Mosammat Lalila and Sajeda v. Parker Drilling Company and Niko Resources, Ltd. ( 2009 )

Opinion issued March 12, 2009    

In The  

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-07-00281-CV

---

MOSAMMAT LALILA AND SAJEDA, ET AL., ⁽¹⁾ Appellants

V.

PARKER DRILLING COMPANY, PARKER DRILLING COMPANY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, AND GSM CONSULTING, INC., Appellees

---

On Appeal from 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas  

Trial Court Cause No. 2005-54021B

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Mosammat Lalila and Sajeda and 765 other individuals residing in Bangladesh (collectively "Lalila"), appeal the trial court's order granting the forum non conveniens motions in favor of appellees, Parker Drilling Company, Parker Drilling Company International Limited (collectively "Parker"), and GSM Consulting, Inc. ("GSM"), that results in dismissal of the suit. In its sole issue, Lalila contends the trial court erred by granting the forum non conveniens motions because several producing causes of the injury occurred in Texas and because Bangladesh is an inadequate forum. We affirm the order of the trial court.

Background

Niko Resources (Bangladesh), Ltd. ("Niko Bangladesh") entered into a contract with China Petroleum Technology and Development Corporation ("China Petroleum") to excavate a gas field in Tangratila, Bangladesh. After the project began, the Tangratila gas well exploded, injuring nearby residents.

Niko Bangladesh then contracted with Parker and GSM to drill a relief well. Parker was to drill a relief well to divert gas from the original well and to seal off the gas leak resulting from the explosion, and GSM was to oversee the relief well project. Several months later, the relief well also exploded, causing further injuries.

Lalila and approximately 765 other appellants filed suit against China Petroleum, GSM, Niko Bangladesh and Niko Resources, Ltd. (collectively the "Niko Entities"), Parker, and Qasim Sharif, ⁽²⁾ asserting negligence, nuisance, trespass, and conversion resulting from the two explosions. The Niko Entities filed special appearances, challenging personal jurisdiction. After discovery was conducted relating to the convenience of Texas as a forum, the Niko Entities, Parker, and GSM filed motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

The trial court granted the special appearances for the Niko Entities and granted the motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens for Parker and GSM. The trial court then granted Lalila's motion to sever, creating a separate case against the Niko Entities and the instant case against Parker and GSM. We previously affirmed the trial court's grant of special appearances for the Niko Entities. See Lalila v. Niko Res., Ltd., No. 01-06-00844-CV, 2007 WL 2833550 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 27, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Niko Entities, Qasim, and China Petroleum are not parties to this appeal.

Forum Non Conveniens

In the sole issue in this appeal, we address whether the trial court properly granted the motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens for Parker and GSM.

A. Standard of Review

Dismissals on forum-non-conveniens grounds are discretionary, and we review the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion. Baker v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 272, 277 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion by acting without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See Goode v. Shoukfeh, 943 S.W.2d 441, 446 (Tex. 1997). The mere fact that a trial judge may decide a matter within his discretion in a different manner than an appellate judge in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion has occurred. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Johnson, 389 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. 1965).

B. Availability of Forum Non Conveniens in General

Courts exercise the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens to resist imposing an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. See In re Smith Barney, Inc., 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). Dismissal on forum-non-conveniens grounds ensures that cases will be heard in the most proper and convenient forum and prevents cases from being heard in a forum that is fundamentally unfair to the defendant or to the public. See id. at 598. Forum non conveniens may be available even if long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant exists and would not violate due process principles. See id.; Baker, 985 S.W.2d at 274.

C. Proximate or Producing Cause

Lalila contends that section 71.051(f) prohibits the granting of the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens because Lalila's credible evidence demonstrates that "an act or omission that was a proximate or producing cause of the injury or death occurred in this state." Lalila states that "Texas companies, individuals and equipment have been central to the planning, design, supervision and implementation of the Tangratila gas well project."

At the time this lawsuit was filed, section 71.051(f) provided:

A court may not stay or dismiss a claim or action pursuant to Subsection (b) if a party opposing the motion under Subsection (b) alleges and makes a prima facie showing that an act or omission that was a proximate or producing cause of the injury or death occurred in this state. The prima facie showing need not be made by a preponderance of the evidence and shall be deemed to be satisfied if the party produces credible evidence in support of the pleading, which evidence need not be in admissible form and may include affidavits, deposition testimony, discovery responses, or other verified evidence.

