DANIEL M. KOVALIK TERRY COLLINGSWORTH

UNITED STEELWORKERS NATACHA THYS

OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO/CLC INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND

Five Gateway Center 733 15^th Street N.W. Suite 920

Pittsburgh, PA. 15222 Washington, D.C. 20005

Tel-412-562-2518; Fax-412-562-2574 Tel-202-347-4100; Fax-202-347-4885

[Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

SINALTRAINAL; THE ESTATE OF )

ISIDRO SEGUNDO GIL; LUIS ) EDUARDO GARCIA; ALVARO ) GONZALEZ LOPEZ; JOSÉ DOMINGO ) FLORES; JORGE HUMBERTO LEAL; ) JUAN CARLOS GALVIS )

)

all c/o SINALTRAINAL )

Carrera 15 No. 35-18 )

Santafé de Bogotá ) Colombia, S.A. ) )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) )

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, )

One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta GA, 30313; )

COCA-COLA DE COLOMBIA, S.A, c/o )

One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta GA 30313; )

PANAMERICAN BEVERAGES, INC., )

701 Waterford Way, Miami, FL 33126; )

PANAMCO, LLC, 701 Waterford Way, ) Miami, FL 33126; PANAMCO )

INDUSTRIAL de GASEOSAS, S.A. a/k/a )

PANAMCO COLOMBIA, S.A. )

c/o 701 Waterford Way, Miami, FL 33126; ) RICHARD I. KIRBY, )

881 Ocean Drive, Key Biscayne, FL 33149; )

RICHARD KIRBY KIELLAND, 881 Ocean )

Drive, Key Biscayne, FL 33149; and )

BEBIDAS y ALIMENTOS de URABA, ) S.A., c/o 881 Ocean Drive, Key Biscayne, ) FL 33149, ) )

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE

RELIEF AND DAMAGES

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case involves the systematic intimidation, kidnapping, detention and murder of trade unionists in Colombia, South America at the hands of paramilitaries working as agents of corporations doing business in that country. The violent persecution of trade unionists in Colombia has been at epidemic proportions for many years. Since 1986 when the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia ("CUT"), the largest trade union confederation in Colombia, was formed, over 3,800 trade unionists have been murdered. Presently, of every five (5) trade unionists murdered in the world, over 3 are Colombian. This case, brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, RICO and state tort law, is brought to remedy and prevent the violent persecution of trade unionists at various locations of one particular company doing business in Colombia -- Coca Cola. This campaign of terror against trade unionists in Colombia and at Coca Cola in particular is ongoing. For example, on June 21, 2001, at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Monertia, in the Cordoba Province of Colombia, Oscar Dario Soto Polo an employee at this operation, and a member of the Executive Committee of the CUT, was gunned down in the street as he was accompanying his youngest daughter to her house. Sen. Oscar Soto was engaged in negotiations with Coca Cola at the time over union proposals to provide security to trade unionists under threat.

II. NATURE OF THE ACTION

2. Plaintiff SINALTRAINAL is a Colombian trade union and a member of the CUT. SINALTRAINAL represents workers at a number of beverage and food companies in Colombia, including several Coca-Cola bottling plants throughout Colombia. SINALTRAINAL (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") has been decimated by the intimidation, kidnap, detention, torture and assassination of numerous of its leaders by paramilitary forces working as agents of corporate concerns, including Defendants, in Colombia. Plaintiff Union brings this Complaint for equitable relief and damages to remedy the injury to itself caused by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants Coca-Cola Company (hereinafter referred to as “Coke”); Coca-Cola de Colombia, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as “Coke Colombia”); Panamerican Beverages, Inc., Panamco, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Panamco"); Panamco Industrial de Gaseosas, S.A. a/k/a Panamco Colombia, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as “Panamco Colombia”); Richard I. Kirby, Richard Kirby Keilland and Bebidas y Alimentos de Uraba, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as “Bebidas y Alimentos”).

3. Plaintiff Estate of Isidro Segundo Gil ("Plaintiff Estate") represents the estate of Isidro Segundo Gil who was murdered by paramilitary forces inside the Carepa plant of Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos. Plaintiff Estate brings this Complaint against Defendants Coke, Coke Colombia, Bebidas y Alimentos, Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland for damages to remedy the wrongful death of Isidro Segundo Gil which was proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of these Defendants.

