Chiquita FARC Proposed First Amended Complaint

Exhibit 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NO. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON
IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
__________________________________________/
This Document Relates To:
ATS ACTION
__________________________________________/
DOES 1-406,
Urab, Colombia
Plaintiffs,
No. 08-80405-CIV-MARRA
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
250 East Fifth St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Defendant.
__________________________________________/
PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, through counsel, sue Defendants and allege:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This case arises as a result of the actions of Defendant Chiquita Brands
International, Inc., and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, "Chiquita"), in funding,
arming, and otherwise supporting terrorist organizations in Colombia in their campaign
of terror against the civilian population of the Urab region, in order to maintain its
profitable control of Colombias banana growing region. Plaintiffs are family members
of individuals targeted and killed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC), throughout the late 1980s to
the mid 1990s. In order to produce bananas in an environment free from labor opposition
and social disturbances, Chiquita funded, armed, and otherwise supported the FARC.
The deaths of Plaintiffs relatives were a direct, foreseeable, and intended result of
Chiquitas illegal and tortuous support of this terrorist organization. Chiquitas actions
violated not only Colombian law and U.S. law, but also international law prohibiting
crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism, and other abuses.
JURISDICTION
2.
The Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. 1350 (Alien Tort Claims Act); 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) (Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); and 28 U.S.C. 1332 (diversity jurisdiction).
Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states and the damages sought by this
Complaint exceed the jurisdictional minimum for this Court.
3.
In addition, Plaintiffs invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court with
respect to claims based upon laws of the District of Colombia, the United States, the
States of Ohio and Florida, or any other applicable jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1367.
PARTIES
4.
The term "Plaintiffs" herein includes the named plaintiffs and the decedent on
behalf of whom they bring this action.
5.
Plaintiffs include the next of kin and the estates of individuals killed in the Urab
region of Colombia between 1987 and 1999.
These dates correspond to the dates
between which Defendant Chiquita Brands has admitted paying the A.U.C. on a regular
basis. On Feb 25, 2009, Defendant Chiquita Brands filed a document in the Multi
District Litigation case, In Re Chiquita Brands International, 0:08-md-01916-KAM,
(SDFL), entitled "Report of the Special Litigation Committee, Chiquita Brands
International, Inc." (hereinafter "SLC Report") See Docket entry 202-4 in case 0:08-md01916-KAM. The date and geographical ranges for the claims in the instant complaint
are based on Defendant's admissions in the SLC Report.
6.
The terms "wife" and "husband", as used herein, include common law spouses as
well as those individuals married in a church but not obtaining a marriage license from
the Colombian authorities. Male parental relationships for children born out of wedlock,
such as "father", "daughter" and so forth, indicate that the father has given the child his
surname and accepted the child as his own.
7.
There are a total of 406 decedents in this action, and 406 estates in this complaint.
The estates of each victim include the spouse and all minor and adult children of the
decedent, and all persons dependent on the decedent.
8.
The plaintiffs referenced in the preceding and following paragraphs bring their
claims anonymously because the disclosure of their identities and those of the decedents
would expose them to a high risk of violent reprisals, intimidation and death at the hands
of the guerrillas still operating in Colombia.
9.
Decedents are referred to as Decedent 1, Decedent 2, and so on, through Decedent
406. Decedents' estates are referred to as Estate of Decedent 1, and so on. Next of kin
and/or personal representatives corresponding to these Decedents are identified as Doe 1,