Act of May 27, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 424, § 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 1680, 1681 (amended 2005) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 71.051(f) (Vernon 2008)). "A prima facie case represents the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the allegation of fact is true. Whether this burden has been met is a question of law for the court." Berg v. AMF Inc., 29 S.W.3d 212, 219 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (internal citations omitted).

Both proximate cause and producing cause require causation in fact. See Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995). Causation in fact means the defendant's act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's injury, which would not otherwise have occurred. See Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007). In order to make a prima facie showing that Parker's and GSM's actions were the "proximate or producing cause" of Lalila's injuries, Lalila must demonstrate, by credible evidence, that the complained of acts done by Parker and GSM were "a substantial factor in bringing about his injury which would not otherwise have occurred." See id.; Berg, 29 S.W.3d at 219-20.

Lalila first asserts that Parker and GSM "negligently formulated and designed the Tangratila gas well project." To show that the relief-well rig was planned and designed by Texas residents in Texas, Lalila points out that the ground pressure diagram, foundation plan, skidding system and layout, blow out preventer, and plot plan were prepared or reviewed in Texas by Texas residents. However, Lalila never explains how any of these products, while created in Texas, are "negligently formulated and designed." Lalila fails to explain how the design of these products caused the second explosion. See IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 798-99 (Tex. 2004) (stating causation in fact "cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture, guess, or speculation"); Berg, 29 S.W.3d at 220 (holding no causal nexus when plaintiffs failed to link defendants' acts to plaintiffs' damage).

Similarly, Lalila contends Parker and GSM "negligently obtained defective equipment and parts." Though Lalila lists several Texas companies who provided parts for the relief-well rig, Lalila never explains how the parts themselves were defective or anything else that would make the parts "negligently obtained" by Parker and GSM. Lalila therefore never shows how these parts, though obtained in Texas, caused the second explosion. See Mason, 143 S.W.3d at 798-99; Berg, 29 S.W.3d at 220.

Lalila also alleges that "personnel working on the Tangratila gas well project were negligent and incompetent." Lalila has evidence demonstrating that many of Parker's and GSM's employees and officers are Texas residents. To show that the personnel working on the relief well were "incompetent," Lalila points to a series of emails exchanged between the Niko Entities and Parker. In one email, the Niko Entities, after allegedly being contacted by concerned GSM personnel, express concern over the safety of Parker employees working on the relief rig. In response to that email, Parker stated that "there has been insufficient leadership at the Parker Rig Superintendent and Rig Manager positions," and further conceded that the crews were "not yet used to working this rig, or with each other." These emails establish that the Niko Entities and Parker were aware of potential safety problems with Parker personnel. However, Lalila does not allege that these safety concerns ever escalated, leading to the second explosion. Lalila does not explain how negligent personnel had any hand in causing the second explosion. See Berg, 29 S.W.3d at 220; Mason, 143 S.W.3d at 798-99.

Finally, Lalila contends Parker and GSM "negligently supervised the progress at the Tangratila gas well project." Lalila presents evidence that Parker employees in Houston received updates from Parker employees in Bangladesh. Lalila makes no connection, though, between supervision of the project in Texas and the second explosion. See Berg, 29 S.W.3d at 220; Mason, 143 S.W.3d at 798-99. In fact, Lalila has not offered any evidence to suggest what might have caused that explosion. Although Lalila has established that certain acts by Parker and GSM occurred in Texas, he fails to make a prima facie showing that any of those acts or omissions were a proximate or producing cause of the injury or death. We hold Lalila has failed to meet his burden under section 71.051(f).

D. Bangladesh as a Forum

Lalila contends the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit because Bangladesh, as an alternative forum, does not provide an adequate remedy. See Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 3.04, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 854 (amended 2005) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 71.051(b)). In support of his argument, Lalila asserts that Bangladeshi courts suffer from corruption and delays, seldom deploy the class-action mechanism, and render judgments that are difficult to enforce.

The legislature amended section 71.051 in 2003, see Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 3, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, and again in 2005. See Act of May 17, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 248, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 448 (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 71.051 (Vernon 2008)). Lalila filed his suit on August 19, 2005, but the 2005 amendments did not take effect until September 1, 2005. See id. Therefore, section 71.051 as amended in 2003 controls. See id. §§ 2, 3.

