.  The suit alleges that Shell, through its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), provided transport to Nigerian troops, allowed company property to be used as staging areas for attacks against the Ogoni and provided food to the soldiers and paid them.  The plaintiffs claimed the defendant companies were complicit in the commission of torture, extrajudicial killing and other violations pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).

In March 2008, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On 16 November 2009, the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was granted asking the court to re-examine the issue of jurisdiction.  The court said in the motion that a direct business relationship between the USA and SPDC must be established in order for ATCA to apply.  On 21 June 2010, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown that this direct business relationship had existed, and the judge dismissed the suit against SPDC.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on 17 September 2010 the court of appeals issued a sweeping opinion addressing ATCA lawsuits involving corporate defendants.  The majority opinion affirmed lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, and it also stated that ATCA could not be used to sue corporations for violations of international law.  A separate opinion was written by the third judge from the appeals court panel, who concurred with the majority in judgment only.  This judge vigorously disagreed with the majority’s reasoning; he wrote that the majority’s opinion dealt a “substantial blow to international law and its undertaking to protect fundamental human rights.”  On 14 October 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the court.  The court of appeals, on 4 February 2011, refused to rehear the case.  The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court in June 2011 asking it to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling.  On 17 October 2011 the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the plaintiffs' appeal in this case.  Oral arguments were held on 28 February 2012.  On 5 March the Supreme Court announced that it would not rule on the case in the current term.  It has asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs and will rehear the case in the next term.  The Court asked the parties to submit briefs on whether the Alien Tort Claims Act allows federal courts to hear lawsuits alleging violations of international law which occur outside the United States.  The Court reheard the case on 1 October 2012.  On 17 April 2013 the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding that ATCA does not apply to conduct outside of the United States.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case.  A special page with all of the documents related to the Supreme Court review of this case is available here.

- "Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Apr 2013
- "Views on Kiobel v. Shell", Salil Tripathi, Institute for Human Rights and Business, 9 Oct 2012
- "Alien torts in America's courts", Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 8 Oct 2012
- "Shell, Corporate Responsibility and Respect for the Law", Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, 3 Oct 2012
- "Argument recap: In search of an [Alien Tort Statute] compromise", Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 Oct 2012
- "Supreme Court may narrow law in human rights cases", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 1 Oct 2012
- "The U.S. Supreme Court must preserve the Alien Tort Statute for international corporate human rights cases", Marco Simons, EarthRights International, 13 Jun 2012
- "Torture Suits Against Companies Including Shell Draw U.S. High Court Review", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Oct 2011
- "US court upholds key Shell ruling in Nigeria case", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 4 Feb 2011
- "2nd Circuit Rejects Corporate Liability in Alien Tort Cases", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 20 Sep 2010
- “Nigeria Torture Case Decision Exempts Companies From U.S. Alien Tort Law”, Bob Van Voris & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, 17 Sep 2010
- “Judge Kimba Wood Dismisses Defendant from Aliant Tort Statute Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”, Russell Jackson, Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, 25 Jun 2010

Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
- [PDF] Opinion of US Supreme Court, 17 Apr 2013
- Petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel) - Supplemental Reply Brief, 31 Aug 2012
- Respondents/defendants (Shell) - Supplemental Brief, 1 Aug 2012
- [PDF] Supplemental brief for petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel), 6 Jun 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Respondents, 27 Jan 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Petitioners, 14 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 6 Jun 2011
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., 4 Feb 2011 [order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing]
- [PDF] Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 14 Oct 2010
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Order affirming District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit, 17 Sep 2010
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] Opinion and Order [regarding 2008 motion to dismiss], 21 Jun 2010
- Opinion and Order re Plainitffs' motion for reconsideration, 16 Nov 2009
Opinion and Order, 25 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamation League as amici curiae in support of petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Earth Rights Intl. as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011


Wiwa v. Shell
An earlier, related claim was filed by Ken Wiwa (son of the late Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa who was executed together with Barinem Kiobel  in 1995) and other members of MOSOP in 1996.  The Wiwa lawsuit was filed against the same defendant companies as the Kiobel lawsuit.  This lawsuit alleged that the Nigerian military government and security forces committed human rights violations, including torture and summary execution of MOSOP members, to suppress MOSOP’s activities and that Royal Dutch/Shell was complicit in the commission of these abuses.  The plaintiffs won several pre-trial rulings, including on motions by the defendants to dismiss the case. 

In early June 2009, the parties announced that they had agreed to a settlement in the case for $15.5 million.  The settlement provides compensation for the ten plaintiffs and covers a portion of the plaintiffs’ legal costs.  The settlement also establishes The Kiisi Trust, intended to benefit the Ogoni people, which will be governed by independent trustees.  This trust is to fund initiatives in Ogoni such as education, women’s programmes, adult literacy and small enterprise support.

