Artikel im Wall Street Journal, 19.Juni 2010, von Jonathan Drimmer (“ The plaintiffs bar goes international and focuses on trashing a corporation’s image.„). Das ist doch einmal eine treffende Beschreibung dessen, was hin und wieder in Wild West Manier in den USA geschieht – ausländische Unternehmen werden von ausländischen Klägern vor den US Kadi gezerrt, und der Richter weiß dann manchmal gar nicht wie ihm geschieht und wie er mit diesen Verfahren unter dem Alien Tort Claims Act (ein solches findet sich auch in diesem Blog am 22.Mai und 15.Juni 2010 betreffend u.a. Rheinmetall) umgehen soll. Richter in den USA führen den Prozess nicht wie in Deutschland, denn es sind die Anwälte die den Gang des Verfahrens maßgeblich beeinflussen. Uns so folgt eine kostenträchtige Motion auf die andere, Berufung rauf und runter, und am Ende steht dann in der Regel die Klagabweisung (häufiger als ein Obsiegen) oder ein Vergleich – angesichts der horrenden Kosten (American Rule = Jeder trägt in der Regel seine Kosten selbst, selbst wenn man gewinnt) oftmals das Beste was zu tun übrig bleibt, selbst wenn man sich weder schuldig sieht noch substantiierte Ansprüche als gegeben erachtet.
Aber lesen Sie selbst… und insbesondere am Ende die von von uns hinzugefügten hierzu veröffentlichten Kommentare zu „Tort Lawyers“, sehr lesenswer, u.a. „remember Shakespeare’s solution?“ ….!
By JONATHAN DRIMMER
It was no coincidence that a lawsuit filed against Coca Cola this February in New York City’s federal court coincided with the release of a documentary called „The Coca Cola Case.“ The documentary featured the plaintiffs lawyers in the case—concerning allegations of violence against workers at a Guatemala bottling facility—and five others like it in Turkey and Colombia.
It didn’t seem to matter that federal appellate courts in New York and Atlanta had already dismissed all five of the earlier lawsuits, or that the alleged violence in Guatemala was perpetrated by individuals not affiliated with Coke. It also didn’t seem to matter that a judge had sanctioned the plaintiffs lawyers for violating a confidentiality order involving settlement discussions. The documentary continues to play in North America, Europe, New Zealand and elsewhere, bringing additional publicity and pressure against the company.
Welcome to the Wild West of transnational tort cases, where what happens inside the courtroom is often overshadowed by what happens outside. Old-fashioned motions and pleadings are now accompanied by public-relations campaigns complete with documentaries, community organizing, political lobbying and efforts to drive down stock prices of companies and multinationals with a U.S. presence. It’s all part of an effort to inflict maximum punishment on companies that choose to fight, trying to force them into lucrative settlements for alleged conduct overseas, and to pressure foreign courts in cases filed abroad.
Plaintiffs lawyers are filing scores of cases in U.S. and foreign courts against companies in connection with their foreign operations, particularly in emerging markets. The cases filed here often rely on the Alien Tort Statute, an 18th century artifact that allows non-U.S. nationals to file lawsuits in federal courts for certain claimed violations of international law.
One current lawsuit in Indianapolis against Bridgestone/Firestone involves claims of alleged forced labor on a rubber plantation in Liberia. Plaintiffs lawyers have pursued a vigorous campaign that includes video clips, graphic allegations of abuse by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), lobbying for city resolutions, and calls for the National Football League to cease airing company commercials during games.
Lawsuits have been filed in California against Occidental Petroleum for violence by the Colombian military (allegedly directed by Occidental) near an oil pipeline, for the company’s alleged complicity in human-rights violations by paramilitary units guarding a pipeline in Ecuador, and for alleged environmental harms in Peru. Accompanying the suits have been calls for boycotts, staged protests and in the Peru lawsuit a documentary narrated by actress Daryl Hannah.
Some of these transnational tort cases are tainted by fraud. Three separate U.S. courts have now found fraud and unfairness in proceedings against Dole, the Dow Chemical Company and others, arising from the alleged exposure of workers to pesticides on banana plantations in Nicaragua. This fraud includes fabricating injuries, submitting false evidence, conspiring with corrupt foreign laboratories to bolster false claims, suborning perjury, and helping create foreign litigation regimes so overtly hostile to U.S. companies that they violate the most basic notions of due process. Some of the cases are still pending.
A new study I have overseen on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, „Think Globally, Sue Locally,“ shows that these transnational lawsuits frequently involve tactics that fall into four categories. There is the media campaign, including full-length films and mini-documentaries, and heavy reliance on print, radio, television and the Internet, including social media websites and shared video sites. There are also investment-related activities, such as stock divestment drives, pressuring institutional investors, feeding harmful information to Wall Street analysts, and attending and participating in shareholder meetings.
