The Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG et al

Filing 533

OPINION AND ORDER: The grave allegations of the Complaint paint a picture of a people oppressed and of a repressive government resolved to frustrate the international communitys efforts to intervene to assist the Iraqi people.While the Court has conc luded that the Republic of Iraq does not have standing to recover as parens patriae for injuries to its people, Iraq does have standing to recover for harms to its proprietary interests in the UN escrow account. Additionally, adjudication of Iraqs cl aims does not run afoul of the act of state or political question doctrines. The issues decided here are legal, not political, notwithstanding the international political context of the action. The first issue concerns attribution. The Complaint alle ges injustices instigated and in large measure directed by Saddam Hussein and his Regime. But the Complaint unmistakably alleges that the wrongful conduct of the Hussein Regime was of a governmental character, pursued for purportedly public purposes, and undertaken by the governmental authorities in Iraq. As a result, that government, however deplorable it may have been, represented Iraq and its acts, however allegedly depraved, are attributable to the sovereign. The second issue concerns territ oriality. The RICO and RICO conspiracy claims focus on a multinational enterprise-the UN Oil-for-Food Programme-and concern, in large part, activity occurring in Iraq. As a result, these claims are dismissed as impermissible extraterritorial applicat ions of the RICO statute. In the alternative, these claims would fail on the basis of the in pari delicto doctrine and the absence of allegations of proximate causation. The third issue is the existence vel non of a private right of action pursuant t o the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That claim fails because the statute does not afford a private remedy. The final issue is supplemental jurisdiction. The remaining claims arise under state law and the Court has declined to exercise supplemental j urisdiction over them. These holdings-on attribution, territoriality, private remedies, and supplemental jurisdiction - resolve the action. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. In reaching this result, the Court does not reach the various issues raised by defendants as to whether the claims are otherwise pled adequately or whether the statute of limitations bars recovery on any or all causes of action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 2/06/2013) (ama)