FOLLOW US

The Eleventh Circuit on Friday confronted a pair of high-stakes appeals tied to allegations that banana giant Chiquita financed a Colombian paramilitary group, with the company seeking to erase a $38 million jury verdict and a Colorado attorney urging reversal of a $229,000 fee award to a rival firm.

Before a three-judge panel in Miami, lawyers sparred over the fallout from a June 2024 bellwether trial in West Palm Beach that found Chiquita Brands International Inc. liable for eight killings carried out by the right-wing Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC.

At the heart of the dispute is the $38M Chiquita Verdict suit, a case rooted in claims that the company’s payments to the AUC between 1997 and 2004 fueled violence that left families shattered.

Chiquita Pushes for New Trial

Michael L. Cioffi of Blank Rome LLP, representing Chiquita, urged the panel to toss the verdict, arguing that “fundamental errors infected the entire verdict and require reversal.”

Cioffi advanced three central arguments: the plaintiffs failed to prove causation under Colombian law, key witnesses were allegedly bribed, and damages should have been capped at roughly $51,000 under Colombian statutes.

The plaintiffs pursued negligence claims under Colombian civil law, Cioffi said, but did not meet the legal threshold to show Chiquita’s payments caused the eight deaths.

“Plaintiffs admit that they did not prove [causation], and the district court said that Colombian law wasn’t clear on causation,” he told the court.

U.S. Circuit Judge Robert J. Luck zeroed in on the choice-of-law dilemma, suggesting that when foreign law lacks clarity, courts may “gap-fill” using the forum’s standards.

“What we’ve said is where we’re in a situation like this and there’s a foreign choice of law issue,” Luck noted, “and there’s a lack of clarity based on the evidence, or lack of evidence, you can gap-fill by looking to the forum’s law.”

Cioffi also contended that two pivotal trial witnesses were offered bribes by plaintiffs’ counsel and others, casting a shadow over the proceedings.

Plaintiffs Defend Verdict

Paul L. Hoffman of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP, arguing for the plaintiffs, countered that the jury’s findings should stand. He said the district court properly turned to Florida aiding-and-abetting standards to fill gaps in Colombian law.

“I don’t think federal common law is different in terms of the basic standard,” Hoffman said. “There’s tons of evidence of substantial assistance. It’s not just money — it’s the use of ports, it’s giving them guns, it’s a whole litany of facts.”

The litigation traces back to 2008 multidistrict proceedings brought by families alleging the AUC killed their relatives after receiving $1.7 million from Chiquita to safeguard business interests in Colombia.