United States: Recent Developments In Suits Against Foreign Governments And Corporations Doing Business Abroad

Last Updated: May 13 2013
Article by Edwin L. Fountain, Meir Feder, Shay Dvoretzky, Charles T. Kotuby Jr., David J. Strandness and James E. Gauch
Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2019

The United States is an attractive forum for plaintiffs to challenge the actions of foreign states, due to U.S. courts' liberal discovery rules, higher damage awards, availability of class actions, and the absence of "loser pay" rules. But foreign states are generally entitled to immunity from such civil suits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA").

As a result, plaintiffs often seek to circumvent FSIA immunity through three different strategies. First, plaintiffs sue private corporations that are not covered by the FSIA, claiming that the corporations were complicit in the foreign state's alleged wrongdoing. Second, plaintiffs sue the foreign states directly, but try to fit the action into one of the FSIA's exceptions to immunity, principally the exceptions for commercial activity, torts, or takings. Third, plaintiffs sue the foreign officials who allegedly committed or ordered the sovereign acts in question, who do not enjoy FSIA immunity.

This Commentary analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's April 17, 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.1 and other recent developments related to these circumvention strategies, and discusses how corporations, foreign states, and foreign officials can respond to such suits.

Suits Against Corporations

Plaintiffs seeking to circumvent FSIA immunity often sue private corporations under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), which confers jurisdiction in U.S. courts over torts committed against foreign citizens "in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

The Supreme Court recently revisited ATS jurisdiction in Kiobel. In that case, plaintiffs alleged that the Nigerian military committed various human rights abuses when it responded to an uprising in the Ogoni region of the country. Rather than sue the Nigerian government, plaintiffs instead sued Dutch and British oil companies, claiming that they aided and abetted the Nigerian military. In affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, the Supreme Court held that the ATS does not confer jurisdiction in U.S. courts over claims "seeking relief for violations of the law of nations occurring outside the United States."

Two issues remain unresolved under the Kiobel decision. First, the Kiobel case had initially gone to the Supreme Court on the question of whether corporate defendants may be sued under the ATS. The Court in the end did not reach that issue, which currently divides lower courts.

Second, in Kiobel the Court left open the possibility that the ATS may provide jurisdiction over claims that "touch and concern the territory of the United States ... with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application." And Justice Breyer, in an opinion concurring in the judgment, suggested that the ATS provides jurisdiction when the defendant is "an American national," or where "the defendant's conduct substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest." And certain human rights violations would still be actionable in U.S. courts under statutes, such as the Torture Victims Protection Act, which have explicit grants of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Further litigation can be expected on those contours of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court had previously adopted a second limiting principle with respect to the ATS, holding that the ATS confers jurisdiction only over claims involving "a relatively modest set" of "heinous actions" that violate "specific, universal, and obligatory" norms of international law.2 Consistent with this principle, defendants will often be able to obtain dismissal of ATS claims by arguing that the norm that the defendants allegedly violated is not sufficiently specific, universal, and obligatory to be actionable under the ATS. For example, in Best Medical Belgium, Inc. v. Kingdom of Belgium,3 the plaintiffs claimed that a Belgian court had acted with racially discriminatory animus when it resolved bankruptcy proceedings against them. Jones Day argued, and the district court agreed, that an isolated incident of racial discrimination is not actionable under the ATS.

In addition to ATS claims, plaintiffs frequently assert claims against corporations based on state law or foreign law, relying on diversity or supplemental jurisdiction. Such claims will likely become even more common now that the Kiobel decision precludes similar claims under the ATS. For example in Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., plaintiffs alleged that Chevron aided and abetted Nigerian government security forces in committing certain human rights abuses. In addition to claims under the ATS, plaintiffs alleged assault, battery, negligence, and civil conspiracy claims under California and Nigerian law, relying on diversity and supplemental jurisdiction. After a five-week trial, the jury returned a complete defense victory for Chevron, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.4

Even when a U.S. court does assert jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims (whether under the ATS or under diversity or supplemental jurisdiction), defendants can raise a number of other defenses:

Personal Jurisdiction. Because so-called "specific" personal jurisdiction is typically unavailable for claims arising from overseas conduct, plaintiffs have often relied on "general" personal jurisdiction, which subjects a corporation to suit on claims unrelated to the forum state when it has sufficiently "continuous and systematic" contacts with the state. The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of such jurisdiction in its 2011 decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, which restricted general jurisdiction over corporations to states in which their contacts "are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State."5 Under this standard, it should not be possible to assert general jurisdiction over a non-U.S. corporation in a U.S. forum. Even as to U.S. corporations, this standard may provide an effective weapon against being subjected to suit in unfavorable jurisdictions.

The Court will likely expand on its Goodyear decision (and possibly Kiobel as well) in DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, in which the Court granted certiorari on April 22, 2013.6 DaimlerChrysler, a German company, was sued for alleged human rights violations by its Argentine subsidiary. The jurisdictional basis for suing in the U.S. was that DaimlerChrysler has another subsidiary that sells the company's autos in the U.S. The Supreme Court took the case to address the question whether a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction against a foreign corporation for conduct occurring outside the U.S., based solely on the fact that an indirect subsidiary of the corporation does business in the forum state.