4. Plaintiffs Luis Eduardo Garcia, Alvaro Gonzalez, José Domingo Flores, Jorge Humberto Leal and Juan Carlos Galvis bring this Complaint against Defendants Coke, Coke Colombia, Panamco and Panamco Colombia for equitable relief and for damages to remedy the injury to their persons caused by the wrongful conduct of these Defendants.

5. The claims in this case arise from Defendants’ wrongful actions in connection with their production, bottling and distribution of Coke products in Colombia. With respect to their business operations in Colombia, the Defendants hired, contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilized extreme violence and murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders of the Union representing workers at Defendants’ facilities. The individual Plaintiffs have been subjected to serious human rights abuses, including murder, extrajudicial killing, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and torture in violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. §1350, the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), international human rights law, and the common tort law of the state of Florida. Further, Defendants, their alter egos and/or their agents engaged in a conspiracy to cause physical and mental harm to Plaintiffs in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

6. Plaintiffs do not have access to an independent or functioning legal system within Colombia, a country which is not governed by a rule of law. Further, as has been well-documented in credible human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, Plaintiffs would certainly face violent retaliation if they were to try to bring these claims in Colombia. Finally, the justice system in Colombia has utterly failed to bring the perpetrators of anti-union violence to justice under the laws of Colombia. Indeed, not one perpetrator has been successfully prosecuted for any of the thousands of cases of trade union assassination which have taken place since 1986.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, the ATCA and the TVPA, 28 U.S.C. §1350, for the alleged violations of international human rights law. Federal question jurisdiction is further based on violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over the state law causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Venue properly lies in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c).

IV. PARTIES

Plaintiffs

9. Plaintiff SINALTRAINAL is a Colombian trade union that represents workers in the food and beverage industry in various locations in Colombia, including several Coke bottling plants operated by Defendants Panamco Colombia and Bebidas y Alimentos. SINALTRAINAL has had numerous members and leaders assassinated and tortured by paramilitary forces. Based on the allegations herein, this murder and torture has been perpetrated by paramilitary units that were acting as agents for one or more of the Defendants. SINALTRAINAL brings this action for injunctive relief to stop any further murder or torture of its leaders by the agents of Defendants. In addition, SINALTRAINAL seeks money damages to recover funds spent to protect its members and leaders who have received threats of death from the agents of Defendants, and funds provided for medical care, safe houses, and living expenses for members and leaders who have received threats of death from the agents of Defendants.

10. Plaintiff Estate of Isidro Gil seeks damages on behalf of the estate of Isidro Gil, a citizen and resident of Colombia and local Union officer at Bebidas y Alimentos, who was murdered by agents for Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland, acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos.

11. Plaintiffs Luis Eduardo Garcia, Alvaro Gonzalez and José Domingo Flores are citizens of Colombia and residents of Bucaramanga, Colombia. They bring this action for equitable relief and for damages to remedy the injuries to their persons caused by the wrongful conduct of Defendants Panamco and Panamco Colombia in having them arbitrarily and wrongfully detained in prison for a prolonged period.

12. Plaintiff Jorge Humberto Leal is a citizen of Colombia and a resident of Cúcata, Colombia. He brings this action for equitable relief and for damages to remedy the injuries to his person caused by the wrongful conduct of Defendants Panamco and Panamco Colombia who had him kidnapped, tortured, and threatened with death by paramilitaries.

13. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Galvis is a citizen of Colombia and resident of Barrancabermeja, Colombia. He brings this action for equitable relief and for damages to remedy the injuries to his person caused by the wrongful conduct of Defendants Panamco and Panamco Colombia who have placed him at risk of imminent harm, including loss of life, and caused him to be subjected to torture.

Defendants

14. Defendant Coke, a for-profit corporation incorporated in Delaware, is the world’s largest manufacturer, distributor, and marketer of soft drinks in the world. Its principal place of business is located at One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia 30313. Coke has offices, production and marketing facilities, and bottling plants throughout the United States and the world, including the Southern District of Florida.

15. Defendant Coke Colombia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Coke and it manufactures soft drink bases, concentrates, syrups, powders and mixes for sale and distribution within Colombia. Coke Colombia also markets the Coke brand name, manages quality control, and coordinates relations between Coke and the bottlers and distributors of Coke within Colombia. Coke Colombia’s principal place of business within Colombia is Calle 71 A #5-30, Piso 7 al 11, Bogota D.C., Colombia. Defendant Coke Colombia is under the management, control and direction of Defendant Coke to the extent that its separateness is illusory. Coke Colombia was created by Defendant Coke and exists for the sole purpose of selling, marketing and distributing Coke products throughout Colombia for the benefit of Defendant Coke. In essence, Coke Colombia is merely the sales and marketing office for Defendant Coke in Colombia.

16. Defendant Panamerican Beverages, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation. Its stock is publicly traded on the New York stock exchange. Panamerican Beverages, Inc has its headquarters and its principle place of business at 701 Waterford Way, Miami, Florida 33126. It operates its bottling plants and other activities on behalf of and for the benefit of its parent, Defendant Coke, through its own wholly-owned subsidiary, Panamco, L.L.C., which also has its headquarters and principle place of business at 701 Waterford Way, Miami, Florida 33126. Defendants Panamerican Beverages, Inc and Panamco L.L.C. will be collectively referred to herein as “Panamco.” Panamco is the largest bottler in Latin America, operating in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Panamco maintains offices and bottling facilities in all of the countries where it has operations. Panamco exists solely and exclusively to serve as a bottler and distributor for Defendant Coke in Latin America and possesses the exclusive right to produce and distribute Coke soft drink products in Colombia. According to Defendant Coke, it designated Panamco as an "anchor bottler" in 1995, making Panamco one of Coca-Cola's strategic partners in the Coca-Cola bottling system. In the words of Defendant Coke in its Annual Report, an "anchor bottler" such as Panamco is "strongly committed to the strategic goals of the Company and to furthering the interests of our worldwide production, distribution and marketing systems."

17. Defendant Panamco Colombia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Panamco. In turn, Panamco Colombia wholly owns and controls 17 bottling plants in Colombia in which it bottles Coke products and from which it then distributes these products within Colombia. Defendant Panamco Colombia exists solely and exclusively to bottle and distribute products for Defendant Coke and Defendants Panamco within Colombia through its 17 bottling plants, including plants in Barrancabermeja, Bucaramanga and Cúcata (collectively known as "Embotelladora de Santander, S.A.") and a plant in Monertia (known as "Embotelladora Roman, S.A."). Panamco Colombia and its 17 bottling plants are under the management control and direction of Defendant Panamco to such an extent that their separateness is illusory.

18. Defendant Richard I. Kirby resides at 881 Ocean Drive, Unit 27-B, Key Biscayne, Florida, 33149. From this location he manages and directs the operations of numerous businesses, including Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos. Defendant Kirby is the principal owner of Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos, and he personally manages, controls and directs its operations in Colombia from his residence at 881 Ocean Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida, 33149. Defendant Kirby also manages, controls and directs these operations through his family, including his son, Defendant Richard Kirby Keilland, and Peggy Ann Keilland. Defendant Richard Kirby Keilland resides both at 881 Ocean Drive, Unit 27-B, Key Biscayne, Florida 33149 and in Colombia. Richard Kirby Keilland operates as the on-site director of Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos in Colombia.

19. Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos is a Coke bottling plant in Carepa, Colombia in the department of Uraba where some of the events alleged herein occurred. As demonstrated by the letterhead of Bebidas y Alimentos, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Bebidas y Alimentos holds itself out as a Coca Cola company and places the "Coca Cola" trademark above its own name on its letterhead with the express permission of Defendant Coke. Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos is a closely held company owned by Defendant Richard I. Kirby. Defendant Kirby personally manages, controls and directs the operations of Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos from his residence at 881 Ocean Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida, 33149. Defendant Kirby also manages, controls and directs these operations through his family, including his son, Defendant Richard Kirby Keilland, and Peggy Ann Keilland.

IV. THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES AND COKE’S ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER AND LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ITS CO-DEFENDANTS

20. Defendant Coke, which generates the vast majority of its operating income outside the United States, controls a highly organized network of bottling facilities throughout the world in order to ensure uniform quality and efficient distribution of Coke products. Any bottler that is awarded a contract to bottle and distribute Coke is required to conform absolutely to Coke’s requirements as to product quality, presentation, and production. According to the 10-K Report filed by Defendant Coke on December 31, 2000, and other public sources, the specific details of Coke’s control over any particular bottler are governed by a “Bottler’s Agreement.” These Bottler’s Agreements provide Defendant Coke with the flexibility to assert the necessary degree of control and supervision over a particular bottler, depending upon the circumstances. As is indicated in the paragraphs below, Defendant Coke, through its specific Bottler’s Agreements, exercises a particularly high level of control and supervision over Defendants Panamco and Bebidas y Alimentos. Further, as illustrated by a similar situation in Guatemala in the early 1980's, Defendant Coke specifically has control over whether a bottler can continue to do business in Coke’s name if the bottler engages in violence against trade union leaders. Based on its Bottler Agreement, Coke forced an independently owned franchisee in Guatemala to sell its bottling business to a third party following the murder of three trade union leaders and an attempted murder of a fourth at the bottling plant. Coke’s action was the result of a massive public campaign against the company, but its action, however motivated, shows specifically that Coke has the control to prevent and/or remedy violence against workers and trade union leaders in its foreign bottling plants, including the plants at issue in this case.

