In Re Chiquita Brands International, Inc., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1301

Plaintiffs are Colombian relatives of banana workers shot or tortured by the AUC between the 1990s and 2004 in Urabá and Magdalena; they sue Chiquita Brands Intl. and Banadex under ATS/ATCA, TVPA, and various state/foreign laws.
Chiquita allegedly funded and armed the AUC, including payments totaling over $1.7 million from 1997–2004, recorded as security expenses or income contributions.
Plaintiffs allege Chiquita’s payments to the AUC created a symbiotic relationship with Colombian authorities and helped the AUC terrorize civilians.
Chiquita pled guilty in 2007 to violating U.S. anti-terrorism laws, which Plaintiffs contend is relevant to but not dispositive of ATS claims.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing terrorism-based ATS claims, some state/Colombia law claims, and several non-terror ATS claims, while allowing torture, extrajudicial killing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity under ATS/TVPA to proceed or be amended.
The Carrizosa and Perez Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend within 30 days if they chose to do so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ATA precludes ATS terrorism claims	Chiquita cannot bar ATS terrorism claims by ATA field-occupying logic.	ATA restricts relief to U.S. nationals; may not bar ATS for aliens.	ATA does not occupy the field; ATS terrorism claims survive
Whether terrorism constitutes a cognizable ATS norm	Core norm against terrorism exists; widespread treaties support it.	No well-defined, universally accepted norm; financing conventions not universal enough.	Terrorism not cognizable as ATS violation; terrorism claims dismissed
Whether AUC torture/extraordinary-killing are state actions for ATS/TVPA purposes	Symbiotic relationship between Colombian govt and AUC shows state action.	State-action pleading insufficient or conclusory.	Court finds sufficient symbiotic state action for ATS torture/extrajudicial killing claims
Whether Plaintiffs adequately plead secondary liability (aiding/abets, conspiracy)	Adequate facts show purpose to assist; conspiracy and aiding/abetting recognized.	Standards unclear; may require international-law-based purpose standard.	Aiding/abetting and conspiracy pleaded with sufficient specificity; claims survive to amend; agency theory rejected
Whether crimes against humanity and war crimes survive threshold	AUC engaged in widespread/systematic attacks against civilians tied to war.	Need clear nexus to armed conflict; some theories unsettled.	War crimes and crimes against humanity viable under ATS; court sustains these claims

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir.2009) (ATS recognizes narrow class of international-law claims; conspiracy/aid- and abetment valid)
Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995) (war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity actionable under ATS)
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ATS claims depend on well-defined international norms, current law-of-nations content)
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980) (established use of international-law norms in ATS context)
Barboza v. Drummond Co., No official reporter citation provided in text (S.D. Fla. 2007) (rejected broad “terrorism in general” ATS claims; narrow, defined norms required)
Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2005) (accomplice/conspiracy liability under ATS recognized; state-action considerations discussed)
Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir.2005) (conspiracy/accomplice liability under ATS recognized)
Talisman Energy, Inc. v. Amazonas Copper & Gold Corp., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir.2009) (international-law standard for aiding/abetting; purpose standard)
Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007) (international-law-based standards for secondary liability; purpose approach)
Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002) (early framework for jus cogens claims under ATS)