In re South African Apartheid Litigation
| Decision Date | 29 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | MDL No. 03 Civ. 4524(JES).,MDL No. 03 Civ. 1026(JES).,MDL No. 03 Civ. 1024(JES).,MDL No. 02 Civ. 10062(JES).,MDL No. 02 Civ. 4712(JES).,MDL No. 1499(JES).,MDL No. 02 Civ. 6218(JES).,MDL No. 03 Civ. 1023(JES).,MDL No. 03 Civ. 1025(JES). |
| Citation | 346 F.Supp.2d 538 |
| Parties | In re: SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., Defendants. Hermina Digwamaje, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IBM Corporation, et al., Defendants. Frank Brown, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Amdahl Corp., et al., Defendants. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oerlikon Contraves AG, et al., Defendants. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Holcim Ltd., et al., Defendants. Lungisile NTSEBEZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Schindler AG, et al., Defendants. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EMS AG, et al., Defendants. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Defendants. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., 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 |
Fagan & Associates, Short Hills, NJ (Edward D. Fagan, of counsel), for Ntsebeza Plaintiffs.
Nagel Rice Dreifuss & Mazie, Livingston, NJ (Diane E. Sammons, of counsel), for Ntsebeza Plaintiffs.
Law Offices of Paul M. Ngobeni, East Hartford, CT (Paul M. Ngobeni, of counsel), for Digwamaje Plaintiffs.
Law Offices of Kweku J. Hanson, Hartford, CT (Kweku J. Hanson, of counsel), for Digwamaje Plaintiffs.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC (Michael D Hausfeld, Agnieszka M. Fryszman, of counsel), for Khulumani Plaintiffs.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., New York, NY (Linda P. Nussbaum, of counsel), for Khulumani Plaintiffs.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, New York, NY (Ronald S. Rolfe, Francis P. Barron, David Greenwald, of counsel), for Defendant UBS AG.
White & Case LLP, New York, NY (Owen C. Pell, Karen M. Asner, of counsel), for Defendant Citigroup, Inc.
Covington & Burling, Washington, DC (Robert N. Sayler, Donald Ridings, Jr., Sean Reid, of counsel), for Defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.
Shea & Gardner, Washington, DC (Paul R. Friedman, William F. Sheehan, William R. Kirschner, of counsel), for Defendant General Elec. Co.
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, New York, NY (James T. Conlon, of counsel), for Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C., New York, NY (Terry Myers, Anthony A. Dean, Thomas Valen, Jennifer A. Hradil, of counsel), for Defendants Commerzbank AG and Dresdner Bank AG.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY (Evan R. Chesler, of counsel), for Defendant E.I. Dupont de Nemours.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY (Rory O. Millson, of counsel), for Defendant Shell Oil Co.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY (Sandra C. Goldstein, of counsel), for Defendant Xerox Corp.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY (Keith R. Humel, of counsel), for Defendant IBM.
Jones Day, New York, NY (Jayant W. Tambe, Cleveland, OH and Robert S. Walker, of counsel), for Defendant General Motors.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC (Thomas D. Yannucci, P.C., Christopher Landau, Brant W. Bishop, Susan Kearns, of counsel), for Defendant Honeywell Intern., Inc.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY (James W. Quinn, Arvin Maskin, Konrad L. Cailteux, Nina Nagler, of counsel), for Defendant ExxonMobil Corp.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York, NY (Jeffrey Barist, Jeffrey Nagel, of counsel), for Defendant Deutsche Bank AG.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY (Peter C. Hein, Michael A. Charish, of counsel), for Defendant Colgate-Palmolive.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY (Bud Holman, Kevin J. Walsh, Michael C. Lynch, of counsel), for Defendant National Westminster Bank Plc.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC (John H. Beisner, John F. Niblock, of counsel), for Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Dow Chemical Co., and Ford Motor Co.
Lovells, New York, NY (Gary S. Lee, Marc J. Gottridge, of counsel), for Defendant Barclays Bank Plc.
Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Washington, DC (Alan M. Grimaldi, Patricia G. Butler, of counsel), for Defendant Coca-Cola Co.
Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, New York, NY (Joseph P. Cyr, Rae Lindsay, of counsel), for Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY (Frederick T. Davis, of counsel), for Defendant Credit Agricole Indosuez.
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA (Michael J. Holston, John F. Schultz, Kristofor T. Henning, of counsel), for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY (Jerome S. Hirsch, Susan L. Saltzstein, of counsel), for Defendant DaimlerChryler Corp.
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC (Graeme W. Bush, of counsel), for Defendant EMS-Chemie (North America) Inc.
Jones Day, New York, NY (Jayant W. Tambe, San Francisco, CA, Robert A. Mittelstaedt, of counsel), for Defendant ChevronTexaco Corp. and Chevron Texaco Global Energy.
Malaby, Carlisle & Bradley LLC, New York, NY (William J. Mendrzycki, of counsel), for Defendant American Isuzu Motors Inc.
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, New York, NY (Thomas M. Mueller, Michael O. Ware, of counsel), for Defendant Nestlé USA, Inc.
Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC (David J. Cynamon, Alex C. Lakatos, of counsel), for Defendant Holcim (US) Inc.
Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY (Mark P. Ladner, Oliver P. Metzger, of counsel), for Defendant Fujitsu Limited.