21. Defendant Coke Colombia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Coke and is under the complete management control of Defendant Coke. All major decisions concerning the production, distribution, marketing and presentation of Coke products are made by Defendant Coke and are communicated as directives to wholly-owned subsidiaries such as Coke Colombia. These wholly-owned subsidiaries are responsible for implementing and enforcing Defendant Coke’s policies and practices within the specific countries in which they operate, and Defendant Coke Colombia performs this function within Colombia. Defendant Coke Colombia is an alter ego of Defendant Coke. Alternatively, Defendant Coke Colombia was acting as the agent of Defendant Coke, and was acting within the scope of its agency relationship with respect to its participation in the wrongful acts alleged herein.

22. Defendant Panamco Colombia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Panamco and is under the complete management control of Defendant Panamco. According to its Year 2000 Report, Panamco “conducts its operations through subsidiaries which are controlled, but in some cases not wholly owned, by Panamco.” All major decisions concerning the production, distribution, marketing and presentation of Coke products by Panamco Colombia are made by Defendant Panamco. Defendant Panamco Colombia does not have any independent authority to make or implement decisions regarding its business practices or direction. Defendant Panamco Colombia operates in Colombia through its 17 bottling plants, including plants in Barrancabermeja, Bucaramanga and Cúcata (collectively known as "Embotelladora de Santander, S.A.") and a plant in Monertia (known as "Embotelladora Roman, S.A."). Defendant Panamco Colombia, including its wholly-owned and controlled bottling plants at the aforesaid locations, is an alter ego of Defendant Panamco because it is under the complete control of Defendant Panamco. Alternatively, Defendant Panamco Colombia was acting as the agent of Defendant Panamco, and was acting within the scope of its agency relationship with respect to its participation in the wrongful acts alleged herein.

23. Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos is a closely held company owned by Defendant Richard I. Kirby and other members of his family. Defendant Kirby, along with his son Defendant Richard Kirby Keilland, make all of the day-to-day decisions regarding the operation of Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos, and profits from the company are transferred to one or more bank accounts held by Defendant Kirby in Miami and other locations outside of Colombia. Management decisions made by Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland are implemented by members of Defendant Kirby’s family who work for Bebidas y Alimentos. The complete control over and ownership of Bebidas y Alimentos by Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Defendant Richard Kirby Keilland makes Bebidas y Alimentos their alter ego. Alternatively, Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos was acting as the agent of Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland, and was acting within the scope of its agency relationship with respect to its participation in the wrongful acts alleged herein.

24. Defendant Coke, acting through its alter ego and/or agent Coke Colombia, supplies Defendant Panamco (acting through its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia) and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland (acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos) with the Coke products to be bottled and distributed in Colombia. In addition, Defendant Coke, acting through its alter ego and/or agent Coke Colombia, monitors and controls all aspects of the compliance of Defendant Panamco (acting through its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia) and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland (acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos) with their Bottler’s Agreements with Coke, including Defendant Coke’s requirements for product quality, presentation, marketing, and bottling. Defendant Coke’s control through the specific Bottler’s Agreements extends to the smallest details of production. For example, according to the 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 31, 2000 by Defendant Panamco, “[Coke] must also approve the types of container used in bottling and controls the design and decoration of the bottles, boxes cartons, stamps, and other materials used in production. The [Bottler’s] agreements grant [Coke] the right to inspect the products.” In addition, Coke, through the Bottler’s Agreements, imposes standards concerning employee qualifications and appearance and standards for the appearance and condition of transport trucks. Further, Defendant Coke also provides direction on issues of environmental preservation and compliance with a code of conduct governing the treatment of employees. Coke also monitors the labor relations practices of its subsidiaries and bottlers, and requires that subsidiaries and bottlers refrain from activities that will damage Coke’s brand-name in the market place. In addition, executives from Defendant Coke recently met in Colombia with executives of Defendant Panamco Colombia and told the latter that they must downsize in order to cut costs.

