## Facts

- Nigerian émigrés sued two foreign parent corporations in the Southern District of New York for alleged complicity in human-rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the Ogoni region during the 1990s.
- Plaintiffs alleged the corporations participated in or directed imprisonment, torture, and killings of Ogoni activists and relatives opposing oil operations.
- Plaintiffs further alleged complicity in the arrests, detention, torture, and executions of Ogoni leaders, including Ken Saro-Wiwa and John Kpuinen, following allegedly unfair trials.
- Claims were brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act, along with related causes of action.
- The defendant corporations were a Netherlands entity and a U.K. entity whose shares were listed on the New York Stock Exchange and who maintained an Investor Relations Office in New York City.
- The district court found personal jurisdiction in New York but dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of England as an adequate alternative forum.
- Plaintiffs appealed the forum non conveniens dismissal; defendants cross-appealed the personal-jurisdiction ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether New York contacts, including an Investor Relations Office supporting U.S. investors and a NYSE listing, supported personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporate defendants.
2. Whether dismissal for forum non conveniens in favor of England was an abuse of discretion given (a) U.S.-resident plaintiffs’ choice of a U.S. forum and (b) U.S. interests reflected in the ATCA and TVPA.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the exercise of personal jurisdiction over both defendants.
- The court reversed the forum non conveniens dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court gave insufficient weight to U.S.-resident plaintiffs’ forum choice and to the United States’ interest in adjudicating claims alleging serious violations of international human-rights norms under federal statutes.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign corporation’s sustained and substantial in-forum business presence, including a significant investor-relations function tied to U.S. capital markets, can support personal jurisdiction in New York.
- In forum non conveniens analysis, a plaintiff’s forum choice is entitled to substantial deference, and that deference increases when the plaintiff is a U.S. resident or has chosen a U.S. home forum.
- Public-interest factors in forum non conveniens must account for congressional policy choices expressed in statutes authorizing adjudication of international human-rights claims, including the ATCA and TVPA.
- The Gulf Oil/Piper private- and public-interest balancing must be applied with attention to the practical realities of party resources; inconvenience to large multinational defendants may carry less weight where plaintiffs face greater barriers to litigating abroad.
- A forum non conveniens dismissal constitutes an abuse of discretion when the court fails to properly weigh deference to the chosen forum and materially relevant public interests.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that New York could exercise personal jurisdiction over the foreign parent companies based on their New York investor-relations activities, and it reversed the forum non conveniens dismissal because the district court did not give sufficient weight to U.S.-resident plaintiffs’ forum choice and the United States’ statutory interest in providing a forum for ATCA/TVPA human-rights claims.


Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000)