Doe 2, and so on, with identification numbers of the Decedents, their Estates, and the
Plaintiffs all corresponding to one another. The terms "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" have
been dispensed with to simplify the complaint, since gender should not be pertinent to
any of their claims.
10.
For each of the 406 cases joined herein, the date of death, general address of the
plaintiff, and the relationship between the next of kin and the decedent are set forth. This
is done to protect the safety of the Plaintiffs. At a minimum, each of the murders alleged
herein have been reported to the Colombian prosecutors' office and the FARC are alleged
to have been responsible. Although the Commission of Justice and Peace, an ongoing
war crimes tribunal in Colombia, has included a number of demobilized FARC guerrillas
who operated in Uraba, such as Elda Neyis Mosquera Garcia (alias "Karina"), the FARC
has not demobilized and most of the perpetrators of these crimes are either fugitives, or
are dead.
11.
Publishing further details about these murders, particularly in a single document,
would assist Colombian guerrillas in identifying the Plaintiffs in this case. The FARC is
still active in Urab, and people are still killed in Urab on a weekly basis.
12.
Each of the aforementioned decedents were at all material times citizens and
residents of Colombia. Addresses for plaintiffs are given in subsequent paragraphs only
to the level of detail of the town or county (municipio) in which they live. This is done to
protect their safety. In addition, plaintiffs live in an underdeveloped jungle region of
Colombia where houses are often not numbered. Many, if not a majority, of the plaintiffs
in this action do not have telephones. A substantial number of them are illiterate.
13.
One or more of the next of kin referenced in the subsequent paragraphs assert
their claims herein, or alternatively, a third party will be appointed the personal
representative of the decedent's estate if required by law. This action is brought on behalf
of Does number 1-406 and by the next of kin of those who were murdered. Each of the
next of kin were at all material times citizens of Colombia.
Individual Plaintiffs
14.
On 9/20/1995, Decedent 1 was killed by the FARC, which received support from
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 1, who was the wife of Decedent 1, is the next of kin and
legal heir to Decedent 1, and resides in the municipio of Apartad in the Urab region of
Colombia. Doe 1 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 1 and on behalf of the Estate
of Decedent 1.
15.
of Decedent 2.
16.
of Decedent 3.
17.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 4, who was the daughter of Decedent 4, is the next of kin
and legal heir to Decedent 4, and resides in the municipio of Apartad in the Urab
region of Colombia. Doe 4 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 4 and on behalf of
the Estate of Decedent 4.
18.
of Decedent 5.
19.
of Decedent 6.
20.
of Decedent 7.
21.
of Decedent 8.
22.
of Decedent 9.
23.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 10, who was the mother of Decedent 10, is the next of kin
24.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 11, who was the wife of Decedent 11, is the next of kin
25.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 12, who was the sister of Decedent 12, is the next of kin
26.
On 10/19/1991, Decedent 13 was killed by the FARC, which received support
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 13, who was the wife of Decedent 13, is the next of
kin and legal heir to Decedent 13, and resides in the municipio of Apartad in the Urab
27.
28.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 15, who was the sister of Decedent 15, is the next of
29.
30.
31.
In February of 1995, Decedent 18 was killed by the FARC, which received
support from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 18, who was the wife of Decedent 18, is the
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 18, and resides in the municipio of Apartad in the
Urab region of Colombia. Doe 18 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 18 and on
behalf of the Estate of Decedent 18.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 22, who was the daughter of Decedent 22, is the next of
36.
37.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 24, who was the mother of Decedent 24, is the next
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 24, and resides in the municipio of Apartad in the
38.
39.
10
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
11
45.
46.
47.
48.
12
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 40, who was the son of Decedent 40, is the next of kin
13
54.
In 1995, Decedent 41 was killed by the FARC, which received support from
55.
56.
57.
14
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
15
63.
64.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 51, who was the aunt of Decedent 51, is the next of kin
65.
In July of 1993, Decedent 52 was killed by the FARC, which received support
66.
16
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 58, who was the mother of Decedent 58, is the next
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 58, and resides in the municipio of Apartad in the
17
72.
73.
74.
75.
18
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
19
81.
82.
83.
84.
20
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
21
90.
91.
92.
93.
22
94.
95.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 82, who was the brother of Decedent 82, is the next of kin
96.
97.
and legal heir to Decedent 84, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the Urab region
of Colombia. Doe 84 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 84 and on behalf of the
Estate of Decedent 84.
98.
23
99.
100.
101.
102.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 89, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the Urab
24
103.
104.
105.
106.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 93, who was the father of Decedent 93, is the next of kin
107.
25
108.
109.
110.
111.
26
112.
113.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 100, who was the wife of Decedent 100, is the next
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 100, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the Urab
region of Colombia. Doe 100 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 100 and on behalf
of the Estate of Decedent 100.
114.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 101, who was the mother of Decedent 101, is the
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 101, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the
115.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 102, who was the sister of Decedent 102, is the next of
kin and legal heir to Decedent 102, and resides in the municipio of Chigorod in the
116.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 103, and resides in the municipio of Chigorod in the
27
117.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 104, who was the mother of Decedent 104, is the next of
118.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 105, and resides in the municipio of Chigorod in
the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 105 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 105 and
on behalf of the Estate of Decedent 105.
119.
120.
28
121.
122.
123.
124.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 111, who was the sister of Decedent 111, is the next
125.
and legal heir to Decedent 112, and resides in the municipio of Chigorod in the Urab
29
126.
127.
128.
129.
30
130.
131.
132.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 119, who was the brother of Decedent 119, is the
133.
134.
31
135.
136.
137.
138.
Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 125, who was the father of Decedent 125, is the next of
32
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
33
144.
145.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 132, and resides in the municipio of Dabeiba in the Urab
146.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 133, and resides in the municipio of Dabeiba in the
147.
34
148.
149.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 136, and resides in the municipio of Dabeiba in the
150.
151.
and legal heir to Decedent 138, and resides in the municipio of Dabeiba in the Urab
152.
35
153.
154.
155.
156.
36
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
37
162.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 149, who was the father of Decedent 149, is the next
163.
164.
165.
38
166.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 153, who was the son of Decedent 153, is the next
167.
168.
169.
170.
39
171.
172.
173.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 160, who was the daughter of Decedent 160, is the
174.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 161, who was the granddaughter of Decedent 161, is
the next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 161, and resides in the municipio of Dabeiba in
40
175.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 162, who was the granddaughter of Decedent 162, is
the next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 162, and resides in the municipio of Dabeiba in
176.
177.
178.
179.
41
180.
181.
182.
183.
42
184.
185.
186.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 173, and resides in the municipio of Medellin in the
187.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 174, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the
188.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 175, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the
43
189.
190.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 177, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the
191.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 178, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the Urab
192.
44
193.
and legal heir to Decedent 180, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the Urab
194.
195.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 182, and resides in the municipio of Riosucio in the
196.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 183, and resides in the municipio of Turbo in the
197.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 184, and resides in the municipio of Turbo in the Urab
45
198.
199.
200.
201.
46
202.
203.
204.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 191, and resides in the municipio of Turbo in the Urab
205.
206.
47
207.
208.
209.
210.
48
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
49
216.
217.
218.
219.
50
220.
221.
222.
223.
and legal heir to Decedent 210, and resides in the municipio of Turbo in the Urab region
224.
51
225.
In September of 1990, Decedent 212 was killed by the FARC, which received
support from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 212, who was the sister of Decedent 212, is
the next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 212, and resides in the municipio of Turbo in
226.
227.
228.
52
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
53
234.
235.
236.
237.
54
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
55
243.
244.
245.
246.
56
247.
248.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 235, who was the grandmother of Decedent 235, is
249.
In August of 1991, Decedent 236 was killed by the FARC, which received
support from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 236, who was the father of Decedent 236, is
250.
251.
57
252.
253.
254.
255.
58
256.
257.
In February of 1991, Decedent 244 was killed by the FARC, which received
support from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 244, who was the wife of Decedent 244, is
258.
259.
In 1995, Decedent 246 was killed by the FARC, which received support from
260.
59
261.
262.
263.
264.
60
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
61
270.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 257, who was the sife of Decedent 257, is the next
271.
and legal heir to Decedent 258, and resides in the municipio of Apartado in the Urab
272.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 259, and resides in the municipio of Apartado in the
273.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 260, and resides in the municipio of Mutata in the Urab
62
274.
from Chiquita and/or Banadex. Doe 261, who was the common law wife of Decedent
261, is the next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 261, and resides in the municipio of
Apartado in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 261 brings this action on behalf of
Decedent 261 and on behalf of the Estate of Decedent 261.
275.
276.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 263, and resides in the municipio of Apartado in
277.
278.
63
279.
280.
Chigorodo in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 267 brings this action on behalf of
281.
282.
64
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
65
288.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 275, and resides in the municipio of Chigorodo in the
289.
290.
291.
66
292.
293.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 280, and resides in the municipio of Mutata in the
294.
295.
296.
67
297.
298.
299.
300.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 287, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the Urab
68
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
69
306.
307.
308.
309.
70
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
and legal heir to Decedent 301, and resides in the municipio of Mutata in the Urab
71
315.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 302, and resides in the municipio of Chigorodo in
316.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 303, and resides in the municipio of Chigorodo in the
317.
318.
72
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 310, and resides in the municipio of Riosucio in the
73
324.
325.
326.
327.
74
328.
329.
330.
and legal heir to Decedent 317, and resides in the municipio of Chigorodo in the Urab
331.
332.
On 12:00:00 AM, Decedent 319 was killed by the FARC, which received support
75
333.
334.
335.
336.
76
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
77
342.
343.
344.
345.
78
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
79
351.
352.
353.
354.
80
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
81
360.
361.
362.
363.
82
364.
365.
366.
367.
368.
83
369.
and legal heir to Decedent 356, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the Urab
370.
371.
272.
84
373.
and legal heir to Decedent 360, and resides in the municipio of Carepa in the Urab
374.
375.
376.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 363, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the Urab
377.
and legal heir to Decedent 364, and resides in the municipio of Necocli in the Urab
85
378.
379.
380.
381.
86
382.
next of kin and legal heir to Decedent 369, and resides in the municipio of Medelln in
383.
384.
385.
386.
87
387.
388.
389.
390.
88
391.
392.
393.
394.
395.
89
Dabeiba in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 382 brings this action on behalf of
396.
Dabeiba in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 383 brings this action on behalf of
397.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 384, and resides in the municipio of Apartado in the Urab
398.
399.
Carepa in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 386 brings this action on behalf of
90
400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
91
Medellin in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 391 brings this action on behalf of
405.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 392, and resides in the municipio of Medellin in the
406.
407.
408.
92
409.
410.
411.
Turbo in the Urab region of Colombia.
Doe 398 brings this action on behalf of

