abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English


28 Sep 2016

Amazon Defense Coalition, CSRwire (USA)

Lawyer requests rehearing in US over decision in Chevron oil pollution in Ecuador lawsuit

"Armed With New Evidence, Donziger Asks Full Appellate Court for Rehearing On Ecuador Environmental Case", 26 Sep 2016

In a new legal filing, the lawyer for New York human rights attorney Steven Donziger criticized a U.S. federal appellate court’s decision in favor of Chevron on the $9.5 billion Ecuador environmental judgment as “lawless” and urged the entire court to rehear the case taking into account critical new evidence...Deepak Gupta, a prominent appellate lawyer who represents Donziger, is seeking a rehearing...on various grounds...Gupta also attacked the court’s refusal to reconsider the flawed factual findings of controversial U.S. trial judge Louis A. Kaplan, who along with the appellate court ignored powerful new evidence that nullifies Chevron’s claims that the Ecuador judgment was the product of bribery...Gupta’s petition asserted the court was mistaken on several counts...The decision affirming Kaplan’s ruling represents the first time that U.S. court has allowed a party that lost a money judgment in a foreign country where it wanted the trial held to preemptively attack that judgment in a U.S. court, violating...international law...The decision violates a previous Second Circuit panel’s decision in the same case that barred a collateral attack on a foreign judgment in U.S. courts...[T]he decision contravenes a ruling of the highest court in a foreign country on a question of that country’s own law...The decision ignores critical factual developments since the end of the Kaplan trial that render the findings of the judge...completely moot...