Hausfeld LLP - Latest Updates in Civil and Human Rights

South African Miners Win Right to Disease Compensation

Joy — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:51:00 EST

Washington, DC: Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm dedicated to handling complex and class action litigation, announces that the Constitutional Court of South Africa has issued a groundbreaking ruling opening the door to tens of thousands of disabled miners to gain fair compensation. The decision in Mankayi v. Anglogold issued on the 3rd of March, finds that miners can pursue such injury claims directly against their employers and thus cannot be thrown out of court on the basis of a “worker’s compensation bar.”

South Africa has had a huge mining industry since the 1930’s and experts estimate that this has caused an epidemic of lung disease in this group of workers. Those who are still alive may now seek compensation. The case breaks new ground for the South African legal system, workers’ rights, and public health.

The case was brought by Mr. Thembekile Mankayi, a disabled South African Miner, who seeks compensation for silicosis, an occupational disease prevalent among miners. Mr. Thembekile worked high risk jobs as a miner for 16 years from 1979 to 1995 and suffered exposure to harmful dusts and gases that have caused his lung disease.

The defendant employer, Anglogold Ashanti Limited (Anglogold), an international mining company, is alleged to have breached its common law duty to provide Mr. Mankayi a safe and healthy work environment.

The court decided that Mr. Mankayi’s claim raised a Constitutional issue because deprivation of his common law right to sue for negligence would implicate the South African Constitutional right to “freedom and security.” The Constitutional Court, the highest court in the South African legal system, further found that since Mr. Mankayi did not have rights to compensation under the national Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Disease Act (COIDA), the bar to suing one’s employer in that law could not be enforced against him.

Mr. Mankayi is represented by Richard Spoor, a South African attorney, who has been a pioneer for two decades in the struggle for rights of workers to a safe work environment. Spoor and his colleague Charles Abrahams have collaborated for several years with Hausfeld LLP partners Michael Hausfeld and Richard Lewis in Washington, D.C. to commence and prosecute this claim. Spoor and Abrahams first started working with Hausfeld on claims for restitution for victims of the Apartheid Regime.

Hausfeld has built an unparalleled international practice in human rights law, including cases involving stolen assets and slave labor during the Holocaust. He recently opened an office in London to pursue not only human rights claims but claims in the areas of competition law, securities fraud law, mass torts, and consumer rights.

In addressing the court victory in South Africa, Hausfeld said that: “The case breaks new legal ground and elevates worker health and safety to the level of a Constitutional right. The underlying principles of the decision could be extended to workers’ rights around the world.”

- ENDS -

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Lindsay Root

Tel: 202-540-7158

lroot@hausfeldllp.com

NOTES TO EDITORS

About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognized as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for human rights, civil rights, and the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

For further information please visit: www.hausfeldllp.com.

Hausfeld LLP Files Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit Proposition 8 Case

Rachel — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:52:00 EST

Hausfeld LLP, the global claimants firm, has filed an amicus curiae brief in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, et. al. (U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 10-16696), the Ninth Circuit appeal of the Northern District of California decision which held that Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that denied same-sex couples the right to marry, was unconstitutional. Hausfeld LLP filed the brief as part of its commitment to provide pro bono legal services in cases with substantial social and legal importance and to advance the cause of human and civil rights.

Hausfeld LLP filed its brief on behalf of the California Teachers Association, an organization consisting of over 300,000 members and one of the most influential advocates for educators in California and the United States, to challenge the contention by Prop. 8 proponents that California law requires its public schools to teach students moral values concerning same sex-marriage.

Arthur Bailey, Jr., one of the brief’s authors, stated that “Prop. 8 is contrary to Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection for all people under the law. No one can fairly say that California has a legitimate interest in perpetuating discrimination against gays and lesbians—discrimination that is widely recognized as a cause of bullying and harassment in our public schools.” Prop. 8 undermines important state and federal interests in protecting gay and lesbian children from discrimination, harassment and bullying, and in fostering a truly tolerant educational environment for all students."

Please click here to view a copy of the brief.

Human Rights Human Wrongs

Rachel — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:59:00 EST

Victims of extrajudicial murder, torture, rape, and prolonged arbitrary detention filed a lawsuit in the United States in 2002 against multinational corporations alleging they aided and abetted the apartheid regime in the commission of gross human rights abuses.

Read complete article here.

NY Federal District Judge allows Khulumani claims to go forward

Rachel — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:56:00 EST

A Federal District Judge in New York has allowed Khulumani vicitms support group claims to go forward. The claims, which total hundreds of billions of dollars, allege that multi-national corporations aided South Africa's pre-1994 government in the perpetration human rights abuses.