412.
413.
93
414.
415.
416.
417.
kin and legal heir to Decedent 404, and resides in the municipio of Mutata in the Urab
94
418.
of kin and legal heir to Decedent 405, and resides in the municipio of San Pedro de Uraba
in the Urab region of Colombia. Doe 405 brings this action on behalf of Decedent 405
and on behalf of the Estate of Decedent 405.
419.
Defendants
420.
Defendant Chiquita Brands International, Inc. ("CBI"), is a United States-based
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Its corporate
headquarters are located in Cincinnati, Ohio. CBI is a leading international producer,
distributor, and marketer of bananas and other produce; it is one of the largest banana
producers in the world and a major supplier of bananas in Europe and North America.
The company was founded in 1899 as the United Fruit Company, became the United
Brands Company in 1970, and changed its name to Chiquita Brands International in
1990.
421.
On information and belief, at all times relevant herein, CBI wholly owned,
dominated and controlled C.I. Bananos de Exportacion, S.A. ("Banadex"), headquartered

in Medelln, Colombia. Banadex produced bananas in the Urab region of Colombia and,
by 2003, was Chiquita's most profitable banana-producing operation. At all times
95
material herein, Banadex was an agent, alter ego, co-conspirator, and joint tortfeasor with
CBI, with whom it cooperated in a joint criminal enterprise.
422.
At all times herein material, with respect to the events at issue, CBI and Banadex,
conspired with each other, and/or participated in a joint criminal enterprise with each
other, and/or acted in concert, and/or aided or abetted each others' actions, and/or were in
an agency or alter ego or joint venture relationship, and were acting within the course and
scope of such conspiracy, joint criminal enterprise, concerted activity, aiding and
abetting, and/or agency or alter ego or joint venture relationship. As described herein,
"agency" includes agency by ratification. Whenever reference is made in this complaint
to any conduct by a defendant, such allegations and references shall be construed to mean
the conduct of each of the defendants, acting individually, jointly, and severally.
423.
At all times herein material, with respect to the events at issue, Chiquita conspired
with, worked in concert with, participated in a joint criminal enterprise with, acted as the
principal of, employed, and/or aided and abetted the violent terrorist organizations
responsible for Plaintiffs' injuries, including but not limited to the FARC, and the terrorist
organizations were acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment,
and/or concerted activity. The wrongful conduct alleged herein was perpetrated by
Chiquita management and personnel both in Colombia and the United States.
424.
On information and belief, CBI management and other personnel in the United
States and in Colombia were informed of the ongoing events complained of herein and
personally participated in the decision making, planning, preparation, ratification, and/or
execution of the acts complained of.
96
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
425.
The Colombian Conflict and the FARC.
The acronym "FARC" is used herein to refer to the Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). The FARC is

an armed Marxist insurgency formed in Colombia in the late 1950s as an outgrowth of
Liberal guerrilla bandit groups which formed in the late 1940s. The FARC expanded
nationally beginning in 1964, and was the armed wing of the Clandestine Communist
Party of Colombia, a group in competition with two other, non-violent communist parties
in existence at the time.
426.
Since the 1960s, the FARC's goal has been to overthrow the government of
Colombia through force of arms. To achieve these ends, the FARC has assassinated
political leaders, kidnapped numerous individuals, attacked police stations and other
infrastructure, set off bombs in urban areas, and committed a variety of other terrorist
acts. These activities, resulting in thousands of deaths and hundreds of kidnappings, have
occurred throughout Colombia, including the Uraba region. To finance its revolutionary
activities and cultivate a "Robin Hood" image among the Colombian population, since
the 1960s the FARC has extorted money from drug traffickers and other wealthy
individuals and corporations. In more recent years, the FARC imposed a "war tax" on
coca growers in regions under its control, becoming involved in the drug trade itself.
427.
Aside from the allegations made herein, other examples of the FARC's terrorist
activities include the kidnapping and murder of the individuals described in the related
cases, Julin, et. al. v. Chiquita Brands International, 08-CV-20641, 08-MD-1916
(Marra/Johnson) and Pescatore et. al. v. Chiquita Brands International, 08-CV-80683, 08-
97
MD-1916 (Marra/Johnson).
On information and belief and according to the Julin
Complaint at 179 (e), the FARC kidnapped 23 American citizens between the years of
1994 and 1997.
428.
Throughout the 1980s, U.S. Department of State listed the FARC as a terrorist
organization in every one of its annual public reports on terrorism. As a result of the
FARC's continued acts of terrorism, the U.S. Secretary of State designated the FARC as a
Foreign Terrorist Organization on October 8, 1997, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1189.
429.
The governing structure of the FARC includes a body known as the Estado Mayor
Central, or Central High Command. The Estado Mayor is comprised of approximately

30 members, including a seven member Secretariado (Secretariat) which comprises the
FARC's top command. To further the FARC's strategic goals, the Estado Mayor Central
has consistently endorsed the use of extortion, kidnapping, and murder to influence the
policy and affect the conduct of the governments of Colombia and the United States. The
Secretariado and Estado Mayor Central also control the distribution of narcotics
trafficking and other criminal activity proceeds amongst and between the various Fronts
for payroll, weapons, ammunition, uniforms, food, supplies, medicine, medical care,
communications and other expenses throughout the organization.
The FARC is
comprised of approximately 77 Fronts and mobile columns. The size of each Front
varies, with between several dozen to more than hundreds of FARC members in each
Front. In the Uraba region of Colombia, the FARC's local organization is called the
Bloque Jose Maria Cordoba, which includes the 5th, 18th, 34th, 47th, 57th, and 58th
Fronts, and perhaps others. The most prominent FARC guerrilla leader in the Uraba
region is named Elda Neyis Mosquera Garcia, alias "Karina", who demobilized as part of
98
Colombia's Justice and Peace program and was convicted of recruiting minors in August
of 2008.
430.
In the early 1960s, the Defendant's predecessor organization, the United Fruit
Company, abandoned the Santa Marta region of Colombia, where it had monopolized the
production, transportation, and commercialization of bananas, in favor of a new business
model, whereby banana production would be left to local farmers, and the corporation
would focus its efforts on the international sale of the product. The new model was
implemented in 1963 in the jungles of Urab.
431.
A local tradition of resolving disputes through violence combined with the total
absence of state presence provided a fertile ground for recruitment by the Fuerzas
Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC. The FARC's first incursions into the
region were through the town of San Jose de Apartado, a stopover on the way to Uraba
from the neighboring department of Cordoba. From this foothold, the FARC established
itself in communities which had supported the Liberal guerrillas in the 1950s, who fought
in a prior conflict referred to in Colombia as "la violencia." ("the violence")
432.
During the 1960s and into the late 1980s, the FARC, and a Maoist competitor
called the Ejercito Popular de Liberacion (Popular Liberation Army) consolidated their
power and influence in the developing region.
The first labor unions, representing
defenseless banana workers against their employers, became progressively allied to, and
then indistinguishable from the armed guerrillas in the region.
433.
Starting in the early 1980s, the FARC and EPL guerrillas began to control key
sectors of the local economy. With their ideological influence over the working class and
subsistence farmers ("campesinos"), they were transformed from bands of rebels living
99
on the margins of society into potent political-military actors. In the absence of state
authority, the administration of justice was left to the guerrillas, beginning a history of
governance by non-state actors that continues to this day.
434.
The rapid growth of the banana industry resulted in a massive immigration, and
the development of large scale invasions of squatters on the outskirts of the towns and
villages throughout Urab. This process began around December of 1982. The majority
of the rural invasions, and many of the urban ones, were organized by the EPL and the
Union Patriotica, a political party associated with the FARC.
435.
Compounding the problem was the fight between the EPL and the FARC,
expressed through their affiliations with two competing labor unions, named
Sintrabanano and Sintagro. Sintrabanano was under the influence of the Colombian
Communist Party (Partido Comunista Colombiano), or PCC, which was Soviet-oriented.
Sintagro was under the auspices of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Partido
Comunista Marxista-Leninista), or PCML, which was China-oriented.
436.
The split between the two unions eventually developed into bloody conflict
among the farms under their respective influences. Each was backed by a guerrilla
organization which corresponded to the pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese communist factions.
Sintrabanano was backed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas
Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia), or FARC, while Sintagro was supported by the
Popular Liberation Army (Ejrcito Popular de Liberacin), or EPL.
Both guerrilla
organizations considered the banana workers an important base of political support.

