Former child slaves of Malian origin who were trafficked and forced to work harvesting and/or cultivating cocoa beans on farms in Côte d’Ivoire, which supply cocoa beans to the Defendant companies, filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former child slaves of Malian origin against Defendants: Nestlé, S.A., Nestlé, U.S.A., and Nestlé Côte d’Ivoire, S.A.; Cargill, Incorporated Cargill Cocoa, and Cargill West Africa, S.A. and Archer Daniels Midland Company for the forced labor and torture they suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct either caused and/or aided and abetted by these corporate entities. Plaintiffs assert claims for child slavery/forced labor, cruel, inhumane or degrqading treatment, and torture under the ATS.
Plaintiffs allege that Drummond joined with a terrorist paramilitary group to drive suspected guerillas out of the areas of Drummond’s Colombian mine operations. The paramilitaries killed hundreds of innocent civilians who lived in the area. The relatives of those murdered brought ATS and TVPA claims against Drummond and several of its officers.
Approximately 2000 Ecuadorian farmers who suffered physical and mental injuries and property damage as a result of aerial spraying of toxic pesticides on or near their land brought Alien Tort Statute and state law claims against DynCorp, a U.S. government contractor.
Eleven villagers from Aceh, Indonesia brought ATS, TVPA and state law tort claims against ExxonMobil after its privatized military force protecting its natural gas liquefaction facilities in Aceh killed or tortured innocent villagers who lived near the Exxon project.
Family members of Colombians killed by left-wing guerrillas and the AUC paramilitary group brought ATS, TVPA, state law, and Colombian law claims against Chiquita, a company that provided substantial support to both left-wing guerrilla groups and the AUC.
Sixty-five Colombians asserted claims under state tort law because they all had family members murdered (and some were also personally attacked) by the AUC. Plaintiffs sued Dole based on evidence demonstrating that Dole provided substantial support to the AUC.