Michael Hausfeld, the lead counsel for the Khulumani group and Hausfeld LLP chairman, says the overall case is extremely significant. "It represents the first time post World War II where corporate accountability is clearly under scrutiny for not merely moral lapses but for legal obligations," he said.

Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Landmark Apartheid Reparations Case

Rachel — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:40:00 EST

Apartheid Reparations to Begin in U.S. Court

Rachel — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:12:00 EST

Damning evidence encouraged South African President Jacob Zuma to allow a lawsuit brought by the Khulumani Support Group for apartheid reparations to proceed in New York. Cases could affect financial institutions, arms-related corporations. Last year the South African government reversed its position and chose to support the case. Hausfeld LLP represents plaintiffs in the case. See links below for more information about the case and recent media reports.

The Washingtonian Names Michael Hausfeld One of Thirty "Stars of the Bar"

Rachel — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:45:00 EST

"One of the nation's preeminent antitrust class-action lawyers, Hausfeld has been at the forefront of many historic and precedent-setting cases," reads the Washingtonian profile of Michael Hausfeld. "He asserted novel issues of international banking and human rights law while representing a class of Holocaust victims whose assets had been taken over by Swiss banks, and he was the first to successfully try a case establishing sexual harassment in the workplace as a civil rights violation."

Apartheid Victims Want Western Companies to Cough Up

Rachel — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:56:00 EST

Mpho Masemola has pieces of shrapnel in his skull. So many that no doctor dares try to remove them. They have been there since the early nineteen eighties.

That was when Mpho Masemola, still in secondary school, got involved in the underground struggle against the apartheid regime. During a riot, police drove him and a number of other activists into a house. Once they were inside, the house was fired upon from all sides. He had not yet finished secondary school when he was sent to Robben Island as a political prisoner in 1985. Years of torture followed.

The rain pelted down on the sheet metal roof of his modest home in township KwaThema, an hour’s drive east of Johannesburg, as he pulled out an impressive pile of medical documents from a cabinet: 25 years of headaches, Masemola cannot tolerate daylight, the doctors wrote.

Suing IBM
X-rays of Masemola’s skull are now sitting at a court in New York. They are evidence against private companies he is holding liable for the torture and the fact that he missed out on a good education and decent work.

Masemola is demanding compensation from German arms supplier Rheinmetall AG because he claims this company provided equipment and logistical support to the security troops of the apartheid regime. Computer companies like American IBM and Japanese Fujitsu are also being asked to cough up: they supplied the computer systems that reportedly enabled the white rulers to implement the hated Pass laws.

US lawyer Michael Hausfeld filed suit on behalf of Masemola and twelve other claimants against these companies in the US because of their support for the South African regime. Hausfeld is a renowned specialist in the area of 'class action suits', a form of lawsuit where a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court.

The companies' support, the lawyer stated in his complaint, "had a substantial effect on the perpetration of its criminal and tortious activities and was provided with the purpose of facilitating those activities" They "benefited from apartheid and, consequently, the violence that was used to maintain and enforce it at the expense of the [the plaintiffs.]"

'Substantial compensation'
Hausfeld has not yet put a figure on the reparations demanded. "We want substantial compensation," said his South African co-counsel Charles Abrahams.

The US suit is brought under the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) from 1789, a two-line law that allows non-US citizens to institute civil proceedings against violators of 'the law of nations' in US courts of law.

Originally intended to protect ambassadors and international merchants, the ATCA has made a comeback since the nineteen eighties, said ATCA specialist Jonathan Drimmer of Georgetown University in Washington. It was recently used against Shell by relatives of executed Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. This case was settled shortly before trial.

A settlement would not be a bad solution for the apartheid case either. "The victims have waited long enough," said Tshepo Madlingozi of the Khulumani Support Group, an organisation of apartheid victims that is also providing financial support for Mpho Masemola’s legal battle.

"A settlement is also often the best solution for the big businesses," said Drimmer. "It means they have lower lawyers' fees and can put a stop to the negative publicity." It works out well for the claimants too. "They have come a long way with their case, but the burden of proof remains very difficult nonetheless," he said.

Banks off the hook
Mpho Masemola and his twelve fellow claimants are not the only ones who are calling the companies to account. Three separate groups of claimants already filed their first complaints in the United States in 2002.

Last April a district judge in New York gave Masemola and his fellow claimants the green light to continue their case against the companies in the US. The complaint was initially directed against a great many multinationals, which included Shell and a number of banks that provided the rulers in South Africa with credits to enable the army and police to do their work.