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, New York, NY (Roger M. Witten, of counsel), for Defendant Credit Suisse Group.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY, (John L. Warden, Bruce E. Clark, of counsel), for Defendant BP plc.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Three groups of plaintiffs led by Lungisile Ntsebeza ("Ntsebeza plaintiffs"),1 Hermina Digwamaje ("Digwamaje plaintiffs"), and the Khulumani Support Group ("Khulumani plaintiffs") (collectively "plaintiffs"), respectively, filed the above actions in eight federal district courts against a slew of multinational corporations that did business in apartheid South Africa. The actions, which were transferred to this Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, allege, among other things, that defendants violated international law and thus are subject to suit in United States federal district court under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 ("ATCA"), and other jurisdictional provisions.2 Defendants,3 UBS AG, Citigroup, Inc., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., General Electric Co., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Commerzbank AG, Dresdner Bank AG, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Shell Oil Co., Xerox Corp., IBM Corp., General Motors, Honeywell International, Inc., ExxonMobil Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, Colgate-Palmolive Co., National Westminster Bank Plc, Bank of America, N.A., Dow Chemical Co., Ford Motor Co., Barclays Bank Plc, Coca-Cola Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Credit Agricole Indosuez, Hewlett-Packard Co., DaimlerChrysler Corp., EMS-Chemie (North America) Inc., ChevronTexaco Corp., ChevronTexaco Global Energy, American Isuzu Motors, Inc., Nestlé USA, Inc., Holcim (US) Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Credit Suisse Group, and BP Plc ("defendants"), bring this motion to dismiss the complaints, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.4 Because the Court finds that the various Complaints do not sufficiently allege that defendants violated international law, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the ATCA and therefore defendants' motion is granted and plaintiffs' complaints are dismissed.5
According to the allegations set forth in the various complaints,6 the 1948 South African elections witnessed the rise to power of the National Party. Building on laws that restricted the African majority in the country, the National Party erected a system whereby a group of inhabitants who accounted for just fourteen percent of the population completely ruled over the country and controlled all aspects of life. See Khulumani Complaint ("K.Compl.") ¶¶ 140-44, 197. That system — apartheid — shockingly and regrettably reigned supreme over an entire country and its people until just over one decade ago.7
The history of apartheid is one marked by hatred, racism, and inhuman treatment. Fueled by the desire to exact the greatest possible benefit from an African majority that had no official purpose except to "work for [whites]," Digwamaje Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("D.Compl.") ¶ 85, the apartheid regime engaged in practices that were deemed by some as "repugnant to the moral and political values of democratic and free societies," Exec. Order No. 12,532, 50 Fed.Reg. 36,861 (Sept. 9, 1985), and by others as nothing short of "a crime against humanity," International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, November 30, 1973, art. I, 1015 U.N.T.S. 243, 245.
The regime retained a stranglehold on power by enacting a number of laws that all but assured that Africans would remain in a state of near-enslavement. The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 and amendments thereto relegated Africans to certain lands called "bantustans" and restricted their access to all outside urban areas. See K. Compl. ¶¶ 152-57; D. Compl. ¶ ¶ 71-72. In order to simply gain access to these urban areas Africans were required to carry pass books, which contained information as to each person's identity, ethnic group, and employer. See D. Compl. ¶ 79. Once employment was terminated it would be noted on the pass book and the individual would be sent back to life on the bantustan. See id. ¶ 79; K. Compl. ¶¶ 156-57.
Life on the bantustan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, Plc.
...foreign litigation over reparations for apartheid interfered with that nation's domestic development. See In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 346 F.Supp.2d 538, 553 (S.D.N.Y.2004). 16. Failure to exhaust threatens international institutions, not just local ones. Most claims brought under ATCA c......
-
Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
...the Nuremberg trials and the more recent international criminal tribunals as sources of customary international law. But see In re Apartheid, 346 F.Supp.2d at 549-50 (finding that these tribunals are not binding sources of international law). In Sosa, the Supreme Court held that the U.N. Un......
-
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, Plc
...foreign litigation over reparations for apartheid interfered with that nation's domestic development. See In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 346 F.Supp.2d 538, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 16. Failure to exhaust threatens international institutions, not just local ones. Most claims brought under ATCA ......
-
Cross v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
...and abetters on the ground that international law recognized no civil liability for aiding and abetting. See Ntsebeza v. Citigroup, Inc., 346 F.Supp.2d 538, 554 (S.D.N.Y.2004). Although numerous judgments in criminal proceedings had imposed criminal liability for aiding and abetting, the di......
-
A realist defense of the Alien Tort Statute.
...American Hegemony and the Foreign Affairs Constitution, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 87, 95-102 (2009). (11.) See In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom. Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007), af......
-
The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
...corporations). (302) For a description of the multiple complaints initially filed in the cases, see In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). After a dismissal was reversed on appeal, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that drastically narrowed the claim......
-
Johan D. Van Der Vyver, Prosecuting Offenses Against the Law of Nations in the United States
...542 U.S. 692, 720 (2004). 142 Id. 143 Id. at 725. 144 Id. at 732. 145 Id. at 728. 146 In re S. African Apartheid Legislation, 346 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 147 Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 360 (1959); Lopes v. Schroder, 225 F. Supp. 292, 296, 275-95 (1963). 1......
-
Jessica Priselac, the Requirement of State Action in Alien Tort Statute Claims: Does Sosa Matter?
...F. 3d at 1242; Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2005); In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 538, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 126 Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1245. 127 Id. 128 Id. 129 Id. 130 Id. 131 Id. at 1247. 132 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S.......