A lawyer who accused an Alabama coal company of human-rights abuses in Colombia was hit with a $256 million jury verdict amid evidence plaintiff witnesses were paid for their testimony and a competing mining firm had an interest in the case.
Drummond Co. has been fighting attorney Terrence Collingsworth for more than a decade over claims it paid militia to guard its lucrative coal mine in Colombia. Collingsworth was successful in suing Chiquita over similar claims but now faces a huge verdict thanks to emails and other documents Drummond’s lawyers uncovered during years of litigation. Another law firm active in human-rights lawsuits, Conrad & Scherer, settled on the eve of trial.
The monumental verdict represents another victory by companies fighting back in court against nonprofit activist groups that use litigation and publicity campaigns to try to damage their business. Last year, a jury in ordered Greenpeace International to pay $667 million to Energy Transfer for its role in violent protests that disrupted construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. Attorney Steven Donziger lost his law license in Washington D.C. after Chevron won a case accusing him of obtaining a $9.5 billion verdict in Ecuador through fraud.
Collingsworth, the chief of International Rights Activists, sued Drummond repeatedly over claims it was responsible for the deaths of union leaders and others at the hands of paramilitary groups active during Colombia’s civil war. Drummond denied the allegations and countersued Collingsworth, accusing him of fabricating claims to extort a $1 billion settlement.
After learning that Collingsworth had paid three witnesses in Colombia before they submitted declarations to support his claims, Drummond convinced a federal judge in Alabama to allow further discovery that unearthed emails, text messages and other documents detailing tens of thousands of dollars in payments to witnesses.
“There is evidence that some witnesses refused to provide testimony or affidavits until certain payments were received,” U.S. District Judge R. David Procter wrote in a 2015 order. “There is evidence that Collingsworth threatened to cut off payments or benefits unless he was satisfied with the evidence the witnesses produced.”
Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer fought Drummond’s discovery requests for years, citing attorney-client privilege, and the case went to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals twice. But in December, Judge Procter ordered the start of trial and on Jan. 15 the jury handed down a verdict: $52 million for defamation and $68 million for racketeering, which is tripled under federal law.
Collingsworth and his lawyers didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. At trial, Drummond presented evidence Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer knew they were making payments to witnesses, usually disguised as for “security.” Collingsworth, in a 2011 email, said it was OK to pay witnesses, as the “question is doing so in a way to minimize impact on credibility.”
Some of the money flowed to El Tigre, a former militia leader who changed his testimony to implicate Drummond after receiving it, Drummond said.
Other emails show Collingsworth fretting over getting a $60,000 payment to a witness who was threatening to stop cooperating. In all, Drummond said it found evidence of $130,000 in payments to one key witness, a small fortune in Colombia. Another text message to Collingsworth says “it’s understood no money will be passed until decls are received,” meaning declarations. Drummond said those depositions were critical to follow-on lawsuits Collingsworth filed against the mining company in 2009 after the first was dismissed.
It is unclear whether Drummond can collect much from Collingsworth, whose organization in Washington has reported less than $50,000 in revenue in recent years. He does represent hundreds of Colombian plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation against Chiquita that might have a better outcome.
Chiquita pled guilty and paid a $25 million fine in 2007 to settle federal criminal charges it funded a terrorist organization and lost a $38 million verdict in the first of several expected trials, opening the possibility of a billion-dollar settlement.
Collingsworth was less successful suing Nestle over alleged slavery in Africa. A federal judge dismissed the case, the Ninth Circuit revived it and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in a 2021 decision limiting extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute, a once-popular tool for suing companies on behalf of foreign plaintiffs.
In a pretrial filing, Drummond said it had spent $11 million on legal fees and claimed $15.5 million in lost profits and $164,000 flying to Europe to plead its case with NGOs and government officials in response to Collingsworth’s “extrajudicial smear campaign.”
“The company has endured malicious accusations and narratives for decades, which a jury has now unanimously determined were categorically false,” said Trey Wells of Starnes Davis Florie, who represented Drummond.
In a memo, Collingsworth said his strategy was to “serve notice on Drummond’s domestic and worldwide customer base that when they do business with Drummond they’re only perpetuating deplorable and unethical corporate misconduct and criminality.” His timesheet from 2010 shows repeated meetings with the head of a Llanos Oil, a Dutch firm that lost an oil concession to Drummond, as they tried to convince Dutch officials to stop Drummond from exporting coal to the Netherlands.
