Drummond Company, Inc. v. Collingsworth et al

Drummond Company, Inc. filed a defamation lawsuit against attorney Terrence P. Collingsworth and his law firm Conrad & Scherer, LLP (C&S) over statements made in connection with prior Alien Tort Statute litigation. The underlying cases alleged Drummond collaborated with Colombian paramilitaries to murder union leaders. Drummond also brought RICO claims, alleging defendants paid witnesses—including former paramilitaries—over $100,000 to procure false testimony. On April 10, 2024, the court entered default judgment against defendants Otero and van Bilderbeek on liability. On December 10, 2024, Chief Judge R. David Proctor ruled on multiple summary judgment motions in the Northern District of Alabama.

The court denied Collingsworth's summary judgment motion as "patently frivolous," finding genuine issues of material fact on truth and malice. C&S's motion was denied due to factual questions regarding vicarious liability. Drummond's partial summary judgment motion was also denied. Default judgment had previously been entered against Otero and van Bilderbeek on liability, with damages to be determined later.

The central disputes were whether Collingsworth's statements were true and made with actual malice, whether C&S could be held vicariously liable, and whether the defendants engaged in a racketeering pattern involving witness bribery, extortion, money laundering, and obstruction of justice.

The case highlights the tension between advocacy in human rights litigation and allegations of litigation misconduct. It underscores judicial scrutiny of witness payment practices in international human rights cases and reinforces that defamation claims against attorneys may proceed to trial when factual disputes exist regarding truth and malice.