Mokhiber Corp Crime Reporter
---
russel mok
greenpeace Goes to Trial in North Dakota to Defend Against Energy Transfer SLAPP Suit
:{By Editor Filed in Uncategorized February 13th, 2025
On February 24, 2025, Greenpeace USA is scheduled to go to trial in state court in Mandan, North Dakota. Greenpeace is being sued by Energy Transfer – the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline – for nearly $300 million related to the 2016 protests at Standing Rock.
Deepa Padmanabha
The stakes are high, and not just for Greenpeace USA as an organization. This trial is testing out legal tactics that, if successful, could be widely applied against protesters, and indeed, anyone who speaks out or criticizes a deep-pocketed corporation.
The lawsuit filed against Greenpeace has been called a SLAPP suit – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
We rang up Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal advisor to Greenpeace USA, to get some details on the lawsuit and upcoming trial.
What are the allegations of the lawsuit?
“Both sides have said this is likely the biggest case ever in the history of the North Dakota state courts,” Padmanabha toldCorporate Crime Reporterin an interview last week. “It’s three buckets of claims. The first bucket of claims are claims of defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that the Greenpeace entities made false statements. And those false statements caused damages. In the state case, we originally started out with over 80 statements that Energy Transfer alleged were defamatory. And now we are down to nine.”
“Those nine statements fall into three categories. The first category of statements are statements that we made that the Dakota Access Pipeline crosses Standing Rock Sioux tribal ancestral lands.”
“The second category are statements that Energy Transfer deliberately desecrated Standing Rock Sioux tribe cultural resources.”
“And the third category of statements are statements that we made that Energy Transfer and its contractors used excessive force against peaceful protestors.”
“The important thing to note here is that by the time Greenpeace entities made any of these statements that are at issue, these were statements that were already widely circulated in the public. Anybody familiar with the resistance at Standing Rock had heard these statements. These were not statements that Greenpeace invented.”
“Yet Energy Transfer is suing the Greenpeace entities for these statements.”
“That’s the first bucket of claims. The second bucket of claims are claims of tortious interference. They are related to defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace made these alleged false statements to financial institutions – institutions that were involved with financing the Dakota Access Pipeline. And the allegation is that based on those statements, the financial institutions took action that cost Energy Transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in damages – lost financing, financing costs from delays.”
“We know that many of these financial institutions had their own commitments. They did their own due diligence to understand what was happening with the Dakota Access Pipeline. In fact, no bank or financial institution made any decision based on a Greenpeace statement.”
“That’s the second bucket of claims. The third bucket of claims are on the ground claims such as trespass, conversion, and aiding and abetting. This is a bucket that is quite dangerous for the movement. These claims make it clear that Energy Transfer’s target is much bigger than Greenpeace. It really is an attack on our First Amendment rights.”
“What they are trying to do is create this idea of collective protest liability where if you have any involvement with, for example, training at a protest, you can be held accountable for anything that happens there by unknown people.”
“For example, if you are engaged in training in principles of non-violence, de-escalation, principles of safety, you can be held accountable for the actions of unknown protesters who, for example, destroy construction equipment. This idea is dangerous – that you can be held accountable for anything that happens by unknown people, especially at a time when we know that many protests are being infiltrated.”
“And you can imagine that this would have a serious chilling effect on anybody who wants to engage in protests. This idea that you can be held accountable for anything that happens is quite a dangerous one. It’s very clear that Energy Transfer – and the larger fossil fuel industry – is trying to send a message to everybody – watch out, you could be next.”
This lawsuit has been going on for eight years. Have there been any settlement talks?
“I can’t get into too much detail about that. But I will say that we are prepared to go to trial, and we are expecting to go to trial. It’s very important for us that no matter the outcome of this lawsuit, our decisions will be in line with our values and our principles and our commitments to our own indigenous peoples policies.”
There have been public reports about settlement talks in this lawsuit. And last year, Greenpeace settled with Shell Oil over another lawsuit. Did you work on that lawsuit?
“That was not Greenpeace USA. That was Greenpeace UK.”
Greenpeace UK agreed to pay something like $375,000 to settle that lawsuit. What are the odds this case will actually go to trial?