25. Among other methods of control over Defendant Panamco (acting through its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia) and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland (acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos), Defendant Coke, acting through its alter ego and/or agent Coke Colombia, maintains the right to terminate or suspend the Bottler’s Agreements for noncompliance with their terms and conditions. The Bottler’s Agreements also provide Coke with the right to require that Defendant Panamco (acting through its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia) and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland (acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos) withdraw any products from the market that do not conform to Coke’s specific requirements in the Bottler’s Agreements. Further, Defendant Coke maintains and exercises the right to conduct frequent inspections of compliance with the specific terms of the Bottler’s Agreements with Defendant Panamco (acting through its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia) and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland (acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos). Defendant Coke also monitors the day-to-day compliance of Defendant Panamco (acting through its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia) and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland (acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos) with their Bottler’s Agreements by requiring frequent and comprehensive reports to be prepared and submitted to Defendant Coke that cover all aspects of the requirements of the specific Bottler’s Agreements.

26. In addition to the overall control of its system of bottling and distribution that Coke maintains, it has direct ownership in 75% of its bottlers, including Defendant Panamco, of which Defendant Coke possesses a controlling, 24% interest. This additional leverage ensures Defendant Coke of both control over its bottlers and efficient compliance with its standards and requirements. Coke holds two seats on the Board of Directors of Panamco and exercises management control through its presence on the Board. According to a joint Coke and Panamco press release issued on November 2, 1995, Coke elevated Panamco to the status of “Anchor Bottler.” This designation was accompanied by Coke’s increased participation in and ownership of Panamco. In addition to holding two seats on the Board, Coke’s increased acquisition gives it “certain corporate governance rights.” In addition, Coke acquired new “Series C preferred stock which carries rights to approve certain major corporate actions.” This ownership and governance, coupled with the level of control provided by the specific Bottler’s Agreement between Coke and Panamco, makes Panamco the alter ego of Coke, with its regular operations and business decisions subject to the direction and approval of Coke. Alternatively, Defendant Panamco was acting as the agent of Defendant Coke and was acting within the scope of its agency relationship with respect to its participation in the wrongful acts alleged herein

27. Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland, acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos, in addition to being subject to the specific and comprehensive requirements of their Bottler’s Agreement with Coke, are subject to the ultimate control of Coke because the business exists solely at the pleasure of Coke. As an example of the level of control that Defendant Coke exercises, Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland wanted to sell Bebidas y Alimentos. Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland requested permission of Defendant Coke to sell the business and its assets. The permission was denied by Defendant Coke. This ultimate ownership control, coupled with the level of control provided by the specific Bottler’s Agreement between Coke and Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland, acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos, makes Defendants Richard I. Kirby, Richard Kirby Keilland and Bebidas y Alimentos the alter egos of Coke, with the regular operations and business decisions subject to the direction and approval of Coke. Alternatively, Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland, acting through their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos, were acting as the agent of Defendant Coke and were acting within the scope of their agency relationship with respect to their participation in the wrongful acts alleged herein.

28. Defendant Coke ultimately has complete control over Defendants Panamco and Bebidas y Alimentos because these companies exist solely to bottle and distribute Coke products. If there was ever any failure to follow the directives and submit to the control of defendant Coke, Defendants Panamco and Bebidas y Alimentos would lose their bottling concession and be out of business.

29. Defendant Coke is jointly and severally liable for all of the tortious actions committed when its alter ego and/or agent, Coke Colombia, acts in concert with any other person or entity in furtherance of Coke’s business interests and activities. All of the wrongful acts alleged herein were comitted by individuals who were acting within the course and scope of a business relationship with Coke Colombia with the advance knowledge, acquiescence or subsequent ratification of Coke Colombia.

30. Defendant Coke, acting by and through its alter ego and/or agents, Coke Colombia, Panamco, Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland, hired, contracted with, or otherwise retained as agents the individuals who committed the violent acts against Plaintiffs, as described herein. The individuals who committed the violent acts against Plaintiffs were acting as agents of Coke Colombia, Panamco, Richard I. Kirby and/or Richard Kirby Keilland, and committed the tortious actions described in this Complaint in connection with and in furtherance of Coke’s business interests and activities. In committing these tortious actions, the individual agents were acting within the course and scope of the agency relationship, with the advance knowledge, acquiescence or subsequent ratification of Defendants Coke Colombia, Panamco, Richard I. Kirby and/or Richard Kirby Keilland. Defendant Coke is therefore vicariously liable for all of the tortious actions committed by its agents done in connection with and in furtherance of its business interests and activities in Colombia as described herein.

