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.

Fee Fight Adds Another Layer

The panel also heard arguments in a separate but related appeal involving attorney fees stemming from a $12.8 million settlement Chiquita reached in June 2024 with 144 plaintiffs represented by Colorado attorney Paul D. Wolf.

After the settlement, Conrad & Scherer LLP filed a charging lien, claiming compensation for its role in achieving the deal. In December 2024, a lower court awarded the firm $229,755 in fees and costs. Wolf appealed.

Wolf told the appellate panel that Conrad & Scherer had no contract with the victims and therefore no right to payment.

“They don’t represent any of these people,” Wolf said. “They don’t have a contract with anyone.”

The dispute has roots in Wolf’s collaboration with attorney Terry Collingsworth, who at one point joined Conrad & Scherer before later departing. Wolf successfully moved to disqualify the firm from representing the 144 plaintiffs.

The lower court concluded that Wolf waived his objection to the charging lien by failing to confer with the firm. Wolf responded that he declined to meet because he believed the firm was entitled to nothing and that the plaintiffs received no benefit from its work.

Eric Hager of Conrad & Scherer, representing his firm, argued Wolf failed to show he was harmed or that his fees were reduced by any alleged misconduct.

Hager also rejected claims that the firm bribed witnesses in the first bellwether trial, noting that U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra dismissed those allegations.

“The accusations are not credible,” Hager said. “He has no personal knowledge about what he is saying. More importantly, these accusations were soundly rejected by Judge Marra. What was his ultimate factual finding? It was that Mr. Collingsworth did not pay witnesses in this case.”

A second bellwether trial for Wolf’s group had been scheduled for July 2024 but was canceled after the settlement.

U.S. Circuit Judges Jill Pryor, Robert J. Luck and Andrew L. Brasher heard the appeals.

Counsel

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul L. Hoffman and John C. Washington of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP; John “Jack” Scarola, Victoria Mesa-Estrada and Mariano Garcia of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA; Agnieszka Fryszman and Leslie M. Kroeger of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; James K. Green of James K. Green PA; Marco Simons of the Law Offices of Marco B. Simons; Richard L. Herz, Marissa Vahlsing, Wyatt Gjullin and Gabriela V. Diaz of EarthRights International; William R. Scherer and Eric Hager of Conrad & Scherer LLP; Jonathan C. Reiter of Jonathan C. Reiter Law Firm PLLC; Terrence Collingsworth of International Rights Advocates; William J. Wichman of the Law Offices of William J. Wichmann PA; and Paul D. Wolf.

Chiquita is represented by Michael L. Cioffi, Thomas H. Stewart, Frank A. Dante, Melissa F. Murphy, Michael A. Stoolman and Serena S. Gopal of Blank Rome LLP.

Wolf represented himself in the fee appeal. Conrad & Scherer is represented by in-house counsel Eric Hager.