Local banana farms, and banana exporting companies including Defendant Chiquita
100
Brands, International, paid "war taxes" to the insurgent group controlling the regions in
which they operated, in their bloody war against their rival.
437.
Beginning in 1993, the leaders of private mercenary groups, which defended
landowners and drug traffickers from the guerrillas, formed a right wing paramilitary
organization called the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC.
("Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia"). For some period of time, Defendant paid both the
FARC and AUC, until eventually settling on the strategy of using the AUC to eliminate
the FARC.
Eventually, the EPL became absorbed into the AUC, while the FARC
continues its fight against the AUC, and its sucessor organizations, called the emergent
groups, today.
B.
438.
Defendant's Support of the FARC
Chiquita, as the successor to the United Fruit, has been involved in the production
and exportation of bananas from Colombia for over a century. Since the early 1960s, and
at all relevant times for this case, Chiquita produced bananas in the Urab region of
Colombia.
439.
From about 1987 until sometime between 1997 and 1999, Chiquita provided
material support, including money and services to the FARC.

440.
Chiquita's assistance helped the FARC to maintain its military social control of
the banana region of Uraba, and fight against its rival, the Maoist EPL. In exchange for
its financial support to the FARC, Chiquita was able to operate in an environment in
which guerrilla, labor and community opposition to their operations and policies was
reduced. Its operations were thus safe from both the FARC and EPL.
101
441.
On March 19, 2007, Chiquita pled guilty of violating U.S. anti-terrorism laws by
funding another Colombian terrorist organization, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia,

from 1997-2004. In so doing, Chiquita acknowledged that it had made payments to the
FARC as well, between the years of 1989 and 1997.
442.
Chiquita's President, CEO and Chairman of the Board signed the United States'
Factual Proffer, Docket Entry 123-3 in the District of Colombia Case No. 07-cr-00055,
and stated that on behalf of Chiquita and after consulting with attorneys, Chiquita
stipulated that the statement of facts was true and accurate and would have been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt if the government had proceed to trial. Paragraph 20 of the
Factual Proffer stated that "Defendant Chiquita had previously paid money to other
terrorist organizations operating in Colombia," including the FARC, and that "Defendant
Chiquita made these earlier payments from in or around 1989 through in or about 1997,
when the FARC and ELN controlled areas where Chiquita had its bannana-producing
operations." In the same Proffer, Chiquita admitted to using many concealment tactics
similar to those alleged in the instant complaint with respect to payments made to the
FARC.
443.
On May 11, 2008, CBS News broadcast a 60 Minutes report on Chiquita's
payments to terrorist groups in Colombia, in which Chiquita's Chief Executive Officer,

Fernando Aguirre, admitted that Chiquita hid its payments to the terrorist groups so well
that "if we hadn't gone to the Justice Department, we probably would not be here talking
about this whole issue. No one would know about this."
444.
On Feb 25, 2009, Defendant Chiquita Brands filed a "Report of the Special
Litigation Committee, Chiquita Brands International, Inc," referred to herein as the SLC
102
Report. The SLC Report is a statement made by a committee established by Defendant's

Board of Directors by resolution of the Board, entitled Chiquita Brands Intl, Inc.,
Resolution of the Board of Directors Forming Special Litigation Committee. The Special
Litigation Committee consists of several current and former members of Defendant's
Board of Directors, whose names appear as signatories. The document is also indorsed
by the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, who were apparently
retained to assist in the preparation of the report. As such, everything in the SLC Report
can be taken as a statement or an admission by Defendant Chiquita Brands.
445.
The SLC report documented Chiquita's decision to place its own business
interests above the safety of others in Colombia and the manner in which it used its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Banadex S.A., to make illicit payments to the FARC with the
direct knowledge and authorization of Chiquita's officers in Colombia and at its
Cincinnati, Ohio, headquarters.
446.
Chiquita personnel based in Central America and Colombia were well aware of
the FARC's violent acts before the company received its first solicitation for payment.
Each of the Colombia-based employees interviewed by the Chiquita Shareholder
Litigation Committee credibly related their experience with the FARC and stated that,
during this time period, the FARC was responsible for daily acts of violence, including
killngs.
447.
In the SLC Report, Defendant Chiquita Brands International admits paying
money to the FARC beginning in either 1987 or 1989.1 SLC Report at 30. After the
FARC made a demand for $10,000 in extortion money, several Banadex employees met
1
The Defendant has made inconsistent admissions, as to whether its payments to the FARC began in 1987
or in 1989. In its Proffer in support of its guilty plea, Defendant stated that the payments began in 1989. In
the SLC report, the date is given as "1987 or 1989."
103
with Defendant's top management in Cincinnati, including Robert Kistinger,2 then-head

of Chiquitas Latin American operations based in Cincinnati, Dennis Doyle,3 then-Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Banana Group, and Charles
Morgan, the Companys then-General Counsel. Id. at 30-31. A meeting was held in
Cincinnati, and Doyle responded, Lets pay it. Id. at 31. The money was withdrawn
from Defendant's General Manager's fund in Honduras and paid to the FARC. Id. at 32.
Everyone understood this was clearly extortion money, said Robert Kistinger. Id. at
31.
448.
After this meeting, a person identified as "Chiquita Employee #2" instructed
"Banadex Employee #1" to meet him at a hotel in Guatemala in order to put the payment
process in motion. Id. at 32. Chiquita Employee #2 had come from Honduras, where he
had obtained $10,000 from the General Managers Fund, which he gave to Banadex
Employee #1, who brought it back to Colombia. Banadex Employee #1 then delivered
the cash to a Banadex farm manager, who in turn delivered the payment to the FARC.
449.
Following the initial payment, Banadex continued to make payments in response
to extortion demands on a more or less regular basis, mostly to the FARC but also to
other guerrilla groups. Id. at 32. The Defendant admits that the total amount of guerrilla
payments ranged from $100,000 to $200,000 per year. Id. at 32. Banadex continued to
make payments to the FARC and other guerrilla groups until "sometime between 1997
Robert Kistinger joined Chiquita in 1980 and, after holding a series of positions with increasing
responsibilities, became President and COO of the Fresh Group in 1997, the position he held until he left
the Company in March 2008. Id. at 31 n 29
3
Dennis Doyle joined Chiquita as an in-house lawyer in 1984 and was the Vice President and COO of the
Banana Group from 1987 to 1989, during which time he oversaw the Colombia operations, in addition to
operations in other regions. From 1989 to 2002, he was the President in charge of the Far East, Middle
East, Australia, and Asia Region and also had responsibilities for the Companys European Region. He
served as Senior Vice President for Regulatory Affairs from 2002 until 2003, when he left the Company.
Doyle currently serves as a consultant for the Company.
104
and 1999." Id. at 30 n 27. The amount of paid to the FARC, totaling several million
dollars, is therefore roughly equivalent to the $1.7 million dollars Defendant admits
paying to the AUC.
450.
These payments were disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("S.E.C.") and the Department of Justice during a 1998-2001 investigation of the

