Podcasts about jesner

Nestlé USA Inc v Doe (2021) is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides federal courts jurisdiction over claims brought by foreign nationals for violations of international law. Consolidated with Cargill Inc v Doe, the case concerned a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé USA and Cargill for aiding and abetting child slavery in Côte d'Ivoire by purchasing from cocoa producers that utilize child slave labor from Mali. The plaintiffs, who were former slave laborers in the cocoa farms, brought their claim in U.S. district court under the ATS, The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the suit on the basis that corporations cannot be sued under the ATS, and that the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of an aiding and abetting claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that corporations are liable for aiding and abetting slavery, in part because norms against slavery are "universal and absolute" and thus provide a basis for an ATS claim against a corporation; however, it did not address the argument by the defendant corporations that the complaint sought an extraterritorial application of the ATS, which the U.S. Supreme Court had recently rejected in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. On remand, the district court again dismissed the claims, finding that the plaintiffs sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS. In the interim, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jesner v Arab Bank, PLC, which held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the holding in Jesner does not disturb its prior holding as to the domestic defendants, Nestle USA, Inc., and Cargill, Inc., and that the specific domestic conduct alleged by the plaintiffs falls within the focus of the ATS and does not require extraterritorial application of that statute. Background. Six Malians, identified as John Doe I through VI, were trafficked into Côte d'Ivoire as children and enslaved on cocoa plantations. The children, aged 12-14, were kept in harsh living conditions at the plantations, and they were forced under threat of violence to cultivate cocoa for up to fourteen hours per day without pay. The children witnessed slaves who were caught trying to escape from the plantation being tortured by guards. Most of the cocoa that the slaves cultivated on Côte d'Ivoire plantations was sold to U.S. companies such as the Nestlé and Cargill corporations and imported to U.S. markets. Nestlé and Cargill encouraged the use of child slave labor on Côte d'Ivoire plantations by supporting farmers through capital investments in equipment, training, and cash advances. They also facilitated child slavery by lobbying "against legislation intended to make the use of child slavery transparent to the public" and mislead consumers on their actions in the region. The corporations also sent representatives to inspect plantations. In return, Nestlé and Cargill get cheaper cocoa imports, increasing their profit margins. History. The case was initially filed in 2005 but dismissed by the District Court for the Central District of California in 2010. The Ninth Circuit remanded this decision, stating that the plaintiffs had standing to sue under the Alien Tort Statute—but the case was again dismissed by the district court. In oral arguments, the Malians were represented by Paul L. Hoffman, while Nestlé and Cargill were represented by Neal Katyal. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    

Elie Jesner is a UKCP registered Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist. He is a graduate of Cambridge University, where he studied Philosophy, and also of Warwick University, where he obtained an MA in Philosophy. Elie is also a published writer, having written a number of articles relating to matters of psychology, politics and religion.

In this second and final installment of our Arab Bank Case episode, we continue our discussion of Linde v. Arab Bank and Jesner v. Arab bank.

In this second and final installment of our Arab Bank case episode, we continue our discussion of Linde v. Arab Bank and Jesner v. Arab bank with the help of our expert guest, Andy Stewart.

Join us as we delve into a case study of terrorism finance. Joined by our guest expert, Andy Stewart, we examine the cases of Linde vs Arab Bank and Jesner vs Arab Bank.

Join us as we delve into a case study of terrorism finance. Joined by our resident expert, we examine key terms and provide an overview of terrorism financing  before examining the case studies of Linde v Arab Bank and Jesner v Arab Bank.

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (“Kiobel I”) which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but on a different basis: the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. In Jesner, the Second Circuit, invoking its precedent in Kiobel I--and finding nothing to the contrary in the Supreme Court’s Kiobel II decision--affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ATS claims on the grounds that the ATS does not apply to alleged international law violations by a corporation. This sharpened a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute.By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-I, and II-C, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-B-3, and III, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (“Kiobel I”) which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but on a different basis: the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. In Jesner, the Second Circuit, invoking its precedent in Kiobel I--and finding nothing to the contrary in the Supreme Court’s Kiobel II decision--affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ATS claims on the grounds that the ATS does not apply to alleged international law violations by a corporation. This sharpened a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute.By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-I, and II-C, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-B-3, and III, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On April 24, Jesner v. Arab Bank was decided 5-4 in favor of the respondent. The petitioners in this case were surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claimed that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they could sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto join us to discuss the decision.Featuring:Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On April 24, Jesner v. Arab Bank was decided 5-4 in favor of the respondent. The petitioners in this case were surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claimed that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they could sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto join us to discuss the decision.Featuring:Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

This week's episode covers oral arguments and recent decisions with varying degrees of stakes.  Brett and Nazim discuss Abbott v. Perez (which might decide the fate of modern democracy) Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC (which may facilitate terrorism), SAS Institute v. Matal (which deals with paperwork), and Trump v. Hawaii (which has something to do with the President).  Law starts at (04:18).

