## Facts

- Nigerian nationals sued a U.S. parent oil corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, seeking to hold them responsible for alleged human-rights abuses connected to oil operations in the Niger Delta.
- The alleged abuses stemmed from protests and security responses involving the defendants’ Nigerian affiliate and Nigerian military/police forces.
- During a 1998 protest occupation of an offshore oil platform, plaintiffs alleged the Nigerian affiliate coordinated with military/police to use lethal force against protestors, resulting in deaths, and that protest leaders were later detained and tortured with involvement by affiliate personnel.
- During 1999 incidents in two villages, plaintiffs alleged a helicopter associated with the oil operation transported security forces that fired on residents, causing deaths and injuries; additional attacks allegedly involved boats and personnel linked to the affiliate, with further killings and property destruction.
- Plaintiffs alleged the U.S. defendants exercised significant control over the Nigerian affiliate, including selecting officers, overlapping management, centralized security planning, and frequent communications that intensified during the incidents.
- Plaintiffs also alleged the U.S. defendants approved or supported the security responses and later ratified the conduct by a public-relations response intended to conceal or minimize the affiliate’s role.
- The case was divided into phases; in Phase I, the U.S. defendants moved for summary judgment seeking a ruling that they could not be liable for the affiliate’s conduct under agency, alter-ego/veil-piercing, aiding-and-abetting, or ratification theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created a genuine dispute that the Nigerian affiliate acted as an agent of the U.S. defendants regarding security and protest-response decisions.
2. Whether the evidence could support disregarding corporate separateness (alter ego/veil-piercing) to hold the U.S. defendants responsible for the affiliate’s acts.
3. Whether the evidence could support direct liability of the U.S. defendants for aiding and abetting or ratifying the alleged abuses.
4. Whether the U.S. defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on these Phase I theories.

## Decision

- The court denied the U.S. defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Phase I.
- The court held that plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact on agency, alter-ego/veil-piercing, aiding-and-abetting, and ratification theories.
- The court ruled that a reasonable jury could find the U.S. defendants exercised enough control over security-related operations to support liability, and that disputed facts required trial resolution rather than judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where, viewing the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant on material elements of a claim or liability theory.
- A parent corporation and related entities may face potential liability for a subsidiary’s conduct where evidence supports an agency relationship, including meaningful control over the specific operational area at issue (here, security planning and response).
- Corporate separateness may be disregarded under alter-ego/veil-piercing theories where evidence could support a finding of unity of interest and that respecting the corporate form would permit an inequitable result.
- A party may face potential direct liability under aiding-and-abetting or ratification theories where evidence could support knowing approval, encouragement, support, or post-event adoption of wrongful conduct, creating a triable issue for the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed past Phase I because plaintiffs presented enough evidence for a jury to determine whether the U.S. parent and its U.S. subsidiary could be held responsible for alleged abuses connected to their Nigerian affiliate through agency, alter-ego/veil-piercing, aiding-and-abetting, or ratification theories.


Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2004)