Defendant. Id. at 30 n 27.
451.
The FARC payments were considered "sensitive" payments and given special and
confidential treatment. The company made efforts to limit the number of people who had
knowledge of the guerrilla payments. Banadex Employee #1 said that he knew that
senior management in Cincinnati was aware of the payments, the payments were
recorded in the Companys books, and they were reviewed periodically by Chiquita
Employee #2 and the Companys internal auditors. Id. at 32.
452.
FARC payments were initiated within the company by completing a document
called a "1016," which was required by Chiquita's accounting procedures for virtually
every disbursement. Each 1016 was approved by [a Banadex employee] and typically
included the following information: (i) the purpose of the payment, (ii) an accounting
code, (iii) the date, (iv) the person requesting the payment, and (v) an authorizing
signature. For FARC payments, the description on the 1016 was coded (for example, as a
payment for "military transport") in order to conceal the nature of the payments from
local staff in Colombia.
453.
Once a properly authorized 1016 was submitted to the Accounting Department,
the funds were disbursed. As noted above, all payments to the FARC were delivered by
an intermediary and were made in cash.
105
454.
[Banadex Employee #1] told the SLC that [Banadex Contract Employee #2] and
[Banadex Contract Employee #1] were two intermediaries that Banadex used to make the
guerrilla payments.
455.
The Company's Internal Audit Department developed a special accounting
process for recording "sensitive" payments, which were described as payments requiring
an "appropriate level of confidentiality" that "would not fall into other account
classifications such as Contributions, Donations, Consulting Services, Public Relations,
etc." As a general matter, the accounting process involved (i) ensuring the adequacy of
supporting documentation for purposes of compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act ("FCPA"), (ii) conducting a quarterly review of sensitive payment transactions, and
(iii) providing the underlying payment documentation to the General Counsel in
Cincinnati. This process was described in memoranda authored by Bud White and
distributed widely throughout the company, which were redistributed on an annual basis
by the Internal Audit Department. The process applied to payment to the FARC.
456.
The evidence gathered by the SLC, from documents and testimony, varies as to
how FARC payments were recorded in Banadex' books. The evidence suggests that the
payments were recorded on Banadex' General Ledger as either (i) general manager's
expenses drawn from the General Manager's fund or (ii) security payments drawn from
an operations account. The FARC payments were not explicitly recorded as payments to
the FARC in Banadex' accounting rcords.
457.
Individuals at Banadex and at Chiquita's headquarters in Cincinnati were aware of
the payments to the FARC. As documented above, [Banadex Employee #1], [Banadex
Employee #3], [Chiquita Employee #2], and Robert Kistinger knew about the payments,
106
in part because of their involvement in the original decision to approve the payments or
in making the payments thereafter. The Legal and Internal Audit Departments knew
about the payments due to their roles in monitoring the FCPA reports. William Tsacalis,
then-Controller and Chief Accounting Officer, also knew about the payments. Tsacalis
said that he was generally aware of the FARC payments and was "under the impression
that if we didn't make payments to guerrillas, people would get killed." [Chiquita
Employee #3] was also aware of the FARC payments, which he learned about while
preparing to conduct the 1995 audit of Banadex.
Steven Warshaw, then-Chief
Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer, said that he did not "specifically
recall the terminology 'guerrilla,'" but did say that he recalled that Chiquita had to make
"protection payments" in Colombia.
458.
However, several witnesses, including their direct reports, said that they are all
virtually certain that Keith Lindner and Steven Warshaw were aware of the FARC
payments during the time that they were made, and they inferred that because Keith
Lindner was aware of the payments, Carl Lindner was aware of them as well. The SLC
believes that the evidence supports the conclusion that Keith Lindner, then-President and
COO, and Steven Warshaw, then-Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, knew the payments were being made.
459.
Robert Olson, then-Vice President and General Counsel for Chiquita, said that
when he was first told about the FARC payments soon after joining the company in 1995,
he was led to believe that the Audit Committee had been informed of the payments. He
also said that this impression was confirmed when the FARC payments were discussed at
a 1997 Audit Committee meeting in such as way that confirmed his impression that the
107
Audit Committee had received reports of the FARC payments at an earlier date. Further,
Kistinger said that he believed Jean Sisco, the long-time Chair of the Audit Committee,
knew about the FARC payments because either he or someone else told her about them.
460.
The Audit Committee was unable to determine with precision when Chiquita
stopped making payments to the FARC. According to at least one witness, Chiquita
made payments to the FARC until 1999.
461.
Before the SLC Report was publicly filed on Feb. 25, 2009, Plainiffs had no way
of knowing of Defendant's support of the FARC. By reason of the foregoing, any statutes
of limitation were equitably tolled until on or about February 25, 2009, and accordingly,
the claims of all plaintiffs herein are timely brought.
462.
According to the SLC Report, "[t]he incident that provided the most dramatic and
enduring support for the belief that there would be serious consequences for a failure to
pay the FARC occurred in 1995. At that time, according to numerous witnesses,
approximately twenty-five passengers traveling on a bus were killed in an attack
attributed to the FARC. The recollection of witnesses varied as to whether most or all of
the passengers killed were Chiquita employees." Id at 33.
463.
The husband of a woman killed in that attack is a plaintiff in the instant
Complaint.
According to this Plaintiff, the bus was not attacked because Chiquita
refused to pay extortion to the FARC. It was attacked because the AUC had begun
providing security for that farm. Contrary to Defendant's claims, Defendant was already
paying the AUC at that time, and from the FARC's point of view, Banadex had changed
sides.
The people on the bus, including this client's wife, were killed because of
Chiquita's payments to the AUC, not because of their failure to make payments to the
108
FARC. The Plaintiff worked on an adjoining farm and has personal knowledge of the
AUC security that was in place.
His life was saved when he elected to take his
motorcycle to work that day, instead of taking the bus with his wife.
464.
At all relevant times, Chiquita knew that the FARC was a violent terrorist
organization, as its brutal aims and tactics were a well-known feature of the Colombian
civil war. On October 8, 1997, the United States government designated the FARC as a
Foreign Terrorist Organization ("FTO"). That designation was well-publicized in the
American as well as in the Colombian news media.
465.
In October of 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13224, naming the
FARC as a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist. As a result of the SDGT designation,

it has been a crime for any United States person to, among other things, willfully to
engage in transactions with the FARC, without having first obtained a license or other
authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control. That designation was wellpublicized in the American as well as in the Colombian news media.
466.
On March 19, 2007, Chiquita pled guilty in U.S. District Court for the District of
Colombia to one count of engaging in transactions with another specially designated

global terrorist group in Colombia, the AUC. The company's sentence included a $25
million criminal fine, the requirement to implement and maintain an effective compliance
and ethics program, and five years' probation.
C.
467.
Chiquita's Conduct Aided and Abetted the FARC's Conduct Alleged

Herein
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference 441-444 above, regarding the payments
Defendant admitted making to the FARC from some time between 1987-1989 through
some time between 1997-1999, totaling several million dollars.
109
468.
Chiquita's conduct aided and abetted the killings and other conduct alleged herein,
which constitute war crimes; crimes against humanity; and terrorism, among other
violations of Colombian, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, United
States, and international law. Chiquita substantially assisted the FARC guerrillas who
personally undertook the wrongful acts alleged herein, and knew that its actions would
assist in the wrongful acts at the time it provided the assistance.
469.
As to the first element of aiding and abetting, the killings alleged in this complaint
constitute war crimes; crimes against humanity; and terrorism, among other violations of
Colombian, New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, the District of Columbia, United States, and
international law.
470.
Chiquitas payments contributed significantly to the perpetration of the crimes
committed by the FARC by improving its financial situation and enabling it to purchase
weapons and other war materials.
471.
Payments from Chiquita constituted a significant portion of the FARC's budget in
Uraba and were a substantial factor in causing the injuries alleged in this Complaint.
472.
Chiquita knew that its actions would assist in the illegal or wrongful activity and
other conduct alleged herein at the time it provided the assistance. Chiquita knew that its
actions would assist in the killings. The FARC's use of violent tactics, including
extrajudicial killings, to terrorize innocent civilians living in areas under FARC control
was well known in Colombia and was widely reported in the press in Colombia and the
United States.
473.
The United States government designated the FARC as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization on October 8, 1997, and that designation was well-publicized in the
110
American public media. The FARC's designation was even more widely reported in the
public media in Colombia, where Chiquita had its substantial banana-producing
operations.
474.
By arming and financing the FARC, Chiquita intended to benefit from the
FARC's systematic killings of civilians. Chiquita intended that its actions would assist
the FARC in committing the specific acts alleged in the complaints, in order to protect its
workers from the rival EPL, or in the alternative, was recklessly indifferent and had
actual knowledge of what was occurring.
475.
In exchange for its financial support to the FARC, Chiquita was able to operate in
an environment in which labor and community opposition was suppressed. In addition,

