Drummond Company Inc et al v. Collingsworth et al

On May 20, 2025, Drummond Company Inc. and its Colombian subsidiary filed a civil suit in Alabama federal court against international human rights lawyer Terrence Collingsworth and his advocacy group. The complaint alleged that the defendants orchestrated a decade-long racketeering conspiracy, defaming Drummond by fabricating claims that it financed paramilitary forces responsible for murdering Colombian labor union leaders. The plaintiffs accused the defendants of using knowingly false witnesses and forged documents to extort a massive settlement, asserting violations of RICO and state defamation law. The defendants maintained that their legal actions and public campaigns were legitimate human rights advocacy protected by the First Amendment, aimed at holding the corporation accountable for alleged complicity in war crimes. This lawsuit marked the latest chapter in a protracted legal war, with Drummond seeking damages and an injunction to bar further accusations.

In late 2025, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court ruled that the RICO claims were time-barred and failed to plausibly allege a racketeering enterprise, while the defamation claim could not overcome the heightened pleading standards for protected speech. Critically, the court found that the lawsuit bore the characteristics of a retaliatory SLAPP, awarded attorney fees to Collingsworth and his organization, and warned that continued similar filings could invite sanctions.

The central dispute was whether the defendants’ litigation and advocacy constituted criminal extortion and defamation under RICO, or whether such activities were constitutionally protected petitioning and free speech, triggering anti-SLAPP defenses. A key subsidiary issue involved the reliability and admissibility of evidence that Drummond claimed had been deliberately fabricated by the defendants to coerce a settlement.

The case intensified scrutiny on multinational corporations using protracted litigation to silence human rights defenders. Civil society groups hailed the dismissal as a vindication of the right to seek accountability for atrocities, while corporate legal observers debated the limits of aggressive advocacy. The decision reinforced calls for a federal anti-SLAPP statute and underscored the persistent controversy over holding U.S. companies liable for overseas human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute and parallel legal theories.