Search

The paper examines the issues of bringing controlling persons to subsidiary liability for the obligations of a company excluded from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. The article determines the judicial procedure for holding controlling persons accountable for claims of creditors. It analyzes the provisions of Russian legislation and judicial practice regarding the grounds for prosecution under paragraph 3.1 Article 3 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies.The research reveals the effect of this rule of law over time and it essence, which excludes the use of the construction of limited liability of participants in a business company. An overview of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issues under consideration including the circle of responsible persons, distribution of burden and circumstances of evidence is provided. The paper distinguishes characteristics of good faith and reasonable behavior of creditors and controlling persons as well as legal presumptions corresponding to the circumstance of the case. The conclusion is formulated on the recognition of subsidiary liability by inheritance of debts of a corporate organization. The paper investigates the competence of the court considering disputes on bringing to subsidiary liability of persons controlling a corporation and distinguishes between the corporate (under the general rules of litigation) and bankruptcy (under the rules of class action) proceedings. The characteristics of the powers of creditors acting in the interests of their civil law community are given. The research allows to ensure uniformity of judicial practice at interpreting the applicable rules of law.

This academic article aims to analyze the liability of shipowners for cases of environmental pollution resulting from oil spills by ships in Indonesia. Indonesia, as an archipelagic nation with significant maritime traffic, faces serious environmental pollution risks due to oil spills from maritime vessels. This research explores the legal aspects related to the liability of shipowners for environmental damage caused by oil spills in Indonesian waters. The article discusses the legal framework governing the responsibility of ship-owning companies, law enforcement procedures, and compensation responsibilities for environmental losses. Additionally, the research analyzes common issues that arise in oil spill cases, including difficulties in measuring environmental impacts, as well as the economic and social losses resulting from pollution. This analysis considers how existing legal regulations in Indonesia govern the liability of ship-owning companies in cases of environmental pollution, as well as the effectiveness of law enforcement in practice. The research also evaluates the challenges in handling oil spill cases and identifies efforts that can be improved to reduce negative impacts on the environment and society. The research findings indicate the need for improvements in the implementation and understanding of legal aspects related to shipowners' liability for oil spills in Indonesia. This article contributes to a deeper understanding of the legal framework governing the responsibility of ship-owning companies in cases of environmental pollution and encourages improvements in regulations and more sustainable industry practices in addressing environmental pollution issues caused by oil spills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should companies that have been fined for EU antitrust infringements be allowed to recover such fines from their (former) directors or employees? On the basis of an analysis of the EU Treaty provisions, legislation and case law on antitrust fines, as well as of the economic nature of antitrust infringements and the economic rationale of fines on undertakings/companies, this paper argues that it would appear contrary to EU law to allow undertakings/companies that have been fined by the European Commission or by a national competition authority(NCA) for infringements of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU to recover such fines from the companies’ (former) directors or employees, as such recovery would significantly impair the full effectiveness of those fines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the end of 2022, Indonesia has been concerned with cases of kidney failure in children. Long before that, United States of America (USA) have experienced in handling the case of pharmaceutical company. This research aims to examine the Corporate Liability Settlement for the Pharmaceutical Industry Producing Unsafe Drugs in United States and Indonesia as well as to elaborate more about what Indonesia can improve reflecting from the cases in America. This is normative legal research, using comparative methodology as an approach. The research has found that Indonesia shall address the idea to settle the case with plea agreement, civil lawsuit, as well as oblige the corporation to enter in corporate integrity agreement. Furthermore, a higher amount of fine is required in order to deter the company.

The recent Law Commission of England and Wales review of corporate criminal liability has presented a range of options to the Government to address current deficiencies in the law of corporate attribution. This article explores the nature and operation of two holistic models closely considered by the Law Commission, but which were not included in the suite: the distinctive Australian 'Corporate Culture' model and a novel model of 'Systems Intentionality'. In so doing, the analysis sheds considerable light on the comparative nature, strengths and limitations of Failure to Prevent offences, which formed a key element in the Law Commission's reform recommendations. Using the Rolls Royce Deferred Prosecution Agreement proceedings as a case study, the article demonstrates how, far from being foreign and uncertain conceptual tools, Corporate Culture and Systems Intentionality are essential parts of the regulatory toolkit that deserve further consideration given the complex reality of modern corporate defendants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By combining approaches from the economic theory of crime and of industrial organization, this paper analyzes optimal enforcement for three different forms of corporate misconduct that harm competition. The analysis shows why corporate crime is more harmful in large markets, why governments have a disinclination to sanction firms whose crime materializes abroad, and why leniency for those who self-report their crime is a complement, and not a substitute, to independent investigation and enforcement. As public authorities rely increasingly on self-reporting by companies to detect cartels, the number of leniency applications is likely to decline, and this is borne out by data. Upon a review of 50 cases of corporate liability from five European countries, competition law enforcement, governed by a unified legal regime, is more efficient than enforcement in bribery and money laundering cases, governed by disparate criminal law regimes. Sanction predictability and transparency are higher when governments cooperate closely with each other in law enforcement, when there are elements of supra-national authority, and when the offense is regulated by a separate legal instrument. Given our results, Europe would benefit from stronger supra-national cooperation in regulation and enforcement of transnational corporate crime, especially for the sake of deterrent penalties against crime committed abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article analyzes the legislative norms that provide for the joint liability for damages caused by a corporate group of persons, the current practice of the Supreme Court regarding the resolution of corporate disputes on squeeze-out procedures. The history of the emergence and conditions of application of the doctrine of "lifting the corporate veil" have been studied. It was recognized as appropriate by the court to apply the doctrine of "lifting the corporate veil" in order to ensure the effective protection of minority shareholders as an extraordinary measure in case of abuse by the members of the corporate group of the right to control the company and joint actions in the process of implementing the mandatory sale of shares with the aim of buying out the shares of minority shareholders at an undervalued cost. Corporate structures of the MP Azovstal PrJSC, Avdiyiv Coke Chemical Plant PrJSC, Ukrainian Graphite PrJSC, MMK Ilycha PrJSC, DTEK Dniproenergo JSC, Zakarpattiaoblenergo PrJSC, which conducted squeeze-out procedures were analyzed. These companies conducted squeeze-out procedures using corporate structures, affiliated subsidiary companies, related persons. The beneficiaries (beneficiaries) of the acquired 100 % corporate control were determined, the application of the doctrine of "lifting the corporate veil" and bringing the members of the corporate group to joint and several liability were investigated. The issuer, the applicant of the public irrevocable claim, its affiliated persons and persons acting jointly, the ultimate beneficial owner are recognized as the proper defendants in disputes related to squeeze-out procedures. The specified persons, who make up a single corporate group, are jointly and severally liable to the minority shareholders for the damages caused in the process of the squeeze-out procedure. Derivative suit is offered to spread over the losses caused by company officials to its shareholders in the procedures of redemption, compulsory redemption and compulsory sale of shares. Disputes of compulsory sale of shares in the squeeze-out procedure belong to the subject jurisdiction of commercial courts as disputes on deeds of shares, regardless of the dispute parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As climate change hazards keep intensifying, there seems to be an increasing recognition that corporations are not immune from international obligations on the protection of human rights and the environment. The present article argues that the climate crisis might be contributing, as a 'Grotian Moment', to the crystallisation of an already developing principle on corporate liability for human rights and environmental violations. After a brief account of the long-lasting debate on the existence and nature of corporate obligations under international law, the relevant business and human rights (non-binding) instruments will be addressed, highlighting their limits as well as their preparatory role in the ongoing paradigm shift. The 'Grotian' implications of climate change will be examined through the lens of climate litigation against companies, which highlights a crucial osmosis between the relevant international standards and domestic legal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines whether corporations can be held liable for breaches of Indigenous peoples' right to a healthy environment in Colombia. After exposing the scope of the right in the international, regional and Colombian legal orders, it tackles Colombia's obligation to protect it against infringements committed by third parties, and to provide judicial remedies in the event of breaches. Then, it discusses how the absence of a binding international and national legal frameworks imposing obligations on corporations in environmental matters affect available judicial remedies for Indigenous peoples. It argues that the Colombian Constitutional Court and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace have attempted to fill the void left by the legislator. Whilst the first has acknowledged the existence of obligations on corporations in environmental matters, the second has recognized Indigenous territories as subjects of rights in order to further protect Indigenous rights and overall environment. It concludes by a few recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Legal Studies / Studia Prawnicze is the property of Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Legal Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cuestiones Políticas is the property of Revista Cuestiones Politicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper takes its cue from the obligations that may arise for ecclesiastical institutions within the Italian system of administrative responsibility for crime ex d. lgs. 231/01, which frames the actions required in the broader context of the currently intensifying ecclesial commitment to the renewed centrality of the human person in secular legal systems and, especially, in criminal law. In a general way, albeit applied to the specificities of various contexts, the study aims to highlight the need to develop a greater degree of awareness of one’s own normative role and a capacity for more effective interactions among recipients of the law, thus ensuring that cooperation between state law and private self-regulation does not result merely in the intrusion of criminal law systems and defensive/sanctioning approaches on the daily lives of those involved in the institutions’ activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Italian legal system predisposed a specific discipline against organized crime phenomena through legal entities, both when the corporate shield is an opportunity to commit crimes, and when it is created far that sole purpose. By examining these issues, the paper aims to verify, also in a de jure condendo perspective, whether an administrative model of corporate criminal liability (instead of a criminal one) would lead to much more coherent solutions, and, above all, how the using of A.I. can play an important role in preventing and contrasting that type of crimes. L'ordinamento giuridico italiano ha predisposto una specifica disciplina contro i fenomeni di criminalità organizzata realizzati per il tramite di persone giuridiche, sia quando lo scudo societario costituisce occasione per la commissione di reati, sia quando è realizzato a tale unico scopo. Esaminando tali questioni, il contributo si propone di verificare, anche in un'ottica de jure condendo, se un modello amministrativo di responsabilità possa condurre a soluzioni molto più coerenti. Nonché, infine, il ruolo che l’utilizzo dell’intelligenza artificiale può rivestire nella lotta a questo tipo di criminalità.

This study aims to examine, analyze and understand the concept of corporate criminal responsibility and the reformulation of alternative criminal penalties against corporations for unpaid fines. Several criminal cases that have been resolved at the Serang District Court until 2020 have not found a single corporation that has been tried and convicted for committing a corporate crime. The judge is only passive, the judge's authority is only to examine, hear and decide cases based on the indictment made by the public prosecutor. Return of court case files to the prosecutor's office only if the indictment does not meet material requirements. PERMA Number 13 of 2016 does not regulate if the criminal fine cannot be paid by the corporation due to insufficient or non-existent corporate assets. This research was conducted in a normative juridical manner so that the disclosure was bound by a method based on the requirements of deductive logic, prioritizing literature studies with secondary data bases, namely primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. In terms of evidence in court, if the fact is found that the corporation should also be a legal subject who can be held criminally responsible, the public prosecutor should have made a separate indictment for the legal subject of the corporation so that the corporation does not escape its responsibility. The provisions in PERMA No. 13 of the Year should regulate corporate assets if they do not pay the fines enough or even do not have the assets to pay the fines. Law enforcement officials should investigate the assets of the corporation first.

In the light of philosophy of law given scientific research is devoted to the disclosure of the essence and content of corporate liability, the identification of the features of the liability of corporate management bodies and the presentation of proposals for solving emerging problems. The article examines the issues of corporate liability, proposes its definition, and analyzes the features inherent in corporate liability in venture joint-stock companies. The scope of research embraces concepts, such as fiduciary duties (duty of care, duty of loyalty, the requirement for awareness and not allowing conflict of interests), business judgment rule, as well as the adverse effects of corporate offenses, corporate liability measures and specifics of liability applicable to venture joint stock companies. As a result, the concept of corporate liability was given, as well as the features characterizing such liability in venture joint stock companies were highlighted [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny (0035-9629) is the property of Adam Mickiewicz University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Law – through regulation, criminalization and litigation – provides key mechanisms for mitigating the harmful effects of oil disasters. At the same time, these mechanisms also enable the perpetuation of oil disasters under an extractivist imperative. This disaster tolerance is the point of departure for this article's examination of the legal response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster over the last decade. Based on a methodology that combines a social harm approach with the political ecology of Felix Guattari, we firstly present a reconceptualization of harm inflicted by oil corporations across three registers: environment, society, and subjectivity. We subsequently introduce the concept of transversal harm, which allows us to move beyond the criminal and civil damage of corporate crime and negligence and to capture the collective and continuous impact of oil extractivism, as opposed to the exceptional impact of oil disasters. Transversal harm opens new avenues for assigning corporate responsibility and reducing disaster tolerance as the by-product of environmental law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Estudios de Derecho is the property of Estudios de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article is devoted to lawyers' liability for violation of deontological ethics in law enforcement. Using the comparative legal method, the study examines lawyers' liability in countries of the Romano-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon legal systems. This study concludes that it is necessary to distinguish the professional (corporate) liability in legislation. In Russian law, it is proposed to adopt a general Code of ethics for lawyers, which should take precedence over other documents of a deontological nature. From the point of view of deontological ethics in law, this study is of interest to lawyers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The system for setting corporate penalties is not sufficiently precise and there are situations in which the regulation is obscure or nonexistent. This is particularly evident in cases where there is a concurrence of sanctions: can several interdictive penalties be imposed for the same conviction? If a corporation is convicted of several criminal offences, will the penalties be imposed simultaneously without limit or can the rules of concurrence of offences be used? These questions will be the subject of this paper, which is organised around three axes: the possibility of simultaneous enforcement of the penalties imposed on corporation; accumulation will be limited, in the case of fines, by using the same rules to adjust the fine to the economic capacity of the convicted person, and in the case of interdictive penalties, according to the preventive need to inoculate the convicted legal person. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States have recently indulged in purchasing surveillance spyware such as Pegasus from big corporations such as the NSO Group to track the activities of its people to curb dissidents. Unfortunately, such incidences are not new in the international domain. Thus, it is imperative to analyze the legality of such spyware used by the states with the assistance of foreign corporates under the international framework. In view of the same, the paper while majorly focusing on the significance of right to privacy, traces the standing limitations in the legal mechanism and tries to propose a shared responsibility regime for states and surveillance companies indulging in human rights violations by drawing parallels with the ICoCA mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In terms of handling corporate crimes that culminate in "sentencing" or "giving punishment", corruption is referred to as a crime that has caused damage to life. However, this is not mentioned much in criminal law studies. In addition to sentencing, corporations that committed corruption must also return corporate assets to the state. This needs to be considered according to the philosophy of nature aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem. This philosophy means that no one can enrich themselves at the expense and suffering of others. This philosophy changes the source of this doctrinal principle, namely crime does not pay or crime shall not pay into an expression of resistance to crime perpetrators so that they cannot enjoy the results of the crime they committed. The statement of the problem in this paper is how is the philosophy of sentencing corporations that are perpetrators of corruption? This research used secondary data through literature study in the form of laws and descriptive analysis. The imposition of a criminal fine creates implications and juridical problems for corporations that committed corruption. The recommendation of this paper is to build an ideal model of sentencing corporation based on justice.

In conversation with several chapters of Stefan Grundmann's, Hans Micklitz's, and Moritz Renner's book on New Private Law Theory, this paper reflects on contributions that theories of communication and constitutionalization can make to our understanding of the changing role of private law in a globalizing world. More abstract ideals are checked against an assessment of recent judgments of Dutch courts in cases regarding oil company Shell's responsibility for environmental pollution in Nigeria. Such theoretical readings of case law, it is held, in the spirit of New Private Law Theory, show new directions that private law theories may choose in order to understand and strengthen the private-legal framework for societal questions of our times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many companies experienced bankruptcy lawsuits during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. This was so when the companies’ asset cannot afford their obligations upon their creditors, especially banks and other financial institutions. The creditors demanded compensation to avoid losses due to the companies’ failure in repaying their loans. The question is who should be held liable if the companies are of limited liability companies. This paper aims to examine the liability of corporation for creditors' losses. This normative legal research relies on secondary data in the form of legal materials, especially primary and secondary legal materials. The result shows that demanding compensation through bankruptcy lawsuit is not an easy task for the creditors. In fact, a separate lawsuit is required rather than incorporating it in a bankruptcy lawsuit. Even, it is not only a matter of civil case but also criminal case. Therefore, the companies may be subjected to both civil and criminal liability.

The development of legal subjects in corruption has been changing. If formerly the punishment is only burdened to the subject of a person, now the legal entities, including corporation, are also burdened with the penalty. This study aimed to understand and analyze the liability of a corporate in its criminal act based on the return of state financial losses. The methodology used in this study was juridical normative (legal research) using statue and conceptual approach. The results showed that, conceptually, the return of state financial losses can still be done even though there are still some obstacles in terms of procedural or technical structure. However, the fact is criminal acts in the form of state money are not only received or enjoyed by the defendant, but also by the third party (non-defendant). Therefore, the penalty in the form of replacement money can be applied for corporate. Replacement money is one of the additional criminal penalty in corruption case that must be paid by the convict to the state with the amount as much as the property obtained from the corruption. In summary, an accurate and effective legal method or instrument is needed to return the state’s financial losses.