Political Question and Act of State Doctrines. Lawsuits claiming that private corporations are complicit in wrongdoing committed by a foreign state can be just as disruptive of U.S. foreign relations as suits filed directly against the foreign state, because U.S. courts still must sit in judgment of the state's sovereign acts. As a result, defendants often may seek dismissal under the political question doctrine or "act of state" doctrine. For example in Corrie v. Caterpillar, Palestinians who were allegedly injured when the Israeli Defense Force used Caterpillar bulldozers to raze buildings in the West Bank sued Caterpillar, claiming that the company had aided and abetted Israeli human rights violations. The court dismissed the suit under the political question doctrine, concluding "[f]or this court to preclude sales of Caterpillar products to Israel would be to make a foreign policy decision and to impinge directly upon the prerogatives of the executive branch of government." Alternatively, the court dismissed the suit under the act of state doctrine because it would require the court to "judg[e] the validity of a foreign sovereign's official acts ... in a region where diplomacy is delicate and U.S. interests are great."7

Derivative Sovereign Immunity. In some cases, a corporate defendant may be entitled to derivative sovereign immunity. For example, the Fourth Circuit in Butters v. Vance held that a private contractor headquartered in Virginia was entitled to such immunity when it followed the commands of a foreign sovereign employer. As the court explained, "[a]ll sovereigns need flexibility to hire private agents to aid them in conducting their governmental functions.... To abrogate immunity would discourage American companies from entering lawful agreements with foreign governments and from respecting their wishes even as to sovereign acts."8

Forum Non Conveniens. Under the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court may dismiss a case if it determines that a forum in another country is a more appropriate place to hear the case. Courts often grant such motions when foreign plaintiffs file claims against foreign corporations, given that trial of a foreign plaintiff's claims in the United States is likely to be less convenient, and only "a complete absence of due process in the alternative forum" will render the alternative forum inadequate.9

Suits Against Foreign States

Plaintiffs also attempt to circumvent FSIA immunity by suing foreign states directly for their sovereign acts but recasting the action as a commercial dispute. Under the FSIA, certain lawsuits that are "based upon a commercial activity" are not entitled to FSIA immunity. The term "commercial activity" is defined narrowly: a foreign state "engages in commercial activity ... where it exercises only those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens, as distinct from those powers peculiar to sovereigns."10

Foreign states thus can often successfully argue that their conduct was not commercial activity. For example, in Best Medical, plaintiffs claimed that the Belgian government had failed to deliver various investment subsidies and other incentives that it had allegedly promised the plaintiffs. Jones Day argued, and the court agreed, that promoting commerce and awarding government subsidies "are not ... commercial activit[ies] available to private parties." Because the FSIA's commercial activity exception did not apply, the court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Again, even when a plaintiff does successfully argue that an exception to FSIA immunity applies, foreign states may also be able to seek dismissal on grounds of act of state, political question, or forum non conveniens, as discussed above.

Suits Against Foreign Officials

Another strategy plaintiffs frequently use to circumvent FSIA immunity is to sue the foreign officials who allegedly committed or ordered the act in question, rather than the foreign state. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Samantar v. Yousuf,11 this strategy was generally unsuccessful because most courts held that foreign officials were entitled to FSIA immunity. But in Samantar, the Court concluded that the FSIA does not govern foreign officials' entitlement to immunity.

Foreign officials are, however, still entitled to common law sovereign immunity. In particular, a foreign official is entitled to sovereign immunity with respect to acts performed in his official capacity if the effect of exercising jurisdiction would be to enforce a rule of law against the state. An individual acts in his official capacity when he acts within the scope of his official duties. And a suit enforces "a rule of law against the state" when the lawsuit would require the court to sit in judgment of the propriety of the state's sovereign acts. Therefore, consistent with these principles, a foreign official is entitled to broad protection from liability in U.S. courts for actions taken on behalf of a foreign sovereign.

Even if a foreign official is not entitled to common law sovereign immunity, he may still be able to assert one or more other defenses. Because plaintiffs cannot sue foreign officials under the FSIA, they typically must proceed under the ATS, which as discussed above has a limited scope of jurisdiction. And foreign officials may also assert the act of state and political question doctrines, as well as forum non conveniens, discussed above. For example in Best Medical, Jones Day successfully argued that the act of state doctrine barred claims against three officers of a Belgian court. As the Court explained, "[t]he act of state doctrine limits the power of the United States courts to examine and impugn the acts of another sovereign.... As a result, United States courts cannot entertain a suit arising from acts taken by a state official on behalf of that state." Finally, foreign officials may seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Footnotes

1. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 10-1491, 2013 WL 1628935 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2013). Jones Day filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in the case, on behalf of a group of professors of international law and federal jurisdiction.

2. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3. Best Medical Belgium, Inc. v. Kingdom of Belgium, 2012 WL 6651976 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2012). Jones Day represented the defendants in this case and successfully obtained dismissal of all claims against them.

4. Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2010). Jones Day successfully defended Chevron in this case.

5. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011). Jones Day represented Goodyear before the Supreme Court and successfully obtained reversal of the lower court's judgment.

6. DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965 (Apr. 22, 2013).

7. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (W.D. Wash. 2005), aff'd, 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007).

8. Butters v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 225 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2000).

9. Tang v. Synutra Int'l, Inc., 2010 WL 1375373 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2010), aff'd, 656 F.3d 242 (4th Cir 2011).

10. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 360 (1993) (emphasis added).

11. Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010). Jones Day represented the defendant in this case before the Supreme Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions