Read the case Doe v. Nestle (2014) and afterwards try to answer the following legal scenario:

The defendant in this case, a US corporation established in California, Flame Wheel Tirehereafter "FWT"is being sued by several survivors and family members of victims killed in a genocide in Central Africa. You were recently hired to sue FWTone of the largest tire companies in the worldunder the Alien Tort Statute. As you have come to learn, a local insurgent group in Central Africa recently overthrew the president of the country and seized power. The defendant, FWT, the largest operator in the country, hoping to continue getting its needed supply of rubber from the rubber plantations, formed a relationship with the rebel group now in control of the country and began to pay them for "security" purposes. The rebel group in return allowed FWT to stay in the country, and the rebels used the money provided by FWT on weapons and supplies. During this same time, the rebel groups continued to blare over the radio vitriol about the recently deposed political party and its supporters who they claimed were "cockroaches" that should be "hunted down and stomped out." FWT also received reports from international humanitarian groups concerned with conditions in the region and who warned FWT of the potential for violence; however, despite these reports, FWT continued to cooperate with the rebel insurgents. At the onset of the killing, your clients and some of their now deceased family members were attacked by rebel insurgents. A few of your clients managed to survive by pretending to be dead and laying amongst their deceased friends and family members for several days. FWT executives claim to have been completely unaware of the conditions going on at the time, despite having dozens of employees on the ground and having ordered an evacuation of the remaining non-essential personnel suspiciously only a few days before the slaughter. FWT attorneys also argued that: they did not owe any duty to your clients to stop the killing; corporations cannot be prosecuted for war crimes under international law; and their only obligation was to their shareholders to receive the lowest cost of rubber. Your clients' suit was brought in the 9th federal circuit, and, based on the precedent established in Doe I v. Nestle (2014), write your best argument for how your case is likely to be decided by the court.

Reference:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/firestone-and-the-warlord/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11474817548809239349

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9441243257336706772