“As of now, we are fully prepared to go to trial. Trial is in three weeks. That’s where we are headed.”
Will you be in court at trial?
“Yes.”
You say this is a SLAPP suit. What is that?
“SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. At their core, they are attacking First Amendment protected behavior. You look at the parties. It’s often activists, non-profit organizations, journalists, even concerned citizens who are speaking out about a matter of public concern.”
“In this instance, the concerns about the Dakota Access Pipeline, its routing and risks were absolutely a matter of public concern.”
“What is the nature of the activity targeted? Often the activity is First Amendment protected activity, such as free speech or non-violent protest. These lawsuits are often disguised as defamation lawsuits. That is very much the case here where many of the claims at issue are defamation claims.”
“The other issue is peaceful protest. Any involvement we had on the ground was 100 percent in line with our 50 plus year history of nonviolent direct action, bearing witness, and no property damage.”
“Another tell-tale sign of a SLAPP lawsuit is the power imbalance between the parties. To Energy Transfer, this lawsuit is just a drop in the bucket for them. But for Greenpeace, it represents a significant financial investment to put on this kind of defense.”
“Another tell-tale sign – the amount of damages. Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million. SLAPP suits have these huge damage claims to send a message. Even if they lack the evidence to support such a damage claim, which is absolutely the case here, just by making the allegation, it can have a chilling effect on anyone watching the case.”
“These corporations use the litigation process as punishment. This has been eight years. The first case was thrown out of federal court. But they kept the fight going.”
“When they filed the federal court action, they already had the green light to construct the Dakota Access Pipeline. It was constructed. So why would you still use the litigation process?”
“Because they know these kinds of lawsuits take years and years and years. You put a stress and burden on the powerful voice they are trying to shut down.”
“Even though it’s only the Greenpeace entities that have been served in this case, there have been a number of third party subpoenas. There have been wild attempts to draw in smaller groups and individuals into this lawsuit – not as named defendants, but to instill a sense of fear that they too are being watched.”
“As someone who has been involved in SLAPP lawsuits for a long time, this case hits every single aspect.”
The Wall Street Journal published an article last year titled – The Texas Billionaire Who Has Greenpeace USA on the Verge of Bankruptcy. That billionaire is Kelcy Warren. What did you make of that article?
“One of the most interesting points of that article was toward the end. The journalist wrote this: ‘The lawsuit poses its own risks for Warren. Some oil-and-gas investors expressed concerns about the claim, saying it makes the industry look vindictive and could result in a reinvigorated protest movement.’”
“Basically, some investors are concerned about a backlash. That is the truth. This lawsuit has galvanized the movement in a powerful way. Greenpeace is getting support from so many allies, allies we have never worked with before. They are now watching this case because they realize the implications this case could have.”
“There is what happens in court, but there is what happens outside the court. And corporations need to take the possible backlash into account. You could reinvigorate a movement. People have really come together to fight back against this kind of abuse of power.”
Were you able over the years to depose Energy Transfer executives, including the CEO Kelcy Warren?
“There were over 100 depositions in this case – Greenpeace employees, third parties, Energy Transfer contractors and Energy Transfer employees, including Kelcy Warren.”
Is the Kelcy Warren deposition public?
“I don’t know if that deposition is publicly available. There is quite a bit in this case that is subject to a protective order.”
Greenpeace wasn’t at the forefront of these protests. The native Americans groups were at the forefront of these protests.
“That is accurate. Greenpeace entities had limited involvement and that was intentional. This was not a Greenpeace campaign. This was a grassroots indigenous resistance. Greenpeace supported it by being an ally. Greenpeace supported the indigenous resistance in a very, very limited way.”
“Energy Transfer is trying to rewrite history. The first question I always get from people involved was – did Greenpeace have any involvement at Standing Rock? I had never heard about Greenpeace being involved. Greenpeace was really not involved.”
“Greenpeace was known for its big, bold campaigns. And that was not the case here.”
There were other major public interest groups who supported the resistance at Standing Rock. Why did Greenpeace get sued by Energy Transfer and not the other groups?
“Let’s go back to the first case that was dismissed, the RICO case. That was the second RICO case brought by the same law firm in back to back years. One of the lawyers made public statements and he was basically shopping this tactic around. There was this idea that civil RICO would be the new tactic used to go against advocacy groups.”
“Why Greenpeace? We are known for bearing witness, taking big, bold actions and not being intimidated. The idea was – if we can knock out Greenpeace, if we can scare them, then who else is going to step into their shoes? Who else will take on this level of risk?”
“We recognize that intention. And that also speaks to why we have been fighting the case the way we have been. We have been fighting this case for the movement. We know that the intent is to reach beyond the Greenpeace entities. And we take that fight seriously.”
---
no lnx see below
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/?s=raymond+james
Corporate Crime Reporter
NPR and the Corporate Criminal Element
By Editor Filed in Uncategorized October 21st, 2020 @ 1:49 pm
Ever wonder why you rarely hear serious discussion on National Public Radio (NPR) about corporate crime and violence?
pix John Lansing
CEO NPR]
For a hint as to why, pick up the most recent NPR annual report, and flip through the listing of corporate criminals and other major recidivist law violators on the corporate sponsor page.
ExxonMobil (guilty plea Exxon Valdez oil spill), Lumber Liquidators (guilty plea environmental crimes), Panasonic (guilty pleas antitrust crimes) and Tyson Foods (guilty plea clean water violations).
ExxonMobil, Lumber Liquidators, Panasonic, Tyson Foods — those are just some of the major corporate donors to NPR that have pled guilty to crimes.
And then there are many more major corporations on the NPR sponsors list that settle serious criminal charges with the watered down deferred and non prosecution agreements.
And then there are those major companies that settle major False Claims Act and other charges of major law violations with multi-million civil settlements.
Suffice it to say that the corporate criminal element has infused NPR with millions of dollars of donations....
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/
2021 grab
- Guillaume Coudray on the Nitro Meat Cancer Connection
- Marianne Karth Wants Biden to Move to Prevent Traffic Violence
- Diane Archer on the Medicare Advantage Racket
- Carey Gillam on Monsanto Roundup and One Man’s Search for Justice
- Dingell and Jayapal on Single Payer Unity and the Foundationals
- The Top 100 Corporate Crime Movies
- Winston & Strawn Partner Susannah Torpey on Antitrust Enforcement under Biden
- On Boeing FAA Christianity Sin and Society
- Kay Tillow on the Downside of Medicare Advantage and the Upside of Single Payer
- :{King & Spalding :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:Partner Dixie Johnson on Internal Investigations SEC Whistleblowing and Self Reporting
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/the-top-100-corporate-crime-movies/
... 2006, Corporate Crime Reporter compiled the first ever list of corporate crime movies and published the Top 50 Corporate Crime Movies, 17 of which were documentaries.
Back by popular demand, last week, Corporate Crime Reporter released the Top 100 Corporate Crime Movies, 39 of which are documentaries.
“We took nominations from corporate crime experts around the country,” said Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter. “And we pared down the list from about 150 nominees. Surely, we have left out some great movies about corporate crime. But if you want to get started and get a bird’s eye view of how movie makers have treated corporate crime, corporate violence and corporate power over the years, this list is a good place to start.”
Top 100 Corporate Crime Movies
Act of Vengeance (1986) (Charles Bronson as UMW Leader Jock Yablonski)
American Dream (1991) (Workers vs. Hormel)*
American Factory (2019) (Outsource This)*
An Injury to One (2002) (Butte, Montana vs. Anaconda Mining)*
Barbarians At the Gate (1993) (Corporate greed, ‘80s style)
Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain (2013) (Martin Sheen as Union Carbide CEO)
The Big Short (2015) (Wall Street crime spree)
Blue Gold (2008) (Corporate theft of water)*
Blue Vinyl (2002) (Toxic PVC)*
Bread and Roses (2000) (Los Angeles Janitors)
Boiler Room (2000) (Pump and dump)
Bulworth (1998) (Beatty vs. corporate corruption)
Capital (2012) (Money is the Master)
Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) (Corporations v. Public Good)* moore https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232207/ free on imdb 5/21Tubi
Casino Jack (2010) (Lobbyists in the Swamp)
Chernobyl (2019) (HBO miniseries)
The China Hustle (2017) (Geopolitical fraudsters)*
The China Syndrome (1979) (Nuclear near meltdown)
A Civil Action (1989) (Leukemia in Woburn) vudu 4$
Class Action (1991) (Unsafe automobiles)
The Constant Gardener (2005) (Big pharma)
Coma (1978) (Hospital nightmare)
Corporate.FM (2012) (Take over of independent radio)*
The Corporation (2004) (The big picture)*
The Creepy Line (2018) (Google says it won’t cross it)*
Dark Waters (2019) (DuPont in West Virginia)
Deepwater Horizon (BP Blowout)
The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) (Eddie Murphy, power lines and cancer clusters)
The Dogs of War (1981) (Corporate mercenaries overthrow dictator)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005) (Fraud)*
:{
}:
Erin Brockovich (2000) (Water pollution and illness)
Fair Fight in the Marketplace (2007) (Nuts and bolts of antitrust)*
The Firm (1993) (Corporate crime at Big Law)
The Formula (1980) (Oil company snuffs out people in the know)
Fun with Dick & Jane (2005) (Jim Carrey meets Enron)
Harlan County USA (1976) (Mining industry vs. workers)
Hot Coffee (2011) (Burned at McDonald’s)*
How Green Was My Valley (1941) (Welsh miners)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) (Investigative reporter digs dirt)
The Informant (2009) (ADM price fix)
The Insider (1999) (Tobacco whistleblower)
:{
}:
Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley (2019) (Alex Gibney on the rise and fall of Theranos)* h bo max 521https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-inventor-out-for-blood-in-silicon-valley
Iraq for Sale (2006) (Robert Greenwald on the war profiteers)*
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) (George Bailey takes on Mr. Potter)
The Laundromat (2019) (Money takes a bath)
Libby, Montana (2004) (W.R. Grace contaminates a community)*
Living With the Spill (1991) (Exxon Valdez)*
Lord of War (2005) (Arms industry)
McLibel (2005) (Up against McDonald’s)*
Made in Dagenham (2010) (Women Strike at Ford Plant UK)
Manchurian Candidate (2004) (Corporate puppet in the White House?)
Manufacturing Consent (1992) (Chomsky on corporate power)*
Matewan (1987) (Coal industry)
Merchants of Doubt (2014)(Corporate deception writ large)*
Michael Clayton (2007) (Big law corporate crime)
Minamata (2020) (Johnny Depp and Mercury Poisoning in Japan)
The Molly Maguires (1970)(Sean Connery leads the union in battle with mine companies)
Norma Rae (1979) (Sally Field in textile factory fight)
Network (1976) (Big corporate media)
The New Corporation (2020) (How good corporations are bad for democracy)
2/21 ca commwlth club Our panel—Joel Bakan, Jennifer Abbot, Elizabeth Davis and Kevin McGarry
[aug 2020 R reich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npp2G3EzNR4
:{
}:
:{
https://www.doclands.com/new-corporation/
AVAILABLE IN CALIFORNIA ONLY
AVAILABLE 48 HOURS ONLY
THURSDAY, MAY 13 • 7PM PST - SATURDAY, MAY 15 • 7PM PST
Boasting a wide panel of experts and activists including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Angela Davis, Anand Giridharadas, and congresswoman Katie Porter,
https://tickets.cafilm.org/websales/pages/info.aspx?evtinfo=694170~42fed8e8-9a5b-4da3-8c74-ce85c0182cff&epguid=344c8ca5-354f-4e83-b390-456def533c27&
10$
}:
The Organizer (1963) (Mastrianni organizes a textile factory)
Pajama Game (1957) (Doris Day organizing in a pajama factory)
Park Avenue (2012) (Money Power and the American Dream)*
Other People’s Money (1991) (Corporate raider vs. family business)
The Parallax View (1974) (Corporate assassinations)
Planet of the Humans (2019) (Non profit industrial complex)*
Poletown Lives! (1980) (GM tears down a neighborhood)*
Pootie Tang (2001) (A CEO who wants kids to smoke, drink and eat fast food.)
Power Trip (2004) (An American power company in Tbilisi)*
The Price We Pay (2014) (Offshore havens killing the middle class)*
Private Warriors (Private military contractor industry)*
Promised Land (2012) (Matt Damon in frack land)
Putney Swope (1969) (Madison Avenue upended)
Quiz Show (1994) (Prime time fraud)
The Rainmaker (1997) (Law firm vs insurance company)
Robocop (1987) (Robo takes on Detroit Inc.)
