hide message

Welcome to the Resource Centre

We make it our mission to work with advocates in civil society, business and government to address inequalities of power, seek remedy for abuse, and ensure protection of people and planet.

Both companies and impacted communities thank us for the resources and support we provide.

This is only possible because of your support. Please make a donation today.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

This piece of content is part of multiple stories. We recommend you read this content in the context of one of the following stories:

Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Author: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Published on: 9 August 2016

...Appellants challenge the district court's judgment principally on grounds of Article III standing, international comity, judicial estoppel, lack of legal authority for the granting of equitable relief, and/or lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants other than Donziger and his firm. Noting, inter alia, that appellants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's factual findings, that the Ecuadorian appellate courts declined to hear and resolve the above charges of corruption and expressly preserved the parties' rights to litigate those charges in United States courts, and that the district court's judgment has imposed in personam restrictions on the appellants without disturbing the Ecuadorian judgment, we find no basis for overturning the judgment of the district court...[T]he district court's unchallenged findings of fact as to the fraud, coercion, and bribery engaged in by the LAPs' team..., we see no abuse of discretion in the equitable in personam relief granted by the district court...

Read the full post here