In re South African Apartheid Litigation
| 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). |
| Citation | 617 F.Supp.2d 228 |
| 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. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
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.
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.
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stensrud v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 6:19-CV-06753 EAW
...of the complaint." Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros. , 774 F.3d 791, 798 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) ; see In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig. , 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (an exception to the rule that an affirmative defense cannot normally be decided on a motion to dismiss "is mad......
-
John Doe v. Exxin Mobil Corp., 09-7125
...and filed letters with the district court and the Second Circuit urging that the claims go forward. In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Following a later ruling by the district court, the Justice Minister of South Africa wrote the district court that in......
-
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Arcapita Bank B.S.C. v. Bahr. Islamic Bank (In re Arcapita Bank B.S.C.)
...that international comity conflates two distinct doctrines. See Maxwell II , 93 F.3d at 1047 ; S. African Apartheid Litig. v. Daimler AG , 617 F.Supp.2d 228, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The first—often referred to as legislative or prescriptive comity—is "a canon of construction" which serves to "......
-
Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc.
...curiam opinion,” as involving “unique concerns pertaining to piggybacking employment discrimination claims,” In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F.Supp.2d 228, 290 (S.D.N.Y.2009), and several courts in this Circuit have instead followed the reasoning of District Judge Jack B. Weinstein i......
-
A realist defense of the Alien Tort Statute.
...against Daimler, Ford, General Motors, IBM, and Rheinmetall Group. See Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG (In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig.), 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 296 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). (235.) See Khulumani, 504 F.3d at 255. (236.) See, e.g., John B. Bellinger III, The U.S. Can't Be the World's Court, Wall......
-
Solving the Settlement Puzzle in Human Rights Litigation
...L. REV. 30 (2011). 119. Khulumani v. Nat’l Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007); s ee, e.g. , In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 120. Order Approving Agreement Resolving Proofs of Claim Nos. 1206, 7587, and 10162, In re Motors Liquidated Company, Case No.......
-
The Alien Tort Statute and Corporate Liability: Rebutting the Extraterritorial Presumption Post-kiobel
...even though their conduct was criminal in nature and only incidentally authorized by the employer); In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (allowing a suit to proceed under agency theory of respondeat superior under which a corporation was held liable for t......
-
The Conundrum of Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute
...At a trial of that claim, the jury returned a verdict for Drummond. . . . We affirm."). 15. See, e.g., In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("On at least nine separate occasions, the Second Circuit has addressed [ATS] cases against corporations without ev......