Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
642 F.3d 379
2d Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees are relatives bringing claims under ATCA against Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Shell entities for alleged international-law violations.
- Defendants-appellees-cross-appellants include Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC, and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd.
- The Second Circuit disposition involved a panel decision concerning rehearing in banc following the appeal.
- An active judge and a senior judge conducted a poll on rehearing in banc, and there was no majority in favor of rehearing en banc.
- The court issued an order denying rehearing in banc, with concurring and dissenting opinions addressing the issue of en banc review and potential theories of liability.
- The order references related scholarly discussion and prior circuit cases concerning the Alien Tort Statute and corporate liability issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rehearing in banc should be granted | Kiobel seeks en banc review due to significant issues and potential circuit split | No majority favored en banc review; panel decision should stand | Rehearing in banc denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (ATCA corporate liability and customary international law discussion)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for accessorial liability under ATCA)
- Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007) (determine violations of law of nations and responsibility under ATCA)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008) (circuit split regarding ATCA scope and standards)