Trials & Litigation
Apartheid Claims Against U.S. Cos Go Forward, But Narrowed
Posted Apr 9, 2009 5:37 AM CST
By Molly McDonough
A long-running case testing whether multinational companies should be held liable for human rights abuses under South Africa's apartheid regime gained momentum Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin of Manhattan allowed some claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act of aiding and abetting the apartheid government to proceed against companies including General Motors, Ford, and IBM, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and New York Law Journal report.
But the judge significantly narrowed the claims.
In the 135-page ruling, Scheindlin said the alleged acts don't give plaintiffs the right to sue for "breadth of harms" committed under apartheid. She also dismissed claims seeking direct liability for the tort of apartheid.
"Although the establishment of state-sponsored Apartheid and the commission of inhumane acts needed to sustain such a system is indisputably a tort under customary international law," Scheindlin said, "the international legal system has not thus far definitively established liability for non-state actors who follow or even further state-sponsored racial oppression."
The 10 grouped lawsuits against more than 50 U.S. and foreign corporations seek more than $400 billion in damages. The New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the suit could proceed under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Mahmood, Durban
Apr 10, 2009 3:44 PM CST
Clearly, these claims are an abuse of the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act and should have been nipped in the bud at the first hearing. They are an embarrassment this democracy-wannabee cannot defend concurrently with bribery, corruption, crime, collapsing infrastructure, maladministration, and a crony system of appointments to office and for procurement, amongst others. Simply - a failed state.
At least the team representing the plaintiffs would, for as long as it pursues this case, be assured of a job.
The plaintiffs, to a large degree, represent the psyche of Safrican masses - they will for a long time still feel vindictive and expect the world to feel sorry for them. They would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces than embrace the post-94 era to take the country to new heights.
Should they now pursue certain-language speakers too - their languages were, after all, instrumental in aiding the Apartheid system. Can we then resolve to lay waste this land so the like-minded masses can start afresh? How far back should the hands of time be turned back?
Did the plaintiffs not benefit an iota from colonialism? Ink, paper, telephone, email, internet, et cetera, et cetera? So what’s the fuss about?
Oh - they should not have been colonialised!? Tough, man, it happened - so get over it!
Or is this an easy way to get some money, the plaintiffs were lead to believe?
Flag this comment
Nicholas
Apr 20, 2009 5:19 PM CST
I’ve become accustomed to this suit at no interest of my own. The query continues! Why would these Corporations get connected in this manner. Has this been a mater of policy for decades that all of asudden it grows news worthy?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.