Chiquita was protected from the rival Maoist group, the EPL.
476.
The stability and social control provided by the FARC was to Chiquita's benefit,
in that it minimized the expenses incurred and avoided disruptions in the exportation of
bananas.
D.
477.
Chiquita Joined the FARC's Conspiracy to Commit the Acts Alleged

Herein
478.
By its conduct, Chiquita joined the FARC's conspiracy to kill and terrorize the
civilian population of Uraba. The killings alleged herein, which constitute war crimes;
crimes against humanity; and terrorism, among other violations of Colombian, Florida,
New Jersey, Ohio, District of Columbia, United States, and international law, were
111
committed by members of the FARC in furtherance of the conspiracy. Chiquitas actions

constituted conspiracy in that (1) two or more members of the FARC agreed to carry out
their terrorist campaign against civilians, (2) Chiquita joined the conspiracy knowing of
at least one of the goals of the conspiracy and intending to help accomplish it, and (3) one
or more of the violations alleged herein was committed by someone who was a member
of the conspiracy and acted in furtherance of the conspiracy.
479.
The FARC maintained its control of the Uraba region through the systematic
terrorization of the civilian population. The FARC purposely targeted civilians. Thus,
the use of illegal, violent means was always central to the group's mission and strategies.
Chiquita joined the conspiracy knowing that the FARC used illegal violence against
civilians, and intending to help accomplish that goal.
480.
Chiquita joined the conspiracy intending to benefit from this strategy; the FARCs
methods would reduce Chiquitas costs and risk exposure by suppressing labor unrest
through the elimination of those who opposed the FARC.
481.
Chiquita, as a co-conspirator, arranged illegal money payments and facilitated and
condoned murders in furtherance of the conspiracy.

482.
The FARC's conduct alleged herein were committed by members of the FARC in
furtherance of the conspiracy's goal of controlling Uraba by means of illegal violence

against civilians.
483.
All of the decedents described in this Complaint were killed by the FARC in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
E.
The FARC Acted as Chiquita's Agent in Committing the Acts Alleged

Herein.
112
484.
Chiquita formed an agreement with the FARC, paying them in exchange for their
protection and for the suppression of union activity and protection from the EPL.
485.
486.
Chiquita knew or intended that the FARC would commit the killings and acts
alleged herein when it made an agreement with the FARC. In providing the FARC with
money, Defendants knew or intended that the FARC obtain arms and continue their
practice of killing civilians.
487.
The FARC did, in fact, carry out killings of many hundrds of people using the
money provided by Chiquita.

488.
The FARC's conduct alleged herein was committed in furtherance of Chiquita's
business.
489.
The FARC's conduct alleged herein was authorized or subsequently acquiesced in
by Chiquita.
Chiquita authorized the killings and other conduct alleged herein in
advance. The FARC's agreement with Chiquita involved the systematic terrorization of
the population of Urab.
490.
Furthermore, Chiquita acquiesced in the FARC's conduct after the fact by
continuing to pay them despite full knowledge that their support was being used to carry
out the crimes alleged herein. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference 290-293, above.
491.
On information and belief, the monetary payment made by Chiquita to the FARC
contributed to the FARC's ability to maintain its power in the regions impacted by the
FARC's acts of terror and mayhem. The financial assistance provided by Chiquita to the
113
FARC facilitated the FARC's ability to carry out such acts with impunity. The acts of
terror and violence were designed to instill fear and control in the regions affected.
VI. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

492.
At all times, Defendants knew or should have known that the FARC was a violent
terrorist organization continually engaging in vicious crimes and human rights violations
against civilians in Colombia, including killing and forced disappearances.
493.
The acts described herein were conducted in the course of an internal armed
conflict. The FARC were parties to this armed conflict who engaged in combat with the
Colombian government and its paramilitary auxilliaries; they committed the abuses
against Plaintiffs and decedents as part of their prosecution of this conflict. The acts
described herein were part of a widespread and systematic campaign of attacks by the
FARC against the civilian population of the banana-growing region of Uraba. This
campaign spanned a large swath of land in Colombia, resulted in the deaths of thousands
of individuals, and was directed by the central command of the FARC, called the Estado
Mayor Central Conjunto. At all relevant times Chiquita had knowledge of this campaign
of attacks.
494.
The defendants' acts had a substantial effect upon the success of the violations of
international law.
495.
The defendants were aware that their acts and omissions assisted in the violations
of international law.
496.
The defendants acted willfully, wantonly and recklessly, with the intent to aid the
terrorist acts of the FARC, with deliberate and conscious disregard of the fact that its
actions would aid, abet and further the terrorist activities of the FARC.
114
497.
The acts and injuries to Plaintiffs and decedents described herein were part of a
pattern and practice of systematic human rights violations requested, paid for, ordered,
confirmed, aided and abetted, and/or ratified by Chiquita and/or committed in conspiracy
with the FARC.
498.
As a direct and proximate result of Chiquita's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have
suffered and will continue to suffer harm including pain and suffering, personal injuries,
property damages, harm to their livelihoods, and extreme and severe mental anguish and
emotional distress. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in
amounts to be proven at trial.
499.
Plaintiffs' causes of action arise under and constitute torts under the following
laws, agreements, conventions, resolutions and treaties:

a) the Laws of Colombia.
500.
Legal action by Plaintiffs in Colombia would be futile. In June 2004, Chiquita
sold its Colombian subsidiary Banadex. On information and belief, Chiquita no longer
owns any production operations in Colombia and is not subject to service there.
Furthermore, the legal system in Colombia is characterized by ineffectiveness and
impunity. Prosecutors, investigators, and judicial officials who pursue cases of human
rights abuses implicating the FARC guerrillas are subject to kidnappings, death threats
and assassinations.
501.
Legal action by Plaintiffs in Colombia would also result in serious reprisals.
Individuals who seek redress for paramilitary crimes committed against them or their
family members are regularly targeted for further retributive violence.
502.
Chiquita actively concealed its payments to the FARC.
115
503.
This concealment had the effect of preventing plaintiffs from learning that
Chiquita was responsible for their injuries. Plaintiffs were unaware of Chiquita's support
of the FARC until the criminal case was unsealed on March 19, 2007, and did not have
enough information to sue Defendant without running afoul of Rule 11 until Defendant's
Special Committee Litigation Report was filed on February 25, 2009.
504.
Chiquita's concealment of its role in Plaintiffs' injuries prevented Plaintiffs from
filing their claims at an earlier date.

505.
Plaintiffs were additionally unable to bring suit in Colombia or the United States
until now due to the poor security situation and the danger of reprisals, to which
Chiquita's support of the FARC and other terrorist groups has contributed.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(War Crimes, in violation of Colombian law)
506.
The allegations set forth in the above paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.

