In re Chiquita Brands International

Chiquita Brands International (Chiquita) (defendant) was a multinational corporation that produced, marketed, and distributed bananas and other fresh fruit. Chiquita did business in Colombia through a wholly owned subsidiary. The FARC was a Colombian terrorist organization that claimed to represent Colombia’s rural poor. The FARC engaged in kidnapping, extortion, and drug trafficking and collected so-called war taxes to finance its operations. In particular, the FARC—which opposed United States influence in Colombia—kidnapped and killed numerous Americans. In October 1987, the United States government designated the FARC as a foreign terrorist organization. Between 1989 and at least 1997, Chiquita provided money to the FARC (between $20,000 and $100,000 per month) and indirectly provided the FARC, via intermediaries, with money, weapons, ammunition, and other supplies. Chiquita aided the FARC secretly by, among other things, using fake names and fictitious employees of its Colombia subsidiary, using a senior Chiquita employee to personally deliver large sums of cash to the FARC, helping the FARC create fronts and dummy organizations to receive money from Chiquita, and using Chiquita’s local transportation contractors to send weapons to the FARC. By these means and others, Chiquita sought to prevent law enforcement, regulators, auditors, or anyone else from discovering its aid to the FARC. In March 2007, Chiquita pleaded guilty to violating United States antiterrorism laws due to Chiquita’s payments to another Colombian terrorist group. In connection with its guilty plea, Chiquita also acknowledged its payments and other assistance to the FARC. The Antiterrorism Act of 1991 created a private cause of action for American nationals who were injured by international acts of terrorism. Certain American nationals (victims) sued Chiquita under the act for aiding and abetting the FARC’s terrorist activities, which the victims asserted caused them harm. Chiquita moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the victims failed to plead the requisite international act of terrorism because Chiquita itself did not engage in terrorism. The victims responded that Chiquita could be liable under the act if it aided and abetted terrorist activities that injured the victims.