Section 71.051(b), as was in effect at the time this lawsuit was filed, stated:

If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties a claim or action to which this section applies would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay or dismiss the claim or action. In determining whether to grant a motion to stay or dismiss an action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court may consider whether:

(1) an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried;

(2) the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy;

(3) maintenance of the claim or action in the courts of this state would work a substantial injustice to the moving party;

(4) the alternate forum, as a result of the submission of the parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined to the plaintiff's claim;

(5) the balance of the private interests of the parties and the public interest of the state predominate in favor of the claim or action being brought in an alternate forum; and

(6) the stay or dismissal would not result in unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 3.04, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847 (amended 2005). While the statute does not require a party to prove each of the six factors, it does require the trial court to consider each factor to the extent applicable. See In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681, 687 (Tex. 2008).

1. Alternate Forum

Lalila presents no challenge to the trial court's implicit determination that Bangladesh is an alternate forum in which the claim or action may be tried.

2. Adequacy of Remedy in Alternate Forum

Lalila challenges only one fact concerning the adequacy of the alternate forum. Lalila states in his brief that "the Defendants in the underlying case have already demonstrated the capacity and willingness to engage in corruptive practices to influence Bangladesh government officials to obtain favorable outcomes." Lalila refers to a luxury vehicle the Niko Entities purportedly gave to Bangladesh State Minister of Energy AKM Mosharraf Hossain, who has since resigned. We note that while Lalila refers to "the Defendants," only the Niko Entities, who are not parties to this appeal, are alleged to have engaged in the bribery. More importantly, Lalila did not present any admissible evidence of rampant corruption. Lalila presented the affidavit of expert witness Paul Carrington to support his contention that the Bangladeshi judicial system was pervasively corrupt. However, the trial court struck much of Carrington's affidavit, including all of the section entitled "Pervasive Corruption," after Carrington stated his analysis was based primarily on hearsay from three Bangaldeshi attorneys. When the primary portion of the affidavit was struck, Lalila was left with no evidence demonstrating corruption within the Bangladeshi judicial system.

Lalila's remaining contentions--that the Bangladeshi courts suffer from delays, seldom deploy the class-action mechanism, and render judgments that are difficult to enforce--are considerations courts attempt to avoid in forum non conveniens analysis. See id. at 688. A comparative analysis of procedures and substantive law in Bangladesh and Texas should only be given weight if Bangladesh would in substance provide no remedy at all. See id. Comparative analyses "should be given little weight in forum non conveniens analysis because such analyses pose significant practical problems." Id. Consideration of speed to disposition of a case should also be avoided because numerous conditions and events can account for delay. Id. "The many known and unknown matters affecting pretrial events and trial settings are necessarily speculative and are reasons comparative analyses have been termed 'complex' and should be avoided in forum non conveniens consideration." Id.

Other evidence submitted to the trial court demonstrates that Bangladesh would not deprive Lalila of a remedy. See id. ("There may be circumstances where an alternate forum is not adequate because the remedies it offers are so unsatisfactory that they really comprise no remedy at all."); In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 678 (Tex. 2007) ("That the substantive law of an alternative forum may be less favorable to the plaintiff is entitled to little, if any, weight. . . . '[A]n alternative forum is adequate if the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court.'" (quoting Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 2003))). Parker presented the affidavit of Rokanuddin Mahmud, who has practiced law in Bangladesh for more than 30 years, is a former president of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court Bar Association, and is a Senior Advocate at the highest appellate court in Bangladesh. In his affidavit, Mahmud explains that Bangladesh's judicial system is based on the English common law and has a multi-level court structure headed by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. He also states that Bangladeshi rules allow plaintiffs to join together in one action, similar to our class-action mechanism, and recognize the types of torts asserted by Lalila--negligence, trespass, nuisance, and conversion. Lalila would not be deprived of a remedy by litigating his claims in Bangladesh. See Pirelli Tire, 247 S.W.3d at 678 (holding plaintiff not deprived of remedy even when court assumed Mexican law does not provide cause of action for strict liability, provide for jury, or allow "American-style" discovery).

3. Substantial Injustice to Moving Party

Parker asserts that it would suffer a substantial injustice if this suit were litigated in Texas. Parker notes "the legal inability and prohibitive costs of bringing witnesses from Bangladesh," plus the cost of translating witness testimony. Lalila responds in his reply brief that because Lalila "ultimately bear[s] the burden of proof for the case, the majority of the cost of obtaining the evidence would fall more onto the shoulder of [Lalila] than the Appellees." Lalila also implies that increased expenses for Parker and GSM as a result of a Texas forum would not present a substantial injustice because "[b]oth Appellees the Parker Entites and GSM are large multi-national corporations with significant financial resources at their disposal." Because the vast majority of the evidence concerning this litigation would be from Bangladesh, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion by implicitly determining that Parker would suffer substantial injustice in having to litigate this dispute in Texas.

