The Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Trial | Chevron's Views & Opinions

More coverage of the court ruling which blocks enforcement of the judgment that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have procured through fraud and corruption. The New York Times cites the judge’s ruling which discusses corruption in the Ecuador court system:

Chevron Corp. scored a major legal victory last night when a federal judge ruled that plaintiffs who won an $8.6 billion judgment for pollution in Ecuador cannot seek to collect damages in the United States or in other countries.  …

The legal system in Ecuador has been corrupt for years, but “the situation has worsened” since leftist President Rafael Correa took office in 2007, Kaplan added.

Correa “continues to threaten and pressure judges at all levels, particularly those hearing suits that implicate government interests,” he wrote.

Kaplan also noted evidence that the plaintiffs sought to use “pressure tactics” to influence the judge in Ecuador and helped prepare an independent expert’s report that was introduced as evidence in the case.

Read More »

A judge in New York has just prohibited enforcement of the Chevron Ecuador judgment. Today’s ruling cites misconduct by the plaintiffs’ legal team and follows a February 8, 2011 temporary restraining order against the plaintiffs that prevented them from enforcing the Ecuador judgment:

Note: Judge Kaplan’s order is available to read here.

NEW YORK—A U.S. judge late Monday issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a $8.6 billion judgment against Chevron Corp. over environmental damage in Ecuador’s Amazon region.

The ruling is the latest development in an 18-year legal fight over alleged environmental damage in Ecuador’s rain forest by Texaco Inc., which Chevron acquired in 2001. In February, a judge in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay $8.6 billion to clean up oil pollution there. The award is believed to be the largest-ever judgment in an environmental case.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in Manhattan issued the injunction barring enforcement outside of Ecuador as part of a civil racketeering lawsuit filed by Chevron in the U.S. against the Ecuadorean plaintiff’s lawyers. Chevron has alleged they have tried to extort and defraud the company.

“The evidence establishes that the (Lago Agrio plaintiffs) and their allies intend quickly to pursue multiple enforcement actions and asset seizures, including ex parte remedies where possible, around the globe. Absent a preliminary injunction, Chevron would be forced to defend itself and litigate the enforceability of the Ecuadorian judgment in multiple proceedings,” Judge Kaplan said.

“There is a significant risk that assets would be seized or attached, thus disrupting Chevron’s supply chain, causing it to miss critical deliveries to business partners, damaging ‘Chevron’s business reputation as a reliable supplier and harm the valuable customer goodwill Chevron has developed over the past 130 years,’ and causing injury to Chevron’s ‘business reputation and business relationships.’”

The environmental-damages case, known as the Lago Agrio case, was originally brought in federal court in Manhattan in 1993, but the court found the case should be heard in Ecuador. The indigenous groups brought their suit in Ecuador in 2003.

Much of Chevron’s argument has focused on allegations that the Ecuadorean legal system is stacked against Chevron and allegations of fraud and misconduct by Steven Donziger, the U.S. legal adviser to the Ecuadorean plaintiffs, and others.

The judge noted that much of the evidence of “possible misconduct” by Mr. Donziger and others consists of video recordings related to “Crude: The Real Price of Oil,” a documentary on the legal fight.

“Neither Donziger nor any of the other key actors has denied Chevron’s allegations or attempted here to explain or justify under oath their recorded statements and written admissions,” the judge said.

A lawyer for Mr. Donziger didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment Monday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703883504576187112117241784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This letter in The Economist says, “facts and the basic rule of law demonstrate that Chevron is the victim” :

SIR – Your article regarding the recent fine imposed on Chevron by a court in Ecuador in a long-running environmental lawsuit seemed to suggest there is some doubt about which party is being mistreated (“Monster or victim?”, February 19th). A quick review of the case shows that Chevron has been subjected to a flawed process that has been condemned by multiple courts. Consider the following: Texaco Petroleum Company (TexPet), which Chevron later bought, was a minority owner, holding 37.5% of the oil consortium being sued in the case; the largest shareholder was Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state-run oil company.

Read More »

This blogger writes about lead Chevron Ecuador plaintiffs’ lawyer Steven Donziger:

There are reports that Steve Donziger, the now famous plaintiffs lawyer in the Chevron Ecuador case – yeah, the same one who took a back seat to new lawyers led by the Patton Boggs firm – is striking back at U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, saying that Kaplan was biased against Chevron and that is why the New York Judge ruled to block collection of any damage award from an Ecuador court trial that many knew was fixed in Ecuador’s favor to start with.   In the process Steve is essentially proving what Kaplan has charged Donziger with doing in Ecuador: namely working to bully the courts.

Read More »

Investors Business Daily also writes about the Chevron Ecuador judgment:

The Law: An Ecuador court’s finding of Chevron liable for $8.64 billion over jungle drilling is a bogus case showing how easy it is for lawyers to manipulate banana republic systems.

Hailing the ruling as a strike for “environmental justice,” plaintiffs known as the Amazon Defense Front and their lawyers successfully convinced a judge in Lago Agrio, an Ecuadorean jungle town locally known as a supplying station for Colombia’s FARC terrorists, that mighty Chevron, whose Texaco subsidiary drilled the rain forest from 1964 to 1990, irreparably polluted the rain forest with its drilling operations. That entitled the activists to $8.64 billion.

Read More »

Ecuador responds to New York Federal judge’s temporary restraining order against the collection of any judgment against Chevron:

Ecuadorean officials say they will temporarily block a potential multibillion-dollar judgment against Chevron Corp. for alleged environmental damages.

The Attorney General’s Office says in a statement that Ecuador will obey the order from a U.S. federal judge in New York even though officials “do not agree” with it.

The lawsuit against Chevron is being heard in Ecuador, where a court-appointed expert has recommended the company pay up to $27 billion for the alleged damages.

At Chevron’s request, the U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked any judgment for at least 28 days. The judge said he had concluded that lawyers representing the 30,000 plaintiffs were planning a global disruption of the oil giant’s business to enforce any monetary award.

Read More »

More on the development in the Chevron Ecuador case:

International arbitrators ordered Ecuador to suspend enforcement of any judgment against Chevron Corp in its marathon rainforest pollution case, representing another important win for the U.S. oil company.

Read More »

Order by international arbitration panel follows New York Federal judge’s granting of temporary restraining order against the collection of any judgment against Chevron in Ecuador:

An international arbitration panel ordered Ecuador to temporarily suspend the enforcement of any potential judgments against Chevron ( CVX) in a pending multibillion environmental lawsuit the oil giant faces in the Andean country.

According to documents posted on Chevron’s website, arbitrators presiding in the Permanent Court for Arbitration in The Hague ordered Ecuador on Wednesday ” to take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and without Ecuador of any judgment against” Chevron.

Read More »