507.
The conflict between the FARC and the Republic of Colombia is an armed
conflict not of an international character, as defined in Article 3 of the 4th Geneva

Convention.
508.
There is no dispute that at all relevant times, and up until the present, Colombia
has been devastated by a long-standing civil conflict. This has been widely documented
and, to Plaintiffs' knowledge, has never been disputed in this or any other case. For
example, the 1997 State Department Human Rights Report notes that the Colombian
government's control of national territory "has been increasingly challenged by
longstanding and widespread internal armed conflict and rampant violence ..."
116
509.
During all times relevant to this complaint, the civil war in Colombia pitted the
Colombian government against the FARC and other left-wing guerrilla insurgents.
510.
The Colombian civil war has continued uninterrupted since at least 1946, and
claimed the lives of over 300,000 people. Both Venezuela and Ecuadors presidents have
referred to the FARC as a belligerent force. The Colombian government has engaged in
prisoner exchanges with the FARC in the past. It held extensive negotiations with the
FARC during the 1998-2002 time period, with involvement of the United Nations, and
ceded a large portion of its territory to FARC control, referred to as the "zona de
despeje," or cleared zone. During that time, the FARC assumed the powers of
government in the cleared zone, including judicial and police powers.
511.
The Decedents described in this complaint were all persons taking no active part
in the hostilities, and were civilians. The Decedents in this Complaint were executed by
the FARC as it used tactics of terror and violence. They were not merely incidental
victims during a time of war; rather they were victims of the FARC's war strategies and
goals.
512.
Each of the murders alleged herein were committed "in the course of" and "in the
context of and in association with" the FARC's war against the Colombian state. Control
of the Uraba region was key to the FARC's military strategy, and its political
organization, the Union Patriotica, was based in Uraba.
513.
The incidents alleged herein constitute murder, and directing attacks on civilians,
both of which are war crimes not requiring any showing of state action. For some of the
murders alleged herein, the body of the decedent was never located.
Forced
disappearances are also war crimes. Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices
117
participating in the formulation of these acts are responsible for all acts performed by any
person in execution of such plan.
514.
The FARC's acts violate the law of nations in that they were committed in the
course of war crimes, because 1) an armed conflict was ongoing; 2) the FARC was a
party to the conflict; 3) Plaintiffs, decedents, and countless other victims of the FARC's
acts did not take active part in the hostilities; and 4) the acts were committed in the
course of armed conflict. These acts are thus war crimes, regardless of whether the
FARC acted under color of state authority.
515.
The crimes described herein constitute torts that give rise to federal diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, and are violations of the laws of Colombia.
516.
Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in that they aided and abetted, directed, ordered,
requested, paid, were reckless in dealing with, participated in a joint criminal enterprise
with, confirmed, ratified, were the principals of, and/or conspired with the FARC in
bringing about the crimes committed against Plaintiffs.
517.
Decedents were either members of particular social groups that were particularly
targeted by the FARC as part of its war strategy, or thought to be connected to those
groups in some way.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Crimes Against Humanity, in violation of Colombian law)
518.

519.
The conduct alleged in this complaint constitutes crimes against humanity in that
the FARC carried out these acts as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a
118
civilian population. Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the

formulation of these acts are responsible for all acts performed by any person in
execution of such plan.
520.
The crimes against humanity described herein constitute torts that give rise to
federal jurisdiction under the 28 U.S.C. 1332, violations of the laws of Colombia.
521.
bringing about the crimes against humanity committed against Plaintiffs.
522.
The FARC killed thousands of civilians in Urab. Their war strategy involved
targeting civilians in order to bring the region under their control.

523.
Decedents were all killed as part of a systematic attack on particular societal
groups. All of Plaintiffs' decedents were executed by the FARC as it used tactics of
terror and violence. They were not merely incidental victims during a time of war; rather
they were victims of the FARC's war strategies and goals in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Terrorism, in violation of Colombian law)
524.

525.
The acts of terrorism described herein constitute torts that give rise to federal
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, and violations of the laws of Colombia.
119
526.
requested, paid, participated in a joint criminal enterprise with, confirmed, ratified, were
the principals of, and/or conspired with the FARC in bringing about the acts of terrorism
committed against Plaintiffs.
527.
Plaintiffs' decedents, as well as the vast majority of FARC targets in Urab, were
civilians. The FARC's activities alleged herein were intended to intimidate these and
other individuals living in Uraba, Colombia, as well as to influence the policies of the
governments of the United States and Colombia; ie., to demonstrate that the FARC itself
governed the Uraba region.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Material Support to Terrorist Organizations, in violation of Colombian law)
528.

529.
Defendants' conduct alleged herein constitutes a violation of the international law
prohibition against providing material support to terrorist organizations, in that

Defendants provided assets to a terrorist organization with the knowledge or intent that
they would be used to carry out attacks on civilians for the purpose of intimidating or
coercing a civilian population. Defendants' conduct constitutes material support to
terrorist organizations, regardless of whether Defendants acted under color of state
authority.
530.
The acts of providing assistance to the FARC described herein constitute material
support to a terrorist organization, giving rise to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

1332, and violate the laws of Colombia. Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices
120
participating in the formulation of these acts are responsible for all acts performed by any
person in execution of such plan
531.
Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in that they directly participated in the provision
of material support to the FARC, and/or they aided and abetted, directed, ordered,
with, confirmed, ratified, were the principals of, and/or conspired with others, including
members of the FARC, to provide material support to the FARC, whose terrorist actions
caused Plaintiffs' injuries.
532.
As detailed above, Defendants provided material support to the FARC, including
several million dollars in cash.

533.
The support that Chiquita provided was crucial to the FARC's war strategy and its
ability to continue killing civilians. Payments from Chiquita and other banana companies
constituted a significant portion of the FARC's budget in Uraba.
534.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, the FARC has been an organization
engaged in acts of premeditated, politically-motivated violence against noncombatant

targets. The FARC's terrorist activities have been well-known at all relevant times, and,
on information and belief, Defendants were aware of such activities. From October 8,
1997 until the present, the FARC has been designated by the United States government as
a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
535.
As detailed above, Chiquita knew of and intentionally supported the FARC's
strategy of targeting civilians in order to intimidate and control the population of Urab.
Chiquita provided this support in exchange for security and stability on the banana
plantations, which it achieved through the murder or disappearance of civilians.
121
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Wrongful Death, in violation of Colombian law)
536.

537.
As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions and as a result of the deaths
described above, Plaintiffs have sustained pecuniary loss resulting from the loss of
society, comfort, attention, services, and support of the decedents.
538.
bringing about the wrongful deaths of the decedents.
539.
The acts described herein constitute wrongful death, actionable under the laws of
Colombia.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Assault and Battery, in violation of Colombian law)
540.
Defendants' actions alleged herein constitute assault and battery in that they acted
with the intention of causing offensive and harmful touching of Plaintiffs' persons
without the consent of Plaintiffs, and/or they acted with the intention of creating the
imminent apprehension that such touching would result, and such touching or
apprehension of touching resulted.
541.
As a result of these acts, Plaintiffs were placed in great fear for their lives and
suffered severe physical and psychological abuse and agony.

542.
Defendants' acts were willful, intentional, wanton, malicious, and oppressive.
122
543.
bringing about the assault and battery of Plaintiffs and decedents.
544.
The FARC abducted and killed decedents, in some cases in front of Plaintiffs and
their family members. In so doing, the FARC intended to cause decedents to suffer
dangerous, harmful, and offensive physical contact without their consent, and also to
frighten them with the imminent apprehension of such contact, and they also intended to
frighten surviving Plaintiffs with the imminent apprehension of such contact.
545.
The FARC's acts of killing alleged herein included harmful physical contact that
caused injury and death to decedents without their consent, and acts of physical and
emotional intimidation that caused decedents and surviving Plaintiffs to suffer the fright
and apprehension of immediate harmful physical contact.
546.
The acts described herein constitute assault and battery, actionable under the laws
of Colombia.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence, in violation of Colombian law)
547.

