In re South African Apartheid Litigation

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: Shira A. Scheindlin
• Citation: In re South African Apartheid Litigation, 617 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D. N.Y. 2009)
• Decision Date: 08 April 2009
• Docket Number: No. 02 Civ. 6218(SAS).,No. 03 Civ. 1024(SAS).,No. 02 Civ. 4712(SAS).,No. 03 Civ. 4524(SAS).,No. 02 MDL 1499(SAS).,02 MDL 1499(SAS).,02 Civ. 4712(SAS).,02 Civ. 6218(SAS).,03 Civ. 1024(SAS).,03 Civ. 4524(SAS).
• Parties: In re SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daimler AG, et al., Defendants. Khulumani, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barclays National Bank Ltd., et al., Defendants.

Page 228

617 F.Supp.2d 228

In re SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION.

This Document Relates to:

Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daimler AG, et al., Defendants.

Khulumani, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barclays National Bank Ltd., et al., Defendants.

No. 02 MDL 1499(SAS).

No. 02 Civ. 4712(SAS).

No. 02 Civ. 6218(SAS).

No. 03 Civ. 1024(SAS).

No. 03 Civ. 4524(SAS).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 8, 2009.

Opinion Denying Reconsideration May 27, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jay J. Rice, Esq., Diane E. Sammons, Esq., Nagel Rice LLP, Roseland, NJ, Tyler R. Giannini, Esq., International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, Helen I. Zeldes, Esq., Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP, San Diego, CA, Medi Mokuena, Esq., Mokuena Attorneys, Republic of South Africa, John Sindiso Ngcebetsha, Esq., Gugulethu Oscar Madlanga, Esq., Ngcebetsha Madlanga Attorneys, Republic of South Africa, Paul L. Hoffman, Esq., Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Venice, CA, Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq., Law Offices of Judith Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA, Michael Francis Osborne, Esq., Republic of South Africa, Dumisa Buhle Ntsebeza, Esq., Duma Nokwe Group of Advocates, Fountain Chambers, Republic of South Africa, for Plaintiffs Ntsebeza et al.

Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq., Hausfeld LLP, Washington, DC, Charles Peter Abrahams, Esq., Abrahams Kiewitz, Republic of South Africa, Matt Schultz, Esq., Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Proctor, P.A., Pensacola, FL, Steig D. Olson, Esq., Hausfeld LLP, New York, NY, Robert G. Kerrigan, Esq., Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod, LLP, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiffs Khulumani et al.

Francis P. Barron, Esq., Ronald S. Rolfe, Esq., David Greenwald, Esq., Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant UBS A.G.

Keith R. Hummel, Esq., Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, for

Defendant International Business Machines Corp.

Jayant W. Tambe, Esq., Robert S. Walker, Esq., Jones Day, New York, NY, for Defendant General Motors Corp.

Marc J. Gottridge, Esq., Lovells LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Barclays Bank PLC.

Mark D. McPherson, Esq., Michael Gerard, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Fujitsu Limited.

John H. Beisner, Esq., O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Ford Motor Company.

Jerome S. Hirsch, Esq., Susan L. Saltzstein, Esq., Skadden, Arps, State, Meagher & Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY, for Defendant Daimler A.G.