4. Jurisdiction over Parties in Alternate Forum

On appeal, Lalila presents no challenge to the trial court's implicit determination that the alternate forum, as a result of the submission of the parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined to the plaintiff's claim.

5. Balance of Private and Public Interests

Lalila does not raise this issue in its original brief. We agree with Parker that the issue is waived on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Nevertheless, we note that the public interest in this case is in Bangladesh because Bangladesh has a strong interest in protecting its citizens, the 765 plaintiffs in this case. See Pirelli Tire, 247 S.W.3d at 679 ("Mexico's interest in protecting its citizens and seeing that they are compensated for their injuries is paramount. The safety of Mexican highways and products within the country's borders are also Mexican interests."). In addition, private-interest factors favor Bangladesh as a forum because all plaintiffs, who are also witnesses, are located in Bangladesh, and key evidence such as the oil rig as well as the explosion site itself is located in Bangladesh. See id. at 678-79.

   6. Duplicate Litigation

Lalila does not address the probability of duplicate litigation if this lawsuit remains in Texas. However, in its brief, Parker notes that Lalila "could bring suit against all of the defendants in Bangladesh--which [Lalila] cannot do here, since there is no jurisdiction in Texas over the Niko entities." Thus, allowing Lalila's suit against Parker and GSM to proceed in Texas while Lalila's suit against the Niko Entities must proceed outside of Texas results in duplicate litigation. This factor weighs in favor of dismissing Lalila's suit.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims under the doctrine of forum non conveniens upon determining that, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, the claims against Parker and GSM would be more properly heard in a forum outside this State.

We hold the trial court did not err by dismissing the suit for forum non conveniens. We overrule Lalila's sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the order of the trial court.

Elsa Alcala

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Hanks.

