Comments on: Arguing for Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute, a Bullet Point List

By: Winstanley

Winstanley — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:26:06 +0000

i dont think this is a scam top site mate

By: Peter Weiss

Peter Weiss — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:28:23 +0000

I appreciate this schema for establishing corporate liability, coming as it does from an avowed non-fan of ATS. But a couple of things puzzle me: (1) In the by now fairly extensive ATS jurisprudence, are there any cases applying ATS to things that are not “really bad”? Are torture, disappearance, summary execution not bad enough? If so, what’s being overtaken? (2) You say you are not a fan of corporate liability “in these cases”. What about other cases, like fraud, product liability, tax evasion, deceptive advertising et al? Are those worse than the above mentioned really bad ones?

By: Hikmat

Hikmat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:28:37 +0000

Does anyone know where to find the various amici briefs filed before the Court of Appeals in the Talisman case?

By: Monday Round-up | SCOTUSblog

Monday Round-up | SCOTUSblog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:24:06 +0000

[...] The Volokh Conspiracy, Kenneth Anderson offers six bullet-point approaches to finding corporations liable for misconduct [...]

By: Kenneth Anderson

Kenneth Anderson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:35:05 +0000

Leon: Well, as you can tell from the above, I am not a fan of either corporate liability or secondary liability in these cases – I’m not a fan of the ATS as such, come to that, either – but if you’re looking for something that offers a defense of secondary liability, and has some citations in the comments, see Kevin Jon Heller’s post on the latest Talisman holding at Opinio Juris.

By: Leon

Leon — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:09:36 +0000

Not a suggestion of any sort that would help unpack your question about approaching corporate liability, but I’m trying to do a very short amicus brief in the Khulumani (South Africa apartheid victims) group case against several corporate defendants pending in NY district court. Complicity in specific violations committed during apartheid is the decisive issue and I was wondering if this discussion had any relevance in that case.

By: Luke

Luke — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:46:07 +0000

Yeah, I would. It may be a neat way to get a federal forum, but that is not a reason to misconstrue legislative intent. And yeah, in a lot of cases the federal government might have an interest. In fact, in those cases it clearly looks like they should be non justiciable political questions.

By: Duffy Pratt

Duffy Pratt — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:34:31 +0000

It’s tort liability. Any ATS case could also be brought in a state court. ATS makes a federal forum available where there are international law questions — questions which the federal government might have an interest. Would the people who want dismissals of these ATS cases really prefer to see them adjudicated in the state courts?

By: Luke

Luke — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:09:38 +0000

Imagine that — a jurisdictional statute originally contemplating norms like piracy resurrected over 200 years later to subject pharmaceutical companies to secondary liability. A stretch?