## Facts

- Sudanese residents and organizations sued Talisman Energy, Inc., a Canadian oil company, and the Republic of Sudan on behalf of a putative class of victims in southern Sudan.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Sudanese government conducted a campaign to remove non-Muslim African civilians from areas around oil concessions to secure oil exploration and extraction.
- Alleged abuses included extrajudicial killings, forced displacement, destruction and confiscation of property, kidnapping, rape, enslavement, and war crimes; plaintiffs alleged the conduct collectively amounted to genocide.
- Plaintiffs alleged Talisman knew of the campaign and collaborated with or substantially assisted Sudanese forces, including through logistical support such as roads and airstrips used in military operations.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), asserting violations of universally recognized international-law norms (including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, slavery, and forced displacement).
- Talisman moved to dismiss on subject-matter and personal jurisdiction grounds and raised standing, political question, act of state, international comity, forum non conveniens, and other threshold defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged violations of specific, universal, and obligatory international-law norms sufficient to support ATS subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether a corporation may be a proper ATS defendant for alleged participation in violations of international law.
3. Whether the pleading sufficiently alleged Talisman’s complicity (including conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting-type conduct) to proceed past a motion to dismiss.
4. Whether the action was barred by the political question doctrine, act of state doctrine, international comity, or forum non conveniens.
5. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Talisman and whether plaintiffs had standing.

## Decision

- The court denied Talisman’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.
- The court held the ATS provided subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint alleged violations of well-established international-law prohibitions, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and slavery.
- The court held corporate status did not categorically preclude ATS liability at the pleading stage.
- The court held the complaint’s allegations of Talisman’s knowing collaboration and assistance were sufficient to proceed to discovery.
- The court rejected dismissal based on political question, act of state, international comity, and forum non conveniens at the pleading stage.
- The court found plaintiffs sufficiently alleged standing and found personal jurisdiction over Talisman based on its asserted contacts and activities tied to the forum.

## Legal Principles

- ATS jurisdiction exists where alien plaintiffs plead torts committed in violation of international-law norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory.
- Claims alleging genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and slavery generally satisfy the ATS norm requirement at the pleading stage.
- A corporate defendant may be subject to ATS claims where the complaint plausibly alleges the corporation’s involvement in conduct violating actionable international-law norms.
- Political question, act of state, and comity doctrines do not automatically bar ATS suits; dismissal depends on whether adjudication would require nonjudicial policy determinations or improper review of sovereign acts despite alleged violations of fundamental international-law prohibitions.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal requires an adequate alternative forum and a balance of private and public interests; severe human-rights allegations and forum inadequacy concerns may weigh against dismissal at the early stage.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations of knowing and substantial assistance connected to the primary violations can be sufficient to proceed to discovery.

## Conclusion

The court allowed ATS claims against an oil company to proceed past the pleading stage, holding that alleged corporate complicity in genocide, war crimes, and related abuses could support jurisdiction and that common threshold defenses tied to foreign affairs and forum selection did not warrant dismissal on the existing record.


Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)