  APPENDIX
HALIMA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of ASHFIA AKHTER SRITI, MONIRA BEGUM, JASIM UDDIN, ABDUL LATIF, Individually, and as next friend of BAJASTER, ABDUL JABBAR, ABU SAYAD, SAMAD, MD. NAZIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of HAPIA BEGUM, ABDUL LATIF, Individually, and as next friend of NOOR MUHAMMAD, HAFIA KHATUN, JAHIRUL ISLAM, MD. NAZIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of SUJAN, SUMON, ISMAIL ALI, Individually, and as next friend of JARINA KHATUN, MD. NAZIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of MUKTA, ISMAIL ALI, Individually, and as next friend of ALAMAS, JUNAIDUL ISLAM, MD. NAZIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of SAJUL, ISMAIL ALI, Individually, and as next friend of ASMA KHATUN, MD. NAZIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of UJJAL, ISMAIL ALI, Individually, and as next friend of SALMA, TASLIMA KHATUN, RAHIMA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of MOFIZ UDDIN, HAZRAT ALI, ZABBAR, JAHANGIR,   JASMIN, MRS. AMERA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of GOLAM MUSTAFA, RAHIMA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of DOLLY, MRS. AMERA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of MD. JHURE MEA, MONOWARA BEGUM, ABBAS MIA, Individually, and as next friend of SURAYA BEGUM, ALAMIN, PAPPU, MRS. AMERA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of DELOWARA BEGUM, ABBAS MIA, Individually, and as next friend of HAMID, MONIKA, KHOKA MIA, Individually, and as next friend of AMBIA, ABDUS SALAM, Individually, and as next friend of ROMANA BEGUM, KHOKA MIA, Individually, and as next friend of MOKBUL, TASLIMA, KARIMA, AKTER, ABDUS SALAM, Individually, and as next friend of RAKIBUL HASSAN, KHOKA MIA, Individually, and as next friend of ASIA, MUKTER, ABDUS SALAM, Individually, and as next friend of RUBEL HASSAN, GOLAM MUSTAFA, Individually, and as next friend of RUPIA AKTER, MARINA AKTER, ANJUMANARA BEGUM, NASRIN AKTER, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL JABBAR, HOSSAIN ALI, Individually, and as next friend of JAMINA KHATUN, SAKIL AHMED, HASINA KHATUN, FALU MIA, NASRIN AKTER, Individually, and as next friend of MD. ARIAN MAHMUD, MOHAMMAD ALAK MIR, Individually, and as next friend of MEHROONESA,   MIZANUR RAHMAN, FIROZA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of JAKIR HOSSAIN, MOHAMMAD ALAK MIR, Individually, and as next friend of ALAMGIR, SHAHALAM, ABDUL HAKIM, Individually, and as next friend of SEKU MIA, FOYEJUR KHATUN, FIROZA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of RUHMUT ALI, RINA, MORIAM, SALEHA, Individually, and as next friend of ABUL KASHEM, NOORJAHAN, NAZMA, RUBINA, RAHAM ALI, HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of AMINA KHATUN, MD. NURU MIA, Individually, and as next friend of MAJEDA BEGUM, HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of SAHARA KHATUN, MD. NURU MIA, Individually, and as next friend of AMINA, HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of ALIA KHATUN, RUBEL, MD. NURU MIA, Individually, and as next friend of ASHEA, HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of JEWEL, FAIZUNNESA, Individually, and as next friend of FAIZUNNESA, MD. NURU MIA, Individually, and as next friend of ALI AHMED, HELENA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL RASHID, ZAKIR HOSSAIN, MONIR HOSSAIN, AMIN HOSSAIN, MD. NURU MIA, Individually, and as next friend of MD. MIAR UDDIN, HELENA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of RASHIDA, MD. NURU MIA, Individually, and    as next friend of AYESHA BEGUM, MANIK MIA, Individually, and as next friend of SURAYA BEGUM, MASUD, SHARMI, SONIA, MASUM, SHARITI, DILBER NESA, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL SAMAD, ROBIUL, SUFIA KHATUN, KAMRUL, SANORA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of ALAUDDIN MIA, SALIM, KAJOL MIA, JOSNA BEGUM, MUSLEM ALI, Individually, and as next friend of ASSIA, MOHAMMAD ALLAL MIA, Individually, and as next friend of MINUDDIN, ASHIA