The complete separation of administrative and criminal law was achieved in the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, administrative legislation is liberated from the limitations of criminal law. Presently the former’s achievements question the rule of law by combining administrative and criminal responsibility, corporate liability, and collateral consequences of criminal conviction. Law is a unitary system and its division into branches shouldn’t create possibilities for breaking its principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the paper is to conduct an independent study of the leading characteristics of the state of modern legal regulation for bringing legal entities to criminal responsibility in Ukraine and foreign countries, as well as to conduct a comparative analysis of scientific views on the institution of criminal liability of these subjects. Modern methods of cognition developed by legal science and tested in practice were used to solve the tasks outlined by the purpose of the study, in particular. The author's conclusion allowed forming a conceptual understanding of theoretical ideas about the crime of legal entities in Ukraine. The relevant legal mechanisms and comments proposed by scientists can be implemented in the legislation of Ukraine regulating the procedure for introducing the Institute of criminal law measures and form the basis for further search in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The corporate criminal offences of failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion punish the unlucky, unpopular, and large more than genuine tax evaders or facilitators. This article argues the offences' broad scope and the unpredictability of the 'reasonable prevention procedures' defence means that rather than operating as a deterrent, the provisions effectively assign guilt by lottery, impose fines that become just another cost of doing business, and punish British companies for doing business in the developing world where their investment is most needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between corporations and human rights has long been in the eye of international law. As the nature and reach of corporate actors make them impervious targets for domestic regulation, international law has become increasingly concerned with the adverse impact of business activities on human rights and the environment. This article critically examines the major existing international regulatory initiatives on business and human rights from the lens of public international law. First, we will explore the major challenges faced by international law in addressing corporate activities. Second, the core non-binding instruments adopted in the past decades will be examined, highlighting the progressive incorporation of some of their key standards in domestic legislation. Third, the increasingly relevant role of some of the business and human rights standards in domestic and international litigation will be examined. Fourth, we will look at the path towards a treaty on business and human rights. The argument will be made that although binding regulation is not a panacea for the multifaceted problem of corporate human rights liability it can provide a useful tool to harmonize domestic legislation and to give teeth to the existing non-binding instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multinational corporations typically rely on legally independent subsidiaries to operate parts of their global supply chain. When legally independent entities within the supply chain commit human rights violations, victims often face a Hobson's choice: bring a lawsuit in their home jurisdiction against a subsidiary company that lacks the purse to pay compensatory damages, or sue the parent company in that company's home jurisdiction where the case will likely be dismissed at a preliminary stage due to either the forum non conveniens doctrine or the common law rules that limit parent corporations' liability. In Nevsun v Araya, an extraterritorial corporate human rights case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law does not clearly preclude recognition of tort causes of action based on customary international law (CIL) norms, and that corporations can be liable for violating CIL norms. This article argues that Nevsun has not clearly demonstrated Canadian courts will advance CIL tort litigation. And, even if Nevsun spurs the creation of CIL-based torts, corporate liability under domestic law constrains human rights litigation for harms that take place outside Canada. Absent evolution of the common law, domestic corporate liability rules will likely continue to impede tort litigation against Canadian corporate actors for extraterritorial human rights violations. This article concludes by calling attention to two under-developed areas of law--forum of necessity and the commercial activity exception to the State Immunity Act--which offer innovative avenues for CIL tort litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada Nevsun Resources Ltd. v Araya, has brought the issue of transnational corporations' responsibility for human rights violations to the forefront in Canada. After critically examining the decision, this article aims to propose an effective legislative design for Canada. The article also examines another pertinent decision (this one from the UK), Vedanta Resources plc. v Lungowe in this regard. The proposals for effective legislation in Canada set out in this article will also be relevant for other countries considering the introduction of (or amending) modern slavery laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States have recently indulged in purchasing surveillance spyware such as Pegasus from big corporations such as the NSO Group to track the activities of its people to curb dissidents. Unfortunately, such incidences are not new in the international domain. Thus, it is imperative to analyze the legality of such spyware used by the states with the assistance of foreign corporates under the international framework. In view of the same, the paper while majorly focusing on the significance of right to privacy, traces the standing limitations in the legal mechanism and tries to propose a shared responsibility regime for states and surveillance companies indulging in human rights violations by drawing parallels with the ICoCA mechanism.

This paper focuses on examining environmental cases before the Indonesian courts from the past ten years. To be specific, this paper will study four major cases with regard private law, six major cases with regard to criminal law, and class action cases in Indonesia. This period of time explains trending increase of environmental cases before the courts. In this regard, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) becomes the main preference of settling the environmental disputes. However, ADR seems not able to bring justice to the fullest especially when it comes to the corporations. It is not justice to the fullest in the sense that there seems no deterrence ADR brings to the corporations when the corporations do indeed damages the environment. As the environmental awareness increases and at the same time, ADR seems fail to fulfill the expectation to save the environment, another way to bring justice emerges namely through various efforts in lawsuits. Nevertheless, such lawsuits are not perfect as there are varieties of results from Indonesian courts. This paper argues that such variety of decisions have been heavily influence by the availability of scientific data and the knowledge of the panel of judges. Specifically, in the case of class action lawsuit, those who defend the environment has limitation on resources usually initiate such lawsuit. Whereas, corporation that being sued is relatively have the capacity to face the trial due to its high financial resources. Nevertheless, “fighting the giants” has been the paradigm when it comes to pursue the responsibility of corporation of its wrongdoing especially environmental damages.