Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Alien Tort Statute
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the long-awaited issue of whether corporations can be liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), enacted by the First Congress more than 225 years ago. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Jesner v. Arab Bank, 197 L. Ed. 2d 646 (2017) on whether a corporation —€ in this case, a leading Jordanian bank —€ can be subject to liability under the ATS for alleged violations of customary international law. The appeal will be fully briefed by this month, and the Supreme Court likely will issue its decision next term.
There has been a circuit split on the issue since at least 2010. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh, Ninth, and the D.C. Circuits have concluded that the ATS allows for corporate liability, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the statute does not allow for corporate liability. The Supreme Court's opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petro., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), only further deepened the split. There, the U.S. Supreme Court initially granted certiorari on the issue of whether a corporation could be held civilly under the ATS, only to rule on another ground —€ namely, that the ATS claims in that particular case failed under the presumption against extraterritoriality of U.S. law. Since then, some lower courts and commentators have suggested that the Supreme Court implicitly suggested the existence of corporate liability under ATS, while others say the high court did no such thing.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.