Dismissal of RICO Class Action Against AWB Affirmed on Appeal
October 05, 2009
On October 2, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a purported class action suit asserting claims under the federal RICO statute against AWB Limited, the Australian corporation that succeeded the Australian Wheat Board, and a subsidiary, AWB (U.S.A.) Limited, arising out of AWB’s participation in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. Cravath represented AWB Limited and AWB (U.S.A.) Limited in the suit, which was Karim, et al. v. AWB Limited, et al.
The Karim suit was filed in late 2006 by a group of Iraqi Kurds, purportedly on behalf of all Iraqi citizens from the Kurdish three northern governorates of Iraq. Plaintiffs alleged that they were deprived of benefits to which they claimed to have been entitled under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme because of an alleged kickback scheme orchestrated by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, through which the Iraqi government allegedly extracted payments from sellers of humanitarian goods under the Oil-for-Food Programme, including AWB. In September 2008, the federal district court in New York dismissed all claims against our clients. (See Karim v. AWB Ltd., 06 Civ. 15400 (GEL), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76896 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008).) Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and after hearing argument on September 24, 2009, the Court affirmed the dismissal on October 2.
The case is one of three different class action lawsuits brought in the New York federal court against AWB relating to its participation in the UN Oil-for-Food Programme that Cravath has successfully defended; the other two suits, brought on behalf of American wheat farmers alleging antitrust violations (Boyd v. AWB Ltd.) and on behalf of Iraqis alleging human rights violations (Mastafa v. AWB Ltd.), were dismissed in separate rulings in 2008.
The Cravath team representing AWB in these matters included partners Robert H. Baron and Timothy G. Cameron.
Related Practices & Industries
People
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 1981, Harvard Law Schoolcum laude
-
A.B., 1978, Princeton Universitycum laude
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
LL.M., 1998, University of Chicago Law School
-
M.ComLaw, 1997First Class Honors
-
M.ComLaw, 1997, Auckland University - Faculty of LawFirst Class Honors
-
LL.B., 1994
-
LL.B., 1994, Auckland University - Faculty of Law
-
B.Com., 1994
-
B.Com., 1994, Auckland University - Faculty of Law
- New York
Education
Admitted In
Related News
Deals & Cases
September 24, 2014
AWB Wins Appeal Dismissing Suit over Iraq Oil‑for‑Food Programme
On September 18, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing an action against AWB Limited, the corporate successor to the Australian Wheat Board, which is now known as Agrium Asia Pacific Limited. The trial court’s decision is one of five dismissals -- and one of seven favorable court decisions -- Cravath obtained for AWB in actions related to the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme since 2008.
Deals & Cases
March 13, 2014
AWB Wins Dismissal of Fifth Suit Over Iraq Oil‑for‑Food Programme
On February 12, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Cravath’s motion to dismiss with prejudice an action against AWB Limited, the corporate successor to the Australian Wheat Board, which is now known as Agrium Asia Pacific Limited. This is the fifth time Cravath has successfully represented AWB in a suit concerning the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme (the “Programme”). This suit involves claims by a number of U.S. citizens who were allegedly injured in terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs assert that those attacks were funded by Saddam Hussein using illegal kickbacks that he received from participants in the Programme. Although AWB was not named as a defendant in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the individuals and entities that were named as defendants brought a third-party complaint against AWB and 61 other entities that also participated in the Programme. The third-party complaint asserts a claim for contribution against AWB and the other third-party defendants in the event the defendants in the underlying action are found liable to plaintiffs for violating the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”).