Roger & Me (1989) (Michael takes on Detroit Inc.)*
Rollerball (1975) (Globocorps divert the masses)
Salt of the Earth (1953) (NM mineworkers stick it to the man)
Sicko (2007) (Corporate crime in health care)*
Silkwood (1983) (Nuclear whistleblower)
The Social Dilemma (Facebook Google Apple from the Inside Out)*
Sorry to Bother You (2015) (Which side is Boots on?)
Super Size Me (2004) (Fast food nation)*
Syriana (2005) (Oil companies dominate)
Taken for a Ride (1996) (Auto, oil company campaign to destroy mass transit)*
Thank You for Smoking (2006) (Big tobacco gets kids to smoke)
13th (2016) (Prison Industrial Complex)*
Tucker (1988) (Trying to build a different car)
The True Cost (2015) (Of your clothes)*
An Unreasonable Man (2006) (Nader v. The Machine)*
The Verdict (1982) (Paul Newman tackles medical malpractice)
Vietnam: The Secret Agent (1983) (Agent Orange disaster)*
Wall Street (1987) (Greed is good)
Walker (1987) (Corporate interests take over Nicaragua)
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005) (Main Street down the tubes)*
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) (Auto, oil companies rip up the tracks)
Who Killed the Electric Car? (2005) (Auto companies)*
Why We Fight (2005) (It’s a cash proposition)*
Wolf of Wall Street (2013) (Corporate crime on the street)
(* documentary)
===
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/torres-spelliscy-on-corporate-citizenship-and-the-argument-for-separation-of-corporation-and-state/
is a corporation a citizen?
Should it be a citizen?
Those are two questions at the center of Ciara Torres-Spelliscy’s new book — Corporate Citizen? The Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State (Carolina Academic Press, 2016).
Torres-Spelliscy is an associate professor of law at the Stetson University College of Law.
Are corporations citizens?
“I don’t think so,” Torres-Spelliscy told Russell Mokhiber of Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week. “The Supreme Court has expanded the constitutional rights of corporations over time. The Court came to various forks in the road where corporate lawyers asserted that corporations had particular constitutional rights. And at each of those junctures, the Court could have said yes or no. If you go back to the early Supreme Court, they first granted corporations coverage of the contracts clause and they also recognized corporate property rights very early on. Another fork in the road was after the Civil War, there was the question whether the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would apply to corporations. The Supreme Court decided that yes — corporations are covered as persons by the equal protection clause.”
“The next big fork in the road is the First Amendment. The Roberts court has been very generous in giving corporations political rights — rights most people think should only attach to a human citizen.”
When you say political rights, you mean what?
“The primary political right is the right to spend money on politics. In 1978, in the Bellotti case,corporations won the right to spend on ballot measures or initiative fights. In 2010, they won the right to spend in candidate elections. That was Citizens United, which held that corporations can spend an unlimited amount of money on political acts in American elections — whether dog catcher all the way up to President.”
When I asked — are corporations citizens? You said — I don’t think so. Are you saying, corporations are not citizens? Or they shouldn’t be citizens?
“The language around corporate citizenship is legally fraught in many dimensions. You can think of this from the perspective of corporate law. As a matter of corporate law, a corporation is a citizen from the state they are incorporated. They are domestic in that state of incorporation.They are foreign in every other state. That’s one sense in which you can think of citizenship.”
“I’m conceiving of citizenship as it applies to human beings. That’s why it’s inappropriate for the Supreme Court to give political rights to corporations. Political rights are given to human beings who were born to American citizens or naturalized. It’s strange to give political rights to corporations, in part because they are artificial beings, they can live forever, and they have advantages that are innate in the corporate form that a human being doesn’t have.”
“The Supreme Court is giving First Amendment rights to corporate entities when it is not appropriate.”
“The other one that drives me up the wall is giving corporations religious rights. In Hobby Lobby, two closely held corporations were granted coverage under a federal statute that protects religious liberty. They haven’t quite gotten to the point where they are making a constitutional ruling on the religious freedom of corporations. But that is the natural next step in litigation. They are saying — not only do we want the statutory protection for religious liberty for corporations, we want the full First Amendment protection as well. I would expect cases coming down the pike to make those arguments as well.”
