LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 59 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C M P S disbursements. Not only were such undertakings “unprecedented,” but they gave rise to irreconcilable conflicts of interest providing Dyson with a tactical advantage. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that Malaysian law being the governing law of the claims was no bar to the jurisdiction of the English courts. The claims were at common law and equitable in nature, with respect to which Malaysian law drew extensively on English and Commonwealth authorities. The growing focus on supply chain accountability raises fundamental questions regarding the application of separate legal personality in a tortious context and could make England a more likely venue to bring such litigation. In particular, in the Dyson case, Popplewell LJ’s comments regarding the vulnerability and personal circumstances of claimants as compared to the “well-resourced and commercially experienced defendants” appear to accentuate the subjectivization of the balance of convenience test. However, despite its significance, the Dyson ruling should not be overplayed. The Court of Appeal’s decision was limited to the jurisdictional issue and did not establish liability for mass tort claims of this nature. English courts have yet to rule substantively on the liability of parent companies for human rights violations occurring within their global supply chains. The outcome of the Dyson case may pave the way for future litigation, but uncertainties remain with respect to the precise thresholds to apply in this regard. Actions related to supply chain conditions also advanced in the United States courts. For example, in June 2024, a federal jury in South Florida held a U.S. corporation, Chiquita Brands International, liable for financing a Colombian paramilitary group that had been designated as a terrorist organization in 2001. The company was ordered to pay more than $38 million in damages to Colombian families whose relatives were killed by the paramilitary group. The victims included Colombian trade unionists, banana workers, activists and others targeted by paramilitaries. In October 2024, the court rejected the company’s arguments relating to limiting damages for pain and suffering. Purchasers of Nestlé USA cocoa products secured class certification in a consumer deception action challenging “sustainably sourced” statements on product labels. The consumers have alleged that these labels misled them to believe that there was no child labor or deforestation in the supply chain for these products, when in fact these conditions continue to impact the cocoa supply chain in West Africa. The court granted class certification in September of 2024, ruling that whether Nestlé’s label statements were false or likely to deceive a reasonable consumer could be determined on a collective basis. These cases illustrate that companies evaluating their sustainability representations must be mindful not only of environmental conditions, but also potentially broader labor and social concerns. Courts Grapple with Carbon Emissions Efforts Courts across the globe are continuing to be called upon to address the complex interplay between corporate activities and environmental responsibilities, particularly concerning carbon emissions and These cases illustrate that companies evaluating their sustainability representations must be mindful not only of environmental conditions, but also potentially broader labor and social concerns. CROSS-PRACTICE FOCUS Environmental, Social & Governance 58 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==