The judge ruled however that the lawyers had not convincingly demonstrated that financial institutions, like Barclays Bank for instance, had caused direct damage to their clients. After long drawn out proceedings only a handful of companies remain. In addition to Rheinmetall and IBM, Daimler, Ford and General Motors are also being sued. Only German company Daimler has responded. It denies ever having worked with the South African security troops. The other companies have refused to comment.

The increase in ATCA lawsuits worries large companies, Drimmer said. "There is more case law to call the companies to account. Human rights issues are becoming increasingly important."

And that is precisely what the proponents of reparations for apartheid want.

'Judicial imperialism'
"Our case is not only about the apartheid past, but also about how companies behave in general in countries where human rights are violated," says lawyer Abrahams.

We need to send a signal to corporations that if they collude with evil political elites, they will be hunted down and made to pay" said South African professor of political economics Patrick Bond. "The Shell settlement shows the power of big business can be reversed."

Until recently the apartheid claims were a thorn in the side of the South African government. Former president Thabo Mbeki was annoyed at what he called the "judicial imperialism" of the US. His minister of justice wrote to the court in New York saying the South African government advised against continuing proceedings, since it could jeopardise the business climate in South Africa.

But Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, as a 'friend of the court', stated there was 'no basis' for that assumption. Stiglitz said that if the companies which collaborated with the apartheid regime were called to account, it would in fact create a 'better business climate'. Reparations will "contribute to South Africa's growth and development," Stiglitz wrote in a public letter to the judge.

Former archbishop Desmond Tutu, who chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up after apartheid, also voiced his support for the claims. He pointed out that the companies now being sued never asked the Truth Commission for amnesty. The new South African government of president Jacob Zuma told the court in New York last month that it did not share Mbeki's objections and relinquished any opposition to the trial.

'A long process'
This turnaround on the part of the government was welcomed by the victims, but Dave Steward, the spokesperson for the last white president of South Africa, F.W. de Klerk, said it was an 'unimaginably stupid decision'. Steward has angrily criticised the American trial regularly in newspaper articles.

"What in heaven's name does a court in New York know about the complexity of South Africa in the nineteen eighties?" he wondered. "If we continue like this, any company that does business with a country that has a less than perfect human rights record will be sued. Then no one will invest in China anymore, and that is bad for the global economy."

In township KwaThema, Mpho Masemolo was ready to defend his case in New York. "Those companies have to learn their lesson," he said. "They made a lot of money out of us from a political system in which workers were oppressed."

After the judge ruled in April of this year that the case was admissible, the companies appealed once again. The case will come before the court again in January 2010.

"This is a long process," Masemolo sighed. "I don't need to pack my suitcase just yet."

South African Government Withdraws Opposition To Apartheid Lawsuits Pending in U.S. Federal Court

Bien — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:11:00 EST

New York City, NY, September 3, 2009 – The South African government reversed its opposition to a pair of lawsuits pending in federal court in New York in which apartheid victims have alleged certain U.S. and foreign corporations aided and abetted human rights violations by South Africa’s apartheid regime. The reversal was detailed in a letter delivered Tuesday by the South African government to a U.S. federal judge.

The letter from South Africa’s Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York concluded the U.S. court is “an appropriate forum” to hear claims by South African citizens that the corporations aided and abetted “very serious crimes, such as torture [and] extrajudicial killing committed in violation of international law by the apartheid regime.” The South African government also offered its counsel to facilitate a possible resolution of the cases between the corporate defendants and the South African victims.

The South African government's submission to the Court indicates that its concerns about the lawsuits as originally framed have been satisfied and clears the way for a resolution on the merits of these important claims; and the letter reverses the South African government’s 2003 position that the lawsuits, in their original form, should be dismissed because the government believed the lawsuits might interfere with South Africa’s ability to address its apartheid past and might discourage economic investment in the country.

Background On The Two Lawsuits
These cases, which have been pending in U.S. courts for more than seven years, allege that the defendant companies – including Daimler, Ford, General Motors, IBM and German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall – aided and abetted apartheid crimes including torture, extrajudicial killing, and arbitrary denationalization. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in October 2008 that sought to address concerns that the South African government expressed about the initial lawsuits.

Comments From Legal Team
“The reversal by the South African government represents a monumental victory for victims of human rights abuses who have sought access to justice in U.S. courts and a victory in the arena of legal accountability for corporations and others who would provide substantial assistance in aid of the perpetration of such abuses,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “The South African government’s past opposition to these claims became the poster child of international corporations fighting the use of U.S. law permitting victims of egregious human rights violations to seek relief in U.S. courts.”

