15 Mar Exxon, the Alien Tort Claims Act, and Indonesia (Updated)
Exxon has lost its bid to dismiss an alien tort statute lawsuit alleging it is liable for human rights abuses committed by Indonesian troops using its facilities in Indonesia. (thanks to Pointoflaw for the tip).
I can’t seem to find the district court opinion online, but it should set up an important test case for all corporate Alien Tort statute claims. The U.S. government’s foreign policy views were rejected here and the theory of indirect liability for actions of a foreign government was accepted as a basis for the lawsuit. A similar case was settled by Unocal last year, but it sounds like Exxon is going to fight this lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: I originally posted about the AP report on the Exxon case without looking at the actual court decision. Having done so now, I think the AP report is a bit inaccurate or my reading of it was not correct. The latest decision (here) is from March 2, but it doesn’t seem to address the ATS issues, but rather deals with some interesting questions of whether U.S. state law or Indonesian law would apply. The ATS part of the decision was apparently from last fall and the ATS claims were dismissed, but the (U.S.) state law claims are going forward. Sorry for the confusion.
I had just finished reading the District Court decision (Doe v. Exxon 393 F.Supp.2nd 20 DDC 2005) when I read your blog.
The Court said in relevant part:
o claims under Alien Tort Claims Statute
• Aiding and abetting is not enough to establish liability under the Alien Tort Claims Statute
• Genocide – “assessing whether Exxon is liable for these international law violations would be an impermissible intrusion in Indonesia’s internal affairs”
• Torture: – “basing liability for Alien Tort Statute violations on color of law jurisprudence is a similar overreach… To determine joint action would require judicial inquiry into precisely what the two parties agreed to do. For reasons explained above, such an inquiry cuts too close to adjudicating the actions of the Indonesian government, and for that independent reason, should be avoided on justiciability grounds…”
o Even if “individual” could be construed to mean “corporation,” plaintiffs face a larger problem. By the clear language of the Torture Act, a party must act “under actual or apparent authority, or color of law” to be liable
o Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute, then there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the international law claims as well.
o State law tort claims
• Defendant claim: “Adjudicating the liability of an entity owned by the Indonesian government would create a significant risk of interfering in Indonesian affairs and thus U.S. foreign policy concerns.” denied
• Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss this action in favor of litigation in Indonesia as the more convenient forum.
o Personal jurisdiction: “Where affiliated parties are alter egos of a corporation over which the Court has personal jurisdiction . . . the corporation’s contacts may be attributed to the affiliated party for jurisdictional purposes”