Choc v Hudbay Max x Hamz amza a Jiaqi aqi Farai ai Sara a Jud udith ith Xiyi i Ver era a Alex lexand ander er Anton tonia ia
1 Facts Brief 2 Legal Issues Content tent Scheme of Law Liability Elements 3 4 Blame of the Parent Company 5 Discussion
Facts Brief
1 Facts Brief Fenix mining project, Guatemala Owned by Hudbay Minerals through subsidiaries after a merger The mining project caused a land dispute between the company and the indigenous people that lived there This case covers three related events that each have their own case name Caal action : Eleven women were raped by police, military and mining company security Choc case : A leader in the community was killed by company security Chub action : A man was shot by company security and paralyzed
Legal Issues
2 Motion to strike the pleadings Defendants’ Arguments - Piercing the corporate veil - Duty of Care, Foreseeability Plaintiff’s Arguments - Direct negligence - Vicarious Liability
Scheme of Law Liability Elements
3 Scheme of Law Liability Elements Direct Liability: Circumstances of Piercing Corporate Veil Direct Negligence 1. The corporation is completely (Primary Cause of Action ） dominated and controlled + used as a 1. Requirements that establish a Duty of Care (prima facie duty of care) : shield for fraudulent or improper conduct . - Foreseeability - Proximity 2. Acted as an agent 2. Considerations that Negate or Limit the Duty of Care : 3. A statue or contract requires it - Policy
Blame of the Parent Company
3 Blame of the Parent Company Hudbay failed to carry out its duty of care of its subsidiary companies whose security personnels allegedly shoot, killed and gang raped some of the community members, under the condition that…
Foreseeability Hudbay knew or should have known that in Guatemala, violence is frequently used by security personnel during the forced evictions of Mayan Q’eqchi’ communities Hudbay executives specifically knew that violence had been used at the previous forced evictions of Mayan Q’eqchi’ communities requested by Hudbay Hudbay knew that the security personnel were unlicensed, inadequately trained and in possession of unlicensed and illegal firearims Hudbay knew that there was a higher risk that more extreme forms of violence would be used during the eviction of remote communities
Foreseeability Hudbay knew or should have known that the level of violence and rape against women in Guatemala is very high Hudbay knew that Guatemala’s justice system suffers from serious problems and the vast majority of violent crime goes unpunished Hudbay’s managers and executives were advised of rising tensions regarding the land conflict between the company and Mayan communities Hudbay knew that its Chief of Security, Mynor Padilla, had been credibly accused of committing previous serious and similar criminal acts, including issuing death threats against Mayan Q’eqchi’ community members and shooting his gun recklessly
Proximity Hudbay repeatedly made representations that showed it had turned its mind to the issue of how to deal with the ongoing land conflict between it and Mayan villages In the Caal Action, on the day the alleged harm occurred, Skye’s CEO stated that Hudbay ”did everything in its power to ensure that the evicitons were carried out in the best possible manner while respecting human rights ” In the Choc and Chub actions, Hudbay repeatedly made public satements recognizing its relationship with Mayan subsistence farming villages located on land that formed part of the Fenix mining project …
How can the Plaintiff Win?
THANKS Max x Hamz amza a Jiaqi aqi Farai ai Sara a Jud udith ith Xiyi i Ver era a Alex lexand ander er Anton tonia ia
Recommend
More recommend