You don’t think corporations should be citizens.
“Correct.”
And increasingly they are being treated as citizens.
“Yes.”
On the law books, they are citizens, but you don’t think they should be?
“There is a line of cases that arise under thecomity clause. That clause guarantees that a citizen of one state will be treated the same when they go across state lines. A state is not allowed to treat out of staters any worse than it treats its own citizens. This is also known as the privileges and immunities clause.”
“Corporate lawyers tried to get coverage for corporations under the comity clause. In a set of interesting decisions, which have never been overturned, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion thatcorporations are not covered by the comity clause. The Supreme Court said that corporations are not citizens for the purpose of the comity clause.”
“If you are looking at corporations as citizens from a corporate law point of view, you think of them as domesticated in the state where they are incorporated.”
“But there are these comity clause cases from the Supreme Court that say explicitly that corporations are not citizens.”
“Whether they are citizens or not depends on who is asking the question and who is answering.”
Do you believe corporations should be stripped of all citizen rights?
“Corporate personhood is a useful legal fiction when it comes to contract and property rights. It’s actually useful that a corporation, say a university, can own land in the corporate name. If they couldn’t own land in the corporate name, it would require all sorts of transfers of deeds and titles to whoever was on the faculty at a particular time. If you lost a faculty member, you would have to redo the deeds.”
“There is a certain efficiency in having corporations own property in the corporate name. That’s how corporate personhood started. It started in medieval Europe with a Pope who was also a lawyer.That part of corporate rights doesn’t bother me at all. What does bother me are the political and religious rights. Those seems inappropriately granted to corporate entities.”
What about due process?
“Of course, I would want as a matter of the rule of law, whether you are a human being or a corporate entity, the government should use due process of law.”
Whether you are a person or a corporation?
“Correct.”
When I asked you whether a corporation should be a citizen, you said no. You are not saying that. You are saying corporations should have some rights of citizenship, but not others.
“Correct.”
The subtitle of your book is — an argument for the separation of corporation and state. What do you mean by that?
“Part of that is to indicate to the casual bypasser, who might see only the outside of the book, that this was not an argument for corporate citizenship. The basic thesis of my book is that corporations are getting more and more constitutional rights at the very same time that they are being excused from certain responsibilities. This is not going unnoticed. There is enormous push back from lawmakers, investors, consumers and fellow entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs are opting to operate as a benefit corporation.”
“A benefit corporation is a new legal entity.They started in 2010 in Maryland. There are now benefit corporation laws in 31 states. A benefit corporation is one where in the foundational documents, they indicate a public purpose for the corporation in addition to making profits. The advantage of this form is the investors are on notice that the corporation will do something in the public good. It is not purely designed to make a profit. That means that investors can’t sue the board if they use corporate resources in a charitable way that furthers that public purpose.The benefit corporations are a way for corporate law to evolve.”
You say that not only are corporations gaining rights, they are evading responsibilities. For example, they effectively dodge the criminal justice system. But that’s not a function of corporate citizenship. It’s a function of brute corporate power.
“When I teach corporate law, I note that corporations are getting off the hook in these different scenarios — deferred prosecutions, non prosecutions. When I was teaching constitutional law, I saw them sucking up these rights. It’s the combination of these two that I saw as unjust. If we are going to give them these political rights, it would be appropriate to hold them responsible in other areas.”
“The one that drives me up the wall are the human rights cases. The Supreme Court made a couple of rulings recently that essentially are going to have the effect of excusing multinational corporations from answering to human rights abroad in U.S. courts. The rationale so far has been based on the extraterritoriality of U.S. law and whether Congress has been unclear whether they want U.S. law to apply externally.”
“The net effect is that if you are a multinational corporation and you have a subsidiary in Africa, then it’s almost impossible under these rulings to bring that parent company into U.S. court even if they have a significant U.S. parent doing business in the United States. Those human rights rulings make it nearly impossible for a human rights victim, who may be in the United States because they have been granted asylum here, to go after those corporate actors for those bad deeds abroad.”
===