LogFAQs > #955171028

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 375: Joe Bidin' his time
xp1337 06/18/21 1:44:39 PM #117:	HeroDelTiempo17 posted... So am I correct in assuming that the SC is essentially officially saying US companies are free to violate laws oversees with no legal repercussions in the US (at least with regards to this statute) or is that a leap in logic? Because that's where it's interesting, the 9th Circuit ruled that corporate decision making and financing was enough to consider it a domestic crime, which the SC has decided to overturn. I'm not sure it's that straightforward but I also don't think you're that far off either. My understanding (and IANAL) is that strictly speaking this means a foreign citizen can't bring suit against a company (or person) in US federal court for anything done abroad - at least not under this law. Further, it establishes that anything it deems "a practice common to corporations" is insufficient to link them directly to an action they have a degree of separation from (i.e. these companies didn't own or operate these farms, they "merely" decided to engage with them financially) Basically, they're saying the place to resolve this isn't US federal court. In theory the court is saying to try and bring suit against these companies in the Ivory Coast I think. Or an international court that has jurisdiction. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:955171028] in Politics C... [t:79515369]...</cite> <quote>HeroDelTiempo17 posted... </cite> <quote>So am I correct in assuming that the SC is essentially officially saying US companies are free to violate laws oversees with no legal repercussions in the US (at least with regards to this statute) or is that a leap in logic? Because that's where it's interesting, the 9th Circuit ruled that corporate decision making and financing was enough to consider it a domestic crime, which the SC has decided to overturn.</quote>I'm not sure it's that straightforward but I also don't think you're that far off either. My understanding (and IANAL) is that strictly speaking this means a foreign citizen can't bring suit against a company (or person) in US federal court for anything done abroad - at least not under this law. Further, it establishes that anything it deems "a practice common to corporations" is insufficient to link them directly to an action they have a degree of separation from (i.e. these companies didn't own or operate these farms, they "merely" decided to engage with them financially) Basically, they're saying the place to resolve this isn't US federal court. In theory the court is saying to try and bring suit against these companies in the Ivory Coast I think. Or an international court that has jurisdiction. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1