31. With respect to all of the causes of action described below, the harm to Plaintiffs was either caused directly by the acts or omissions of Defendant Coke or was caused by the acts or omissions of Defendant Coke’s alter egos and/or agents -- Coke Colombia, Panamco or Richard I. Kirby or Richard Kirby Keilland, making Defendant Coke jointly and severally liable, or making Defendant Coke vicariously liable.

32. Regardless of whether Defendant Panamco is found to be an alter ego or agent of Defendant Coke, Defendant Panamco is liable for any and all wrongful acts done by or on behalf of its alter ego and/or agent Panamco Colombia that resulted in harm to any of the Plaintiffs. Further, Defendant Panamco is vicariously liable for any wrongful acts alleged herein that were committed by any of its agents or employees, or any agent or employee of its alter ego and/or agent, Panamco Colombia, that resulted in harm to any of the Plaintiffs.

33. Regardless of whether Defendants Richard I. Kirby or Richard Kirby Keilland are found to be an alter ego or agent of Defendant Coke, they are liable for any and all acts done by or on behalf of their alter ego and/or agent Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos that resulted in harm to any of the Plaintiffs. Further, Defendants Richard I. Kirby and Richard Kirby Keilland are vicariously liable for any wrongful acts alleged herein that were committed by any of their agents or employees, or any agent or employee of their alter ego and/or agent, Defendant Bebidas y Alimentos, that resulted in harm to any of the Plaintiffs.

V. BACKGROUND FACTS CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST TRADE UNION LEADERS AND MEMBERS IN Colombia.

34. Colombia is widely known as a country that is torn by a long-standing civil war involving armed leftist groups on the one side and the Colombian military as well as right-wing paramilitaries on the other. It is widely acknowledged that the regular military in Colombia, and the civil government authorities, tolerate the paramilitaries, allow them to operate, and often cooperate, protect and/ or work in concert with them.

35. Under “Law 48," passed in 1968, the Defense Ministry was authorized to create and provide weapons to civil patrols. It is by this authorization that most of the paramilitaries were created and sustained in Colombia. The current government of Colombia has made some official efforts to curb the powers of paramilitaries, but such groups continue to thrive, often with the ongoing cooperation of the Colombian military.

36. According to Human Rights Watch, 78% of the murders in Colombia from October 1999 to March 2000 were attributable to the paramilitaries. These and other murders go unpunished by the military. This is largely because of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the regular military and paramilitaries. A large number of the paramilitary units were created by active, reserve or retired military personnel. In addition, police officers throughout the country are likewise aligned with the paramilitaries and refuse to take action against known murderers who were acting on behalf of a paramilitary unit.

37. The Government of Colombia does not officially sanction the murders and other human rights violations committed by the paramilitaries. However, there have been few successful prosecutions of paramilitaries. Further, the Government of Colombia has taken little or no action to reign in the participation of military officers in paramilitary activities even though such participation is a violation of the Government’s official policy towards paramilitary activity.

38. The paramilitaries in Colombia are particularly well-known for murdering, abducting and torturing trade union leaders who they view as being subversives. The paramilitaries' characterization of trade unionists as subversives is in accord with the view of the Colombian government which, in Decree 180, has designated trade union leaders as "terrorists." This is also in accord with the U.S. government which is funding the Colombian military in the amount of over $1 billion, making Colombia the 3rd largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world. The U.S. government has trained over 10,000 of Colombia's military troops at the School of the Americas ("SOA") in Fort Benning, Georgia. And, SOA training manuals which the Pentagon was forced to turn over in 1996 show that the U.S. encouraged these troops to engage in torture and murder of those who, inter alia, do "union organizing and recruiting"; pass out "propaganda in favor of the interests of the workers"; and "sympathize with demonstrators or strikes." As a consequence of the official vilification of trade unionists by the Colombian and U.S. governments as well as corporations operating in Colombia, Colombia has lead the world in the number of murders of trade unionists for the past 10 years. More than 50 trade union leaders have been killed so far this year, 128 were killed in the year 2000, and in the last 10 years, over 1,500 have been murdered. A much larger number have been subjected to torture, including regular threats of death, unlawful detention, and kidnapping.