“The plaintiffs in these human rights cases are gratified by the South African government's support for their long-standing quest for some measure of justice in U.S. courts," said Paul Hoffman, lead counsel for the Ntsebeza plaintiffs, "and look forward to the South African government's contribution to a just and prompt resolution of their claims."

“By stating that the Southern District of New York is an appropriate venue for this case, the South African government sends the message that perpetrators of human rights violations can be brought to justice in U.S. courts,” said Susan Farbstein, a Lecturer on Law at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School. “For our plaintiffs, this letter represents a statement on behalf of the South Africa government in support of their struggle for accountability.”

“Our hope is that this brings us one step closer to justice for our plaintiffs and to collaboration between governments and victims to achieve redress for apartheid-era crimes,” said Diane Sammons of Nagel Rice LLP.

About Legal Team
Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm dedicated to handling large and complex litigation matters for individuals, corporations and organization, represents apartheid victims in one of the two cases, Balintulo v. Daimler AG, along with South African and other U.S. counsel. Another set of plaintiffs, those in Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG, are represented by U.S. counsel from Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Nagel Rice LLP, the law offices of Judith Brown Chomsky, and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, as well as South African counsel.

For additional information related to these cases and developments, please contact:
Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, 202.540.7200
Paul Hoffman, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 301.396.0731

-###-

Media Contacts:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203

Michael Jones
Communications Director
International Human Rights Clinic
Harvard Law School
mijones@law.harvard.edu
617.495.9214

NY Judge Rules in Favor of 1970s Apartheid Victims

Rachel — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:30:00 EST

NEW YORK – Apartheid victims who accused automakers and IBM of helping the government of South Africa engage in violent repression to enforce racial segregation in the 1970s and '80s can go to trial with their claims, a judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin rejected assertions by several countries that the lawsuits should not proceed because that might harm relations between the United States and South Africa.

The written decision was related to lawsuits filed about seven years ago on behalf of victims of apartheid. The lawsuits once targeted many more U.S. corporations, including oil companies and banking institutions, but the number of defendants was decreased after the lawsuits were tossed out by one judge and an appeals court that reinstated them said allegations needed more specifics.

After Scheindlin dismissed several more companies as defendants Wednesday, the plaintiffs were left to press their claims against IBM Corp., German automaker Daimler AG, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Rheinmetall Group AG, the Swiss parent of an armaments maker.

The plaintiffs, at least thousands of people seeking unspecified damages, allege the automakers supplied military vehicles that let securities forces suppress black South Africans. IBM is accused of providing equipment used to track dissidents.

The judge noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had referenced the apartheid cases in the footnote of an earlier decision when it wrote "federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch's view of the case's impact on foreign policy" when the U.S. and a foreign government agree litigation could harm the domestic policies of a foreign nation.

But she said the footnote was only meant as guidance and the executive branch was not "owed deference on every topic."

The U.S. government had submitted a statement saying the lawsuits could become "an irritant in U.S.-South African relations" because they might interfere with South Africa's sovereign right to decide apartheid issues and might discourage investment in South Africa.

South African officials had said the efforts to compensate victims should be pursued within South Africa's political and legal processes.

Defense lawyers have said corporations shouldn't be penalized because they were encouraged to do business in South Africa during apartheid. Lawyers for the companies didn't immediately return telephone messages Wednesday.

Plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Hausfeld praised the ruling, saying it will allow his clients to begin obtaining evidence from the companies that will show what they did in relation to South Africa during apartheid.

"It's great," he said. "There's a treasure of documentation that would be disclosed for the first time ever."

Hausfeld said that besides South Africa and the United States, countries including Germany, Switzerland and England had opposed letting the litigation proceed.

He said it was significant that the judge concluded that opposition by governments was not enough to halt lawsuits brought for human rights reasons. Ruling otherwise, he said, "would have given governments a veto power over the bringing of legal claims."

Daimler is based in Stuttgart, Germany, while Ford is headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., and General Motors is based in Detroit. IBM is based in Armonk, N.Y.

Rheinmetall Group is a holding company headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany. It is the parent company of Oerlikon Contraves AG, an armaments maker headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland.

Khulumani (Apartheid)

Content — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:46:00 EST

In this action Hausfeld LLP serves as counsel for numerous South African victims of the Apartheid regime, alleging that Defendant multi-national corporations aided and abetted the commission of crimes against humanity by the security forces of the apartheid regime.

Hausfeld LLP took a major role in a successful appeal of the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, leading to an important decision by the Second Circuit finding that aiding and abetting claims are cognizable under the Alien Tort Statute.

See Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007).

For more information, please contact Steig D. Olson.