KHATUN, HAJARA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL BARAK, SHUK ABDULLA, FARID MIA, HAMID, ATIA, SHAHEEN, SABINA, MD. ROJOB ALI, Individually, and as next friend of NASIMA AKTER, I DUTAN, JASMIN, AKTER, JAKIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of RAZINA AKTER, TAMANNA AKTER, SHARMIN AKTER, MD. RAFIQUL ISLAM, Individually, and as next friend of ROKEYA BEGUM, MD. TAJUL ISLAM, SHERAJUL ISLAM, JAMAL UDDIN, ABU HANIF, ANOWARA BEGUM, MONOWARA BEGUM, HAZIRA KHATUN, NURJAHAN, RAHMAT ALI, Individually, and as next friend of DELOWARA BEGUM, NIMON MIA, SUMON MIA, ABU TAHER, Individually, and as next friend of HOSNEARA BEGUM, MINARA KHATUN, HABIBULLAH, RAZA MAHMUD, Individually, and as next friend of MD. AZIM UDDIN, SALMA BEGUM, FANNA, MOJNU,   DUJA, KHADIN, HASSAN UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of JOSNA BEGUM, HANIFA, ALAM, HARUN, RAHIMA, AKIMA, HASINA, SALEHA, ROZINA, TASLIMA, HARUN UR RASHID, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL ALI, SOKINA BEGUM, NAZRUL ISLAM, NUR UDDIN, NIZAM UDDIN, HELEN AKTER, ANOWARA BEGUM, ASMA AKTER, ASROFA, HASINA AKHTER, Individually, and as next friend of HASINA AKHTER, FARASH ALI, Individually, and as next friend of ANWARA B, ANWARA BEGUM, HOSHAIN, AMINA, GOLAPI, OLI MIA, SHAH ALAM, SHAMIN, RIAZ HOSSAIN, LIZA, NURJAHAN, Individually, and as next friend of ROSHID MIA, REHANA KHATUN, MD. MOKBUL HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of LILA AKTER, RANI AKTER, IMAM UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of SHAFI UDDIN, ROKEYA BEGUM, JOSHIM UDDIN, MOIN UDDIN, SUFIA, SUFIA, HASINA, SHAHINA, ALEYA, Individually, and as next friend of ALAL UDDIN, ROJINA KHATUN, SALIM, KAJOL, SAKIB, MD. ABDUR RAHMAN, Individually, and as next friend of JAHANARA BEGUM, KULSUM BEGUM, HANNAN RASHID, LUBNA, HASAN, FARIDA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of SHAHJAHAN MIA, SHIRINA KHATUN, SHAHANA KHATUN, IMRAN HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of ABUL HOSSAIN, REHANA BEGUM, REBEKA BEGUM,   HONUFA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of HOSNEARA, IQBAL HOSSAIN, MOHAMMAD ISMAIL, Individually, and as next friend of KHORSHEDA, BAKUL, HALIMA, SHELINA, MAMATAJ MIA, MASUMA, MOHAMMAD GOLAP MIA, Individually, and as next friend of NUROON NAHAR, NOOR MOHAMMAD, NOOR AHMED, KULSUM, BEAUTY, MD. SHARIFUL ISLAM, Individually, and as next friend of MOJAMMEL HUQ, SOBUJ, SHEWLY, KAMAL HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of RAZA MIA, KAMLA BEGUM, SHEWLY AKTER, ROJINA, SHOFIQ, MD. MOTIN, Individually, and as next friend of AROB ALI, RABEYA, DOLON MIA, BABU, MOSTAFA, MASRUMA, ABU HANIF, Individually, and as next friend of AYESHA AKTER, MAHBUBUL ALAM, MOHIBUR RAHMAN, BURHAN UDDIN, FARUK MIA, Individually, and as next friend of AFROZA, HOSSAIN, KHADIZA, AL-AMIN, ABDUL KHALEK, Individually, and as next friend of RAMJANI BEGUM, SUJON, IBRAHIM, NARGIS, FARIDA, KAMAL HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL MALEK, ASIFA, NAZMA, KARINA, JAYNAL, NAZIR HOSSAIN, AZIR MIA, JOSNA, MOHAMMAD SHAHALAM, Individually, and as next friend of MANZINA AKTER, SHAJUL, MD. SHEHAB UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL JALIL, HAZIRA KHATUN, JOINAL, KAMAL, SHARIFA, ABDUL MOJED, Individually,   and as next friend of RASHEDA, MOJIDA, MAJEDA, RAMJAN, MODHU, SUKUR ALI, Individually, and as next friend of MONOWARA BEGUM, MOHAMMAD ALI, AHAMMED ALI, IDRIS ALI, UNUS ALI, KULSUM ALI, MINARA AKTER, Individually, and as next friend of NOBI HOSSAIN, PAVEL AHMED, RUBEL, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, Individually, and as next friend of JAHANARA KHATUN, JAKIR HOSSAIN, MOKTER HOSSAIN, AKTER HOSSAIN, RAHIMA KHATUN, MOSLEM UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of SOKHINA, RASEL, SHARMIN, SIMA, ABDUL KADER, Individually, and as next friend of RUMA AKHTER, KOHINUR AKHTER, SHURUJ MIA, Individually, and as next friend of ALEKHA BEGUM, IDRIS MIA, ZAKIR HOSSAIN, SHAHANA BEGUM, REKHA, SALMA, KULSUM, GULSHAN HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of TAMIZ UDDIN, JULEKHA KHATUN, ROZINA, ASAD, AMBIA, SHILPI, JAMILA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of SHAFIQ UDDIN, ZOHUR, MUSLIM, MONI, JOHURA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of JOHURA KHATUN, FAZLUL HUQ, Individually, and as next friend of MAIN, MAIN UDDIN, FATEMA, MANZINA, MAHMUDA, MONIRA, ASMA AKHTER, Individually, and as next friend of AMIN MIA, ARIFUL ISLAM, SHARMIN AKHTER, KHUDEJA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of MD. MANIK, MD.   