...[In] a case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals..., multinationals are in the dock for propping up apartheid. But if the defendants prevail, South Africa could be Waterloo for the notion that companies can be accountable for human rights abuses outside the United States...[The] most consequential alien tort question — whether a company can be liable for aiding and abetting human rights abuses — is still unresolved... The South African Apartheid Litigation seeks a sweeping $400 billion... In late 2004 Judge John Sprizzo...categorically rejected claims based on a corporation aiding and abetting human rights abuses, because "aiding and abetting" is not universally prohibited conduct...The judge gave special weight to the views expressed by the South African and U.S. governments. South Africa wrote in its amicus brief that, as a society, it has rejected reparations...[S]ooner or later the question of aiding and abetting will reach the Supreme Court...[W]ith the current composition of the Supreme Court, any test claim may be doomed. [also refers to Ford; IBM; lawsuits against Unocal (now part of Chevron), Occidental]