OPINION & ORDER

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION........................................................240
                II. BACKGROUND.........................................................241
                    A. Core Allegations................................................241
                    B. Procedural Background ..........................................243
                III. LEGAL STANDARDS...................................................245
                     A. Motion to Dismiss..............................................245
                     B. The Alien Tort Claims Act......................................245
                IV. EXTRATERRITORIALITY................................................246
                V. RECOGNIZED TORTS....................................................247
                    A. Applicable Law..................................................248
                       1. Recognition of Torts Under the Law of Nations................248
                       2. Corporate Liability..........................................250
                   B. Discussion.......................................................250
                      1. Apartheid by a Non-State Actor................................250
                      2. Arbitrary Denationalization by a State Actor..................252
                      3. Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment........................253
                      4. Corporate Liability...........................................254
                VI. SECONDARY LIABILITY STANDARDS......................................255
                    A. Source of Law...................................................255
                    B. Aiding and Abetting.............................................257
                       1. Actus Reus...................................................257
                       2. Mens Rea.....................................................259
                    C. Conspiracy .....................................................263
                VII. SPECIFIC AIDING AND ABETTING CLAIMS...............................263
                     A. The Ntsebeza Complaint.........................................263
                        1. The Automotive Defendants...................................264
                        2. International Business Machines Corporation.................265
                        3. Barclays Bank PLC...........................................266
                     B. The Khulumani Complaint........................................266
                        1. Automotive Defendants.......................................266
                        2. The Technology Defendants...................................268
                        3. Banking Defendants..........................................269
                        4. Rheinmetall Group A.G.......................................269
                

VIII. ALTER-EGO AND AGENCY.............................................270
                      A. Applicable Law................................................270
                         1. Piercing the Corporate Veil................................271
                         2. Corporate Agency...........................................272
                     B. Discussion.....................................................273
                        1. Piercing the Corporate Veil.................................274
                        2. Corporate Agency............................................274
                IX. PRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES...............................................276
                     A. Factual Background ............................................276
                        1. United States Government Statements.........................276
                        2. South African Government Statements.........................277
                        3. Statements by TRC Commissioners.............................278
                    B. Applicable Law..................................................280
                       1. Case-Specific Deference......................................280
                       2. Political Question Doctrine..................................281
                       3. International Comity.........................................282
                    C. Discussion......................................................283
                       1. Political Question...........................................283
                       2. Comity ......................................................285
                    D. Re-Soliciting Governmental Views................................286
                X. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS..............................................286
                   A. Applicable Law...................................................287
                      1. Equitable Tolling.............................................287
                      2. Relation Back.................................................289
                      3. American Pipe Tolling.........................................290
                   B. Discussion.......................................................291
                      1. Equitable Tolling.............................................291
                      2. Relation Back and American Pipe Tolling.......................291
                XI. STANDING...........................................................293
                    A. Applicable Law..................................................293
                    B. Discussion......................................................295
                XII. CONCLUSION........................................................296
                

The truth about apartheid—about its causes and effects ... about who was responsible for its maintenance—continue to emerge. This litigation is one element of that emergence.

— Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa¹

I. INTRODUCTION

Two actions brought on behalf of massive classes of South Africans ("plaintiffs") assert that several multinational corporations ("defendants") aided and abetted torts in violation of customary international law. Plaintiffs claim jurisdiction in United States courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act ("ATCA").² These lawsuits address the obligations of corporations under the law of nations, the role of American courts in enforcing universal norms of international law, and the legacy of South African apartheid.

After more than six years of litigation, defendants have filed a second consolidated motion to dismiss these actions in their entirety. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to re-solicit the views of the Governments of the United States and South Africa concerning this litigation. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' motion to re-solicit the views of the governments is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Core Allegations

The crimes of the apartheid regime that governed South Africa from 1948 to 1994 are well documented.³ Beginning in the late 1940s, the South African Government instituted a separation of the races, starting with classification⁴ and anti-miscegenation laws⁵ and proceeding swiftly to geographic segregation.⁶ In 1951, passage of the Bantu Authorities Act created "homelands" that were eventually labeled distinct nations.⁷ Black South Africans were forcibly removed to bantustans created by this Act then stripped of their South African citizenship.⁸ Resistance to these policies led to violent state repression beginning with the Sharpesville Massacre of March 21, 1960, continuing through the Soweto Uprising of 1976 and conflicts between the apartheid government and resisters that stretched through the 1980s.⁹ Moreover economic,¹⁰ political,¹¹ and educational¹² aspects of apartheid led to the full-scale disenfranchisement and marginalization of the majority of the South African population. Plaintiffs allege that defendants—through both their...