The US Supreme Court has asked the administration of Donald Trump to set out its position on an appeal by major pharmaceutical corporations and medical device manufacturers. The companies are trying to block a lawsuit in which they are accused of indirectly financing terrorist attacks in Iraq, Bloomberg reports.
The plaintiffs are US military personnel, civilian specialists who worked in Iraq, and their relatives. The defendants in the case are subsidiaries of the largest market players, including AstraZeneca, Roche, GE HealthCare Technologies, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Viatris.
According to the plaintiffs, between 2004 and 2013 these companies paid millions of dollars in bribes to obtain contracts for the supply of medicines and equipment to the Iraqi Ministry of Health. The plaintiffs claim that the ministry at that time was controlled by fighters of the Mahdi Army group, to which the corrupt funds ultimately went. The victims insist that the corporations knew the payments were sponsoring attacks but continued to make questionable payments for years.
The pharmaceutical giants are seeking to overturn a ruling by the federal appeals court in Washington, which previously allowed the case to proceed. The appellate court found convincing the arguments that the companies deliberately structured transactions under illegal schemes, thereby objectively aiding the fighters.
The corporations’ defence is built on the following arguments: the contracts with the Iraqi Health Ministry were concluded with the direct support of US authorities; even if the bribery facts are confirmed, they are insufficient to apply the US anti-terrorism law; the lawsuit lacks a direct link between commercial transactions and specific attacks; the law requires proof of the defendant’s direct intent to facilitate attacks, which is absent in this case.