Court holds that the ATS does not allow people to sue corporations.

"I didn't really understand anything about business, so I just researched the concept and how money flowed around the world and thought this could be interesting. I went home to my wife and said 'I think I really want to resign and create this money-swapping thing'. She said 'ok, I believe in you, let's do it'. Then I told her we had to sell the house." Jared was a currency trader who thought that there must be a cheaper way to get your travel money rather having to queue at a desk at an airport before jumping on a flight for your holiday. So he created 'WeSwap' which works by getting users to swap money with each other. Since launching in 2015 he's had over 300,000 customers and swapped over £130 million in over 16 different currencies and over 18 different countries.

This week's episode covers the Alien Tort Statute and the current case of Jesner v. Arab Bank, which covers whether a corporations can be liable under said Alien Tort Statute.  Brett and Nazim also relish their Web 100 nomination by the ABA and discuss the appropriate amount of relishing one should do when reading about attorneys getting disciplined.  Law starts at (05:50).

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case regarding the validity of suits against corporate entities under the Alien Tort Statute. Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (“Kiobel I”), which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but for a different reason: the failure to rebut a presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS to actions that took place in the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. The district court in Jesner acknowledged this, but concluded that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision actually contravened the Second Circuit’s original rationale regarding corporate liability, which therefore remained the law applicable to district courts within the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, agreeing that Kiobel II did not overrule Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. Other federal circuit courts of appeals, however, have read Kiobel II differently with respect to the possibility of corporate liability, creating a split with the Second Circuit--and the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to address whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability.To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case regarding the validity of suits against corporate entities under the Alien Tort Statute. Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (“Kiobel I”), which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but for a different reason: the failure to rebut a presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS to actions that took place in the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. The district court in Jesner acknowledged this, but concluded that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision actually contravened the Second Circuit’s original rationale regarding corporate liability, which therefore remained the law applicable to district courts within the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, agreeing that Kiobel II did not overrule Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. Other federal circuit courts of appeals, however, have read Kiobel II differently with respect to the possibility of corporate liability, creating a split with the Second Circuit--and the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to address whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability.To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? The key voices: Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University The key cases: 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank The key links: Center for Constitutional Rights Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Oral Arguments for Jesner v. Arab Bank were heard on Wednesday, October 11th 2017. The issue at the center of the case is whether the Alien Tort Statute exempts corporations from liability.The petitioners are surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claim that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they can sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto will join us to discuss the oral argument and the significance of the case.Featuring:Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oral Arguments for Jesner v. Arab Bank were heard on Wednesday, October 11th 2017. The issue at the center of the case is whether the Alien Tort Statute exempts corporations from liability.The petitioners are surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claim that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they can sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto will join us to discuss the oral argument and the significance of the case.Featuring:Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

A case that is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States could have profound implications for human rights and corporate social responsibility around the world. The case is called Jesner vs. Arab Bank. It is a lawsuit in which The plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank, which is a Jordanian financial institution, facilitated payments to terrorist groups that carried out attacks in Israel, killing and injuring them.    Now a case involving foreign victims of a terrorist attack carried out on foreign soil by a foreign group would typically not be the business of the US legal system. But the plaintiffs in this case are pursing damages using a law that has been on the books since the 18th century, called the Alien Tort Statute. And according to my guest today, Dr. Zachary Kauffman, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Plaintiffs this statute could influence corporate decision making and even US foreign policy.    Zachary Kauffman is a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and teaching at Stanford Law school -- he is also, like me, a humanity in action senior fellow.    Become a premium subscriber to unlock bonus episodes, earn other rewards, and support the show!  

Argued 10/11/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the Court will decide whether the Alien Tort Statute prohibits corporate liability."

(Bloomberg) -- Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas Law School, and Julian Ku, Professor of Constitutional Law at Hofstra University, Will discuss whether The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to use a case stemming from Middle Eastern terrorism to decide whether victims of overseas atrocities can use a two-century-old federal law to sue corporations for complicity. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas Law School, and Julian Ku, Professor of Constitutional Law at Hofstra University, Will discuss whether The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to use a case stemming from Middle Eastern terrorism to decide whether victims of overseas atrocities can use a two-century-old federal law to sue corporations for complicity. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC. | 10/11/17 | Docket #: 16-499