39. There is comprehensive public reporting on the systematic human rights violations occurring in Colombia by the paramilitaries, as well as on the specific targeting for murder and other human rights violations of trade union leaders and members. At the time of the events alleged herein, Defendants knew, or were substantially certain, that they were doing business in an environment in Colombia where their workers who were members of trade unions were at great risk of being murdered, tortured, kidnapped or unlawfully detained by paramilitaries working for or on behalf of Defendants’ alter egos and/or agents in Colombia.

VI. SPECIFIC INJURIES AND HARM SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS

A. The Events at Bebidas y Alimentos in Carepa

40. In April of 1994, paramilitary forces murdered Jose Eleazar Manco David and Luis Enrique Gomez Granado, both of whom were workers at Bebidas y Alimentos and members of SINALTRAINAL.

41. The paramilitary forces in Carepa then began to intimate other SINALTRAINAL members as well as the local leadership of SINALTRAINAL, telling them, upon threat of physical harm, to resign from the union or to flee Carepa altogether. The management of Bebidas y Alimentos permitted these paramilitary forces to appear within the plant to deliver this message to Union members and leaders. A number of Union members began leaving town as a result. And, in April of 1995, following more death threats, every member of the executive board of the SINALTRAINAL local representing the Bebidas y Alimentos workers fled Carepa in fear for their lives.

42. In June of 1995, the SINALTRAINAL local union elected a new executive board to replace the one that had fled. Isidro Gil was elected as a member of this new board as was an individual named Dorlahome Tuborquia. Shortly thereafter, in July of 1995, Bebidas y Alimentos began to hire members of the paramilitaries who had threatened the first Union executive board into fleeing. These members of the paramilitaries were hired both into the sales and production departments.

43. In September of 1995, Ariosto Milan Mosquera took over as the manager of the Bebidas y Alimentos plant in Carepa. Mosquera proceeded to discharge Dorlahome Tuborquia. SINALTRAINAL challenged this discharge through the legal process, and a judge, finding the discharge to be unlawful, ordered Bebidas y Alimentos to rehire Tuborquia. He returned to work at Bebidas y Alimentos in December of 1995.

44. Shortly after the return of Tuborquia, Bebidas Y Alimentos Manager Mosquera began threatening to destroy the union. Specifically, Mosquera announced in public that he had given an order to the paramilitaries to carry out the task of destroying the union. In addition, Mosquera, in the presence of paramilitary forces, told a member of the local SINALTRAINAL executive board that he would "sweep away the union." In keeping with these threats of Mosquera, the paramilitaries began to renew threats against SINALTRAINAL members, including Dorlahome Tuborquia. Specifically, the paramilitaries threatened to kill Tuborquia. In response to these threats, Tuborquia fled Carepa and went into hiding. The paramilitaries then seized Tuboquia's home to use for their operations.

45. Throughout 1996, SINALTRAINAL members witnessed Bebidas y Alimentos Manager Mosquera socializing with members of the paramilitary forces and providing the paramilitaries with Coke products for their parties.

46. Meanwhile, Bebidas y Alimentos and SINALTRAINAL began negotiating a new labor agreement at the outset of 1996. These negotiations included SINALTRAINAL's proposals for increased security for threatened trade unionists and a cessation of Manager Mosquera's threats against the union as well as his collusion with the paramilitaries. Defendant Richard Kirby Keilland personally participated in these negotiations on behalf of Bebidas y Alimentos and he flatly refused the union's requests in this regard.

47. In response to the aforesaid events, SINALTRAINAL began a national campaign in August of 1996 to call upon Bebidas y Alimentos, as well as Panamco Colombia and Coca Cola Colombia, to protect the SINALTRAINAL leadership and members in Carepa from what it feared was the imminent threat of attack by the paramilitaries.

48. By letter to Bebidas y Alimentos Manager Aristo Milan Mosquera dated September 27, 1996, national leaders of SINALTRAINAL accused Mosquera of working with the paramilitaries to destroy the union, and they urged that Bebidas y Alimentos ensure the security of the workers in the Carepa plant in the face of the paramilitary threats. Copies of this letter were contemporaneously sent to Coca Cola Colombia as well as Panamco Colombia. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In response to this letter, Mosquera told the union to retract its accusations.