- “Shell settles human rights suit for $15.5M”, Chris Kahn, Associated Press, 8 Jun 2009
- [video] Shell in court over alleged Nigeria crimes, Al Jazeera English, 3 Jun 2009
- "Shell must defend Nigerian rights suit, judge says", David Glovin, Bloomberg, 23 Apr 2009
- “Shell Faces Human Rights Grilling”, Tim Webb, Independent [UK], 11 Apr 2004
- “Big Oil and an Activist's Death: Family Sues to Probe Role Played by Shell in Nigerian's Execution”, Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, 03 Jun 2001

- Shell:
 - Shell in Nigeria: Issues
 - Shell settles Wiwa case with humanitarian gesture, 8 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Statement of the Plaintiffs in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, Lucky Doobee, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, Karalolo Kogbara, Blessing Kpuinen, James N-nah, Friday Nuate, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., Michael Vizor, Owens Wiwa, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Statement of Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, 8 Jun 2009

- EarthRights International (NGO representing plaintiffs): Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) [includes links to court opinions and plaintiffs’ complaints filed in this case]

- Center for Constitutional Rights (NGO representing plaintiffs):
 - Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [synopsis]
 - [PDF] On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund, 8 Jun 2009

- The Case Against Shell [joint project of EarthRights International and Center for Constitutional Rights]: Wiwa v. Shell

- US Circuit Court for the Second Circuit:
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell, 14 Sep 2000 [reversal of lower court’s dismissal of the case]

- US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
- [PDF] Wiwa v Shell – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell - Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 23 Apr 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell – Dismissal of RICO claims against defendants, 18 Mar 2009

 

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Allen & Overy

...Topics covered in this issue include, among others, the Thun Group of Banks’ Discussion Paper on the Guiding Principles, a discussion of the evolving legal landscape for human rights risk in the supply chain in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel; how to identify and mitigate the risk of human trafficking in supply chains; and the regulation of private military and security contractors, including an examination of the industry’s recent self-regulatory initiatives...

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern Univ. School of Law, in Washington Post

The Spanish legislature just passed a measure that would almost entirely eliminate universal jurisdiction (UJ) prosecutions in that country…The new move puts Spain in good and broad company. Last year, the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum put an end to a practice…of allowing suits alleging violations of international law involving only foreigners with no connection to the United States…Still, Spanish judges and lawyers who want to enforce international justice can still keep themselves busy after the new reform. They might consider…pursuing Spanish violations of international law – even war crimes cases…The theory that doing business in occupied territory is a war crime…underlines the EU’s approach to financial involvement with Israel…Spanish companies are at the forefront of working alongside Morocco to exploit the natural resources of occupied Western Sahara…Can we soon expect to see war crimes prosecutions of Spanish fishing and mining companies?...

🚫Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Carey L. Biron, MintPress News (USA)

A federal judge in Texas has...halted a...court battle brought by the families of 12 Nepalis killed while working for a U.S. military contractor in Iraq in 2004. The families...ask[ed] the courts to allow them to sue Kellogg, Brown & Root, the former subsidiary of the oil services company Halliburton...Judge Keith Ellison had said he would allow the case to go forward, ruling that it appeared to include genuine allegations of “forced labor or trafficking.” But last month,...[t]he judge stated...that a central piece of anti-trafficking legislation, passed in 2008, could not be retroactively applied to a crime that took place outside of the U.S. The decision has been viewed as a major victory for KBR, with the firm’s lawyer proclaiming that the judge “did get this right.” Other legal scholars disagree...with Ellison’s interpretation of a contentious recent U.S. Supreme Court decision weakening corporate liability outside of U.S. territory...

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Annie-Rose Harrison-Dunn, ConfectioneryNews.com (UK)

Three Malian men have won the right to bring their civil child slavery case against Nestlé, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) to Californian courts. The cocoa suppliers and manufacturer are accused of aiding and abetting the luring of the men across the border from Mali to the Ivory Coast in the 1990s, where the then children worked unpaid on cocoa farms which supplied the companies in question…In December last year, a US appeals court ruled that the corporations could face liability for claims bought under the Alien Tort Statute…Cargill is committed to working towards a cocoa supply chain where no children are subject to dangerous or forced working conditions…Nestlé [said]…that all allegations remained unproven…[and that] the court was correct in its 2010 dismissal of the case…ADM [said]…it disagreed with the decision…The case has thrown up questions surrounding supply chain traceability and responsibility…

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Sander Bak, Atara Miller & Jed Schwartz, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in Mondaq (USA)

Following the trend of its recent decisions…the Supreme Court…in Daimler AG v. Bauman, reversed the Ninth Circuit, and held that a corporation could not be sued in the US for actions that took place entirely abroad, even if [it] has some general contacts within the forum state…[T]he Supreme Court ruled that it would violate due process to subject a foreign corporation…to general jurisdiction in California based on its subsidiary's systematic contacts with that state…If…[Mercedes-Benz USA]'s sales activities in California could make Daimler subject to jurisdiction for any conduct that occurred throughout the world, the same would be true for "every other State in which MBUSA's sales are sizable…[S]uch an "exorbitant" exercise of jurisdiction would be unfair…[This] decision will restrict the ability of plaintiffs to bring suit in the US against foreign corporate defendants where the allegations are based on extraterritorial activities. [Refers to Mercedes-Benz (part of Daimler)]

Tout lire