548.
Defendants' conduct constitutes negligence and is actionable under the laws of
Colombia.
549.
Defendants' conduct constitutes negligence in that Defendants owed Plaintiffs and
decedents a duty to act with reasonable care not to injure them, 2) they breached that
123
duty, 3) it was reasonably foreseeable that Defendants' negligence would cause injury,
damage, loss, or harm to Plaintiffs and their next of kin.
550.
Defendants' negligent actions include, but are not limited to, unreasonably
disregarding the risk that persons in their employ would commit torts against Plaintiffs
and decedents, and violating statutes and other laws designed to protect Plaintiffs and
decedents.
551.
As a result of these acts, Plaintiffs suffered harm including, but not limited to,
death, physical injury, and severe emotional distress.

552.
Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to act so as to stop
engaging the conduct described herein, and by failing to take steps in their power to
prevent or prohibit such conduct. By continuing to provide financial support to the
FARC to carry out its violent campaign against civilians, Defendants breached their duty
to Plaintiffs to act with reasonable care so as not to cause injury to them.
553.
Defendant's conduct constitutes negligence per se, because it violated Colombian
law. The alleged conduct is the type of conduct the Colombian statutes were intended to
prevent, and Decedents and Plaintiffs are the types of persons these statutes were
intended to protect.
554.
At all relevant times, it was in Defendants' power to cease their assistance,
support, direction, collusion, and joint planning with the FARC or to prevent or prohibit
such conduct, but instead the continued in their course of conduct continuously from
aboutu 1987 through about 1999.
555.
Defendants conduct alleged here in proximately caused Plaintiffs and decedents to
suffer physical and emotional harm, including death.
124
556.
By continuing to provide financial support to the FARC to carry out its violent
campaign against civilians, Defendants proximately caused the injuries alleged in this
complaint. Their involvement in the FARC's activities formed a crucial component in the
FARC's ability and motivation to attack Plaintiffs, decedents, and countless other
civilians in Urab.
557.
At all relevant times, Defendants knew that their conduct would and did
proximately result in physical and emotional harm to Plaintiffs.

558.
From the moment of their first involvement with paramilitary groups, Defendants
were aware that their assistance, collusion, direction, and support would and did result in
the killing and other abuses committed against Plaintiffs, decedents, and countless other
civilians in Urab. Defendants continued in this course of conduct from about 1987
through about 1999 with the knowledge and intention that the FARC carry out these
crimes.
559.
At all relevant times, Defendants knew that the FARC was an organization
dedicated to the use of terrorism and violence against civilians, and could have foreseen
that this created a risk of harm to other persons
560.
Defendants concluded an agreement in about 1987 with the FARC under which
the FARC would provide security in return for payment and other forms of support and
cooperation.
561.
Defendants engaged the FARC to provide these services despite their prior
knowledge that the FARC used terrorism and violence against civilians as a strategy to
carry out those goals. It was therefore foreseeable that the FARC's known tactics would
create a risk of harm to others.
125
562.
The FARC's dedication to the use of terrorism and violence against civilians
proximately caused Plaintiffs' and decedents' injuries

563.
It was the FARC's tactic of using terrorism and violence to kill and intimidate
civilians that proximately caused the deaths of decedents and the mental and physical
injuries to Plaintiffs.
564.
Defendants' acts of material support to the FARC violated laws designed to
protect Plaintiffs and decedents, including the ATS, ATA, and Colombian laws outlawing
the FARC and collaborating with the FARC.
565.
As a result of these acts, Plaintiffs suffered harm including, but not limited to,
severe emotional distress. Defendants' conduct constitutes negligence and is actionable

under the laws of Colombia.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, each and every Plaintiff prays for judgment against each Defendant in
excess of $75,000, as follows:
for compensatory damages, including general and special damages;
for punitive damages;
for injunctive and declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate;
for costs of suit; and
such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
126
Respectfully submitted this _____ day of ________, 2017.
/s/ Paul Wolf

_________________________
/s/ Paul Wolf, Esq.
Attorney for Does 1-406
CO Bar 42107
PO Box 46213
Denver, CO 80201
Telephone: 202-674-9653
paulwolf@yahoo.com
127

Chiquita FARC Proposed First Amended Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chiquita FARC Proposed First Amended Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Exhibit 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, through counsel, sue Defendants and allege:

This case arises as a result of the actions of Defendant Chiquita Brands

In addition, Plaintiffs invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court with

behalf of whom they bring this action.

region of Colombia between 1987 and 1999.

These dates correspond to the dates

Decedents are referred to as Decedent 1, Decedent 2, and so on, through Decedent

and/or personal representatives corresponding to these Decedents are identified as Doe 1,

Publishing further details about these murders, particularly in a single document,

On 10/19/1991, Decedent 13 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 11/30/1995, Decedent 15 was killed by the FARC, which received support

In February of 1995, Decedent 18 was killed by the FARC, which received

On 10/22/1994, Decedent 24 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 12/28/1994, Decedent 30 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 12/30/1989, Decedent 39 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 11/17/1993, Decedent 50 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 12/12/1993, Decedent 55 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 10/21/1990, Decedent 58 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 12/21/1992, Decedent 61 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 11/29/1991, Decedent 66 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 11/15/1993, Decedent 83 was killed by the FARC, which received support

On 12/26/1994, Decedent 89 was killed by the FARC, which received support

Doe 398 brings this action on behalf of

Decedent 398 and on behalf of the Estate of Decedent 398.

Defendant Chiquita Brands International, Inc. ("CBI"), is a United States-based

dominated and controlled C.I. Bananos de Exportacion, S.A. ("Banadex"), headquartered

The Colombian Conflict and the FARC.

The acronym "FARC" is used herein to refer to the Fuerzas Armadas

Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). The FARC is

On information and belief and according to the Julin

Central, or Central High Command. The Estado Mayor is comprised of approximately

The first labor unions, representing

organizations considered the banana workers an important base of political support.

Beginning in 1993, the leaders of private mercenary groups, which defended

Defendant's Support of the FARC

material support, including money and services to the FARC.

funding another Colombian terrorist organization, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia,

On May 11, 2008, CBS News broadcast a 60 Minutes report on Chiquita's

payments to terrorist groups in Colombia, in which Chiquita's Chief Executive Officer,

Report. The SLC Report is a statement made by a committee established by Defendant's

In the SLC Report, Defendant Chiquita Brands International admits paying

with Defendant's top management in Cincinnati, including Robert Kistinger,2 then-head

After this meeting, a person identified as "Chiquita Employee #2" instructed

Following the initial payment, Banadex continued to make payments in response

("S.E.C.") and the Department of Justice during a 1998-2001 investigation of the

FARC payments were initiated within the company by completing a document

Once a properly authorized 1016 was submitted to the Accounting Department,

The Company's Internal Audit Department developed a special accounting

Individuals at Banadex and at Chiquita's headquarters in Cincinnati were aware of

Steven Warshaw, then-Chief

The husband of a woman killed in that attack is a plaintiff in the instant

His life was saved when he elected to take his

FARC as a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist. As a result of the SDGT designation,

Colombia to one count of engaging in transactions with another specially designated

Chiquita's Conduct Aided and Abetted the FARC's Conduct Alleged

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference 441-444 above, regarding the payments

Chiquitas payments contributed significantly to the perpetration of the crimes

Payments from Chiquita constituted a significant portion of the FARC's budget in

The United States government designated the FARC as a Foreign Terrorist

Organization on October 8, 1997, and that designation was well-publicized in the

Respectfully submitted this _ day of ____, 2017.