MANIK MIA, MORJINA AKTER, ABDUL BASIT, Individually, and as next friend of RAHIMA, EMON, RUKSANA, RUKSHANA, MUNTAJ ALI, Individually, and as next friend of MUSLIM UDDIN, RAHIMA BEGUM, RAJU MIA, KAJAL, SALMA, JOSNA, CHAN MIA, Individually, and as next friend of AMBIA, UKESME, MUKLES, JAHIDA KHATUN, MANNAN MIA, ZIAUR RAHMAN, Individually, and as next friend of NASIMA AKHTER, NAZRUL ISLAM, KHALILUR, HASINA AKTER, ROZINA AKTER, MOHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, Individually, and as next friend of ASHRABENNESA, MOHAMMAD ZHAHIDULLAH, MIZAN, PARVIN, MD. NUR MOHAMMAD, Individually, and as next friend of SHOFER ALI, HOZRAT ALI, AMINA, MOSHARROF HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of SHAMIMA, SHORNALI, MUSLIM, FULMALA, FULLMALA, TAJU MIA, Individually, and as next friend of NOOR JAHAN, RUPBAN, ROKEYA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of SHAMSUL HUQ, JAHIRUL HUQ, ENAMUL HUQ, MAHAMUDUL ALAM, Individually, and as next friend of JAHANARA BEGUM, HABIBUR, AL-AMIN, RAKIBUN, HAMIDA, SHARMIN AKHTER, JULEKHA AKTER, Individually, and as next friend of DULAL MIA, DULAL MIA, MORIAM AKTER, SHARIF, SHAHARA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of MAHMUD ALI, JORINA BEGUM, MAJIDA, Individually, and as next   friend of AMIN UDDIN, RAHIMA, NAJMA AKTER, Individually, and as next friend of ASAD MIA, MOSLEMA, SHAHID, SAMSUN NAHAR BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of NOOR MOHAMMAD, ABU KALAM, MORIAM BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of SHOHAG MIA, ENNAS ALI, FARIDA, ABDUL BARIK, Individually, and as next friend of MARIUMNESA, JOSNA BEGUM, RAFIQUL ISLAM, MD. NURUL ISLAM, Individually, and as next friend of HOSNEARA BEGUM, SHAFIQUL ISLAM, TANIE, TAKMINA, NAZRUL ISLAM, Individually, and as next friend of ABUL HOSSAIN, RABEYA BEGUM, NOOR MOHAMMAD, RAHIMA, ASMA, JAHARA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of HAJARA, OSMAN GONI, Individually, and as next friend of KOHINUR AKTER, MORIAM AKTER, RUKSHANA, ALA UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of SANOWARA KHATUN, ALEYA KHATUN, SALIM, KAJOL, RESHMA, SAKIB, ROJINA, IDRIS ALI, Individually, and as next friend of SHAFIA KHATUN, YASMIN, TAMANNA, ABDUL MANNAF, Individually, and as next friend of FULBANU, RAMJAN, SUBOL, AL-AMIN, SHAHID, FATEMA, NAZMA, ABDUR RAHIM, Individually, and as next friend of HAMIDA BEGUM, SHAHNUR, SHAHANAZ, ABDUL RAHIM, Individually, and as next friend of MONTAJ, NURJAHAN, AMINA KHATUN, FATEMA, BOBITA, NAZRUL, SUMON,   MOHAMMAD SAMSUDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of SAKHA BEGUM, BIPLOB MIA, RUBEL MIA, AKHLIMA BEGUM, ATAUR ALI, Individually, and as next friend of WAZIFA KHATUN, MURAD, MD. ASHRAF UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of SHERINA KHATUN, AYESHA, MALU, NAJMA, ABDUL MANNAN, Individually, and as next friend of ANOWARA BEGUM, KHOKON, SADIA, LAKMOT ALI, Individually, and as next friend of HODEJA BEGUM, AL-AMIN, ZAYEN, ZAYEM, MD.SULTAN, Individually, and as next friend of ROMIJA KHATUN, MOROM ALI, SHOPNA KHATUN, KHADEJA, SANIA, KAMAL HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of JAMAL HOSSAIN, SHAHBUDDIN, SHARIFA KHATUN, HAZERA BEGUM, ABDUL JALIL, MOSAMMAT LALILA, Individually, and as next friend of SURAVI AKHTER, SULTAN ISLAM, Individually, and as next friend of AMINA BEGUM, AYESHA BEGUM, JASMIN, TAHERA, KASHEM, FAZILAT, HALIM MIA, Individually, and as next friend of HARESA BEGUM, ARIFA BEGUM, SHIPA AKHTER, SUKURI BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL JABBAR, MOSAMMAT RINA AKTER, MD. TAZEL MIA, Individually, and as next friend of TASLIMA BEGUM, UMME KULSUM, AFIA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of TAZEUDDIN, NASIMA KHATUN, NAJMA KHATUN, DOLLY KHATUN, RABIA BEGUM,   Individually, and as next friend of ABUL HOSSAIN, NUR MOHAMMAD, NAZRUL ISLAM, RAHIMA BEGUM, ASMA BEGUM, SAJEDA, Individually, and as next friend of ANWAR HOSSAIN, SAIFUL ISLAM, HAZRAT ALI, Individually, and as next friend of SHANA AKHTER, HAZERA KHATUN, RUSSELL NOOR, ABDUL RAHMAN, Individually, and as next friend of AMINA KHATUN, BOGDAL MAMUN, RINA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of DULAL, UKIL, IBRAHIM, ISMAIL, NAIMA, KHURSHIDA, MOHAMMAD BADSAH MIA, Individually, and as next friend of AMINA KHATUN, HOZILA AKHTER SHEULI, ABDULLAH AL- MAMUN, HASSINA AKTER, Individually, and as next friend of NASIR UDDIN, HAMIDA, NAJMA, POLLY, BEDON BIBI, Individually, and as next friend of SURUZ ALI, AKHTER MIA, RIPON MIA, ABDUL KHALIQ, Individually, and as next friend of OZUFA KHATUN, ZAKIR HOSSAIN, JAMAL HOSSAIN, KAMAL HOSSAIN, IMAN HOSSAIN, ASIA KHATUN, KHODEJA KHATUN, ASHIA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL MUTALIB, KIBER HOSSAIN, ARIF HOSSAIN, SHARIF HOSSAIN, MARUF HOSSAIN, SABINA, SULTANA, MINARA, ABUL KASHEM, Individually, and as next friend of NAIMA, KOLIFA, HAZERA KHATUN, REHANARA, SHAHENARA, MONIRA, MIZANUR RAHMAN, Individually, and as next friend of ANOWARA BEGUM,   ABDUR RASHID, RAZIA, SAMIA AKHTER, AL-AMIN, SHAHILA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL RAZZAK, SOJIB, SHARMIN, SHAKIL AHMED, ABDUL KARIM, Individually, and as next friend of ROKIA KHATUN, LITON MIA, ASMINA KHATUN, SUFIA, Individually, and as next friend of YUSUF ALI, FARUK, KABIR MIA, ASMA KHATUN, NAZMA AKHTER, RUMA, HAROON-UR RASHID, Individually, and as next friend of AYESHA KHATUN, HOSSAIN MIA, SUFIA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of MUSLIM UDDIN, ROKIB MIA, MUSLIMA, SAKIB MIA, SUMI AKHTER, Individually, and as next friend of PARUL AKHTER, MODINA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of TAJUL ISLAM, MUBARAK MIA, MUSARRAF MIA, ROKEYA BEGUM, RANI BEGUM, NAYAN MIA, LAILEE BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL MALEK, SAMSUN NAHAR, NURUNAHAR, HALIMA, AL-AMIN, LIPON, MIRAJUL, NOORJAHAN, Individually, and as next friend of HASEN MIA, JULIA BEGUM, MOUSUMI AKHTER, SHOHAG MIA, TAMIM MIA, RIDOY MIA, NASIMA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of RAZAB ALI, JASMIN, ABUL KASHEM, Individually, and as next friend of REKHA BEGUM, KADRIA SULTANA, MAHABUB, NURUN NAHAR, Individually, and as next friend of ABDUL BATEN, TAZUL ISLAM, SHAHIDUL ISLAM, ASMA AKHTER,   HASINA AKHTER, ABUL KAMAL, Individually, and as next friend of ALEYA KHATUN, YASMIN AKHTER, SHEULI AKHTER, RUBEL MIA, BOKUL AKHTER, ASAD MIA, Individually, and as next friend of JULASA KHATUN, RUNA, NABI, SHOFOR ALI, ASFIA KHATUN, Individually, and as next friend of MAMUN AHMED, ZINIA, HOSNE- ARA BEGUM, Individually, and as next friend of MOHAMMAD RAMJAN, MOHAMMAD RAMZAN, RUKHSANA AKHTER, REHANA AKHTER, Individually, and as next friend of HOSSAIN ALI, ABDUL KHALEQ, Individually, and as next friend of MOMENA BEGUM, MOKHLES MIA, EKHLAS MIA, ELIAS MIA, PARVIN AKHTER, SHAFIQUL ISLAM, Individually, and as next friend of MARZI AKHTER, RESHMI, ZAKIR HOSSAIN, Individually, and as next friend of RAFEZA AKHTER, TAMANNA AKHTER, SHARMIN AKHTER, MEHER-UN-NESSA, Individually, and as next friend of SHIRINA BEGUM, MOHAMMAD ALAL MIA, Individually, and as next friend of ASMA KHATUN, ABDUL MATIN, Individually, and as next friend of LAAL BANU, ANOWAR, ABDUR RAHIM, RAHMAT ALI, Individually, and as next friend of KHODEZA KHATUN, POPI AKHTER, SHARMI AKHTER, RAMIZ UDDIN, Individually, and as next friend of ZAIDA KHATUN, AKRAMUL ISLAM AYON, RUKHSANA AHMED UMA, BAZLUL MAMUN, Individually, and as next friend   of MOUSUMI AKHTER.   

1. A list of all appellants is attached as an appendix to this opinion.

2. Qasim Sharif was president of Niko Bangladesh and attorney-in-fact for Niko.