There are also political efforts. These include advocating for and testifying at Congressional hearings (increasingly being held as a trial date approaches), soliciting politicians to advocate for the plaintiffs, lobbying for the passage of local city resolutions, and in overseas litigation using political pressure to influence susceptible foreign courts.
Finally, community organizing in the form of protests, boycotts, letter writing, on-campus efforts and other techniques are undertaken to bring pressure on companies.
There is evidence these tactics are effective. In one well-known Alien Tort case, Talisman Energy, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, spent millions of dollars in local development programs in Sudan, assisted in the efforts to bring peace to the civil war ravaged nation, and prevailed in a lawsuit in New York arising from its investment in an oil consortium there. (The case involved allegations the company was complicit in human-rights violations committed by the government.) Yet Talisman succumbed to the political and litigation pressure, selling its interest to an Indian state-controlled oil and gas company rather than continuing to operate.
Companies with U.S. ties considering even relatively small overseas investments must be conscious that a perceived failure to adhere to certain social expectations can lead to high-profile, multimillion dollar lawsuits, and with them an accompanying set of highly aggressive tactics aimed at decimating the company’s image.
—————————-
Kommentare
-
Media campaigns, investment-related activities, political efforts and community organizing all sound like legitimate free speech to me. Hopefully, Drimmer and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce aren’t proposing that only parties on one side of these issues have this right. Free speech doesn’t always produce facts, wisdom and justice. Let us hear the arguments. We can decide who to trust.
-
How about we put all the unethical tort lawyers and unethical CEOs on an island, and then…. leave them there?
-
In my opinion, too many tort lawyers are the modern equivalent of old fashioned highwaymen. Through their courtroom antics and frivolous lawsuits, they suck way too much money out of the system either directly or indirectly. Why are there constant ads for mesothelioma „victims“ on television, for instance. Is this really that big of a problem? Or, rather, is it simply an opportunity for a law firm for gather up a few more sick people to make money off of. This costs every one of us a lot of money every day because legitimate businesses now have to protect themselves against these robbers, and they pass the cost on to each of us. Something desperately needs to be done to put some common sense back into the system.
-
Tort Lawyers had a lot to do with our broken legal system. How many members of Congress, on average, are not lawyers? How many have been tort lawyers? How much money does the „plaintiff’s bar“ spend in lobbying to prevent anything which might correct the problems? How many of the judges who participate in staggering legal frauds have been tort lawyers or have been selected by tort lawyers or have used the tort bar’s money for (re)election? I blame the lawyers.
-
How about a return to trial by combat? That way the loser really pays. Either way, the choice of lawyer may be the most important factor in the outcome of a case.
Isn’t there a legal principle that a court must have jurisdiction? If not, can a Saudi court find US dads guilty of not mutilating their daughters?
We are letting a crisis in tort law go to waste.
It is a big deal to corporations. Companies and business organizations also lobby in an effort to correct the distortions of the legal system. A few heroic executives (typically in privately held corporations) actually choose to fight it out and win. But public corporations usually fold because it is probably cheaper for their stockholders.
A valid business decision. However, it brings up a similar question about hostages and ransom demands. How many more hostages will there be when ransoms are paid? Is that an arithmetic or an exponential progression?
Don’t blame the lawyers? Why not. I also blame the politicians and the judges, but those three are overlapping sets.
Loser pays would be a useful reform. Losing lawyer pays in contingency cases would be much better. I would argue for losing lawyer goes to jail when the suit is deliberately mixed with politics and Hollywood. Well, actually, winning lawyer also.
Yes, of course, the laws and rulings which allow tort claims in this country over actions in foreign countries by persons or entities not part of the defending organization are really bad law. Written by, and interpreted by, lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.
So, stop crying. Don’t blame the lawyers, blame the laws.
-
Ummm yes they do. Trial lawyers are constatnly working to influence legislation that will be rewarding to them financially. The democraticv party is shoulder deep in the trail lawayers pockets, and heavily reliant on them to get elected.
A great many, but not all, trial lawyers, are parasites, always gaming the system. I have seen it first hand, and I wish every cictzen did. Things would be different if they really understood the damage the trial bar does.
Don’t get me wrong. Most trial lawyers are not the problem, but those that are, are a huge problem.
Stop Complaining. It is our laws which are at fault. Tort lawyers did not create the laws, they merely take advantage of them.
With all the corporate money going into election campaigns, why don’t corporations lobby for better tort laws? Obviously, to them, it is not much of a big deal. Some times, they even consult tort lawyers to gain advantage over other corporations.
-
-
So the laws made tort attorneys fake asbestos claims?
