AT ISSUE:

OFII regularly participates in the U.S. legal system on its own and with other business groups on issues that uniquely or disproportionately affect U.S. Subsidiaries of companies headquartered aborad.

American Isuzu Motors., et. al v. Lungisile Ntsebaza (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008)
In this case, the plaintiff argues that U.S. businesses violated international law by engaging in commercial activity with South Africa that indirectly contributed to that country’s apartheid policies. Despite these claims, a policy of commercial engagement had previously been adopted and approved by the Executive branch, a decision which firms relied upon to conduct business. OFII joins other leading business associations in its brief and contends that upholding plaintiff’s claims would interfere with the ability of the Executive to conduct foreign policy and harm U.S. trade relations with close allies.

Deborah Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (U.S. District Court; Northern District of California, 2008)
The plaintiffs, Deborah Peterson and Joseph and Marie Boulus, on behalf of the estates of U.S. servicemen killed and wounded in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, allege that the Islamic Republic of Iran is liable for the wrongful death and are seeking remuneration from financial institutions with substantive ties to Iran. In the brief, OFII argues that the relief sought by the plaintiff would go above and beyond current law, reflecting an extra territorial application of U.S. law. Any such application would unfairly subject financial institutions to conflicting legal obligations. Under the motion, banks would have to choose unfairly between paying the debt of its non-US customers or doing nothing and risk further legal repercussions for non-compliance in the US legal system.

Sinaltrainal., et. al v. The Coca Cola Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2008)
The plaintiff Sinaltrainal, a Colombian trade union, is bringing suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act alleging violations of human rights and international law by U.S. firm Coca-Cola. This case addresses whether Coca-Cola is jointly liable for the actions of its subsidiaries. In its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, OFII contended that the Alien Tort Statute is only a grant of jurisdiction, and does not provide a cause of action for such lawsuits, which threaten to interfere with U.S. foreign relations and cross-border investment.

Trainer Wortham & Company, Inc. v. Heidi Betz (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008)
The plaintiff, Heide Betz, alleges that the mismanagement of her account by securities brokerage firm Trainer Wortham & Company, Inc. constitutes securities fraud.  The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for the defendants on statute of limitations grounds, and the investor appealed. OFII argued that by permitting cases to proceed to trial in circumstances where Congress clearly intended them to be barred by the statute of limitations, the number of securities class-action defendants will increase and capital investment will be deterred.  The absence of predictability and certainty in the legal system drives foreign investment away from United States markets and toward markets with more stable legal rules.

Dassault Aviation v. Beverly Anderson (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004)
In this case, the plaintiff brought suit in Arkansas against Dassault Aviation, the French manufacturer of a Dassault Falcon business jet that Anderson worked onboard as a flight attendant.  The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries after being buffeted about the cabin after a series of pitch oscillations during a descent.  The case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the French company, but was overturned on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which based jurisdiction on the French parent company’s “close, synergistic” relationship with its separately incorporated U.S. subsidiary in Arkansas.  In this brief supporting Dassault’s petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, OFII argued that confusion in the courts surrounding the due process limits on U.S. courts exercising jurisdiction over nonresident corporate defendants adversely affects not only the companies involved, but also international trade and foreign investment in the United States.

F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004)
In this case, foreign plaintiffs argued that F. Hoffman-La Roche had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy that raised the price of vitamin products to customers in the United States and in foreign countries.  However the plaintiffs only alleged injuries resulting from their purchases of vitamins outside the United States, raising questions as to whether they could pursue claims in U.S. courts for violations of U.S. law.  In this brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, OFII argued that the relevant U.S. statute does not allow for antitrust suits  based on harms arising in transactions occurring  wholly outside the United States.

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004)
This case addressed whether a 1789 law that had lain dormant for nearly 200 years, the so-called Alien Tort Statute, provided a basis for lawsuits in U.S. courts alleging violations of international law, including alleged international law violations outside the United States.  In its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, OFII contended that the Alien Tort Statute is only a grant of jurisdiction, and does not provide a cause of action for such lawsuits, which threaten to interfere with U.S. foreign relations and investment.

John Doe v. Unocal Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Citizens of Myanmar (Burma) used the Alien Tort Statute to pursue claims against U.S.-based Unocal Corporation alleging that the company aided and abetted in international law violations by the Myanmar military. In this brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, OFII contended that the plaintiffs lacked a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute because that act only provides jurisdiction, noting that an unfettered Alien Tort Statute would create serious foreign policy and economic problems for the United States.

American Insurance Association v. John Garamendi (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003)
The case stems from California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act of 1999, which required any insurer doing business in that state to disclose information about certain policies sold by the insurer or any affiliate in Europe between 1920 and 1945. The plaintiffs argued that the law interferes with the President's conduct of the nation's foreign policy and is therefore preempted; the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agreed and struck down the California statute.  OFII’s brief to the Supreme Court argued that the Act interfered with U.S. foreign policy and improperly regulated beyond the state’s and country’s borders.  OFII had also advanced similar arguments in amicus briefs in earlier stages of the case:

American Insurance Association v. Harry Low (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002); 

American Insurance Association v. Harry Low, California Insurance Commissioner (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001); 

Gerling Global Reinsurance v Clark Kelso, California Insurance Commissioner, (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2000).

DaimlerChrysler v. Scott Olson (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002)
DaimlerChrysler petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the previous case Daimler-Benz v. Scott Olson, (Supreme Court of Texas, 2001).  At issue was whether Texas courts could properly exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation based on, inter alia, its operation of a worldwide website, its defense of federally-protected trademark, or the imputed forum contacts of an independent subsidiary.  In this brief in support of the cert petition, OFII argued that these links do not represent “minimum contacts” that allow Texas courts general jurisdiction.  OFII previously advanced similar arguments in a brief in support of DaimlerChrysler’s appeal to the Texas Supreme Court: Daimler-Benz v. Scott Olson (Supreme Court of Texas, 2001)

Havana Club Holding v. Bacardi (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000)
Bacardi began selling Bahamian-produced "Havana Club" rum in the United States.  Havana Club Holding, a Cuban rum manufacturer and holder of the “Havana Club” trademark, argued that Bacardi was violating U.S. and international trademark law.   OFII’s brief in support of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court argued that the decision below improperly abrogated U.S. treaty commitments relating to the protection of intellectual property rights.

Andrew S. Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000)
At issue in this case was whether the so-called “Burma law” of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts—a statute restricting government procurement from companies doing business with Burma—infringed upon the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs and was preempted by federal Burma sanctions legislation.  The Supreme Court ultimately held that the Massachusetts economic sanctions were preempted by the federal law.  In this brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, OFII contended that the Court of Appeals had ruled correctly that Massachusetts law intruded into foreign policy, an area that is constitutionally limited to the federal government.