Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador)
Para la versión en español de este perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Texaco/Chevron por actividades en Ecuador, haga clic acá.
United States lawsuits
In 1993, a group of Ecuadorian citizens of the Oriente region filed a class action lawsuit in US federal court against Texaco (Aguinda v. Texaco), and in 1994 a group of Peruvian citizens living downstream from the Oriente region also filed a class action lawsuit against Texaco in US federal court (Jota v. Texaco). Both complaints alleged that between 1964 and 1992 Texaco’s oil operations polluted the rainforests and rivers in Ecuador and Peru, resulting in environmental damage and damage to the health of those who live in the region. Both lawsuits were dismissed by the US federal court in 2002 on forum non conveniens grounds (i.e., the court stated that Ecuador was a more appropriate venue for litigating these claims). In connection with the dismissal, Texaco agreed that courts in Ecuador and/or Peru would have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.
Proceedings in Ecuador
In 2003, a class action lawsuit was brought against Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) in Ecuador alleging severe environmental contamination of the land where Texaco conducted its oil operation activities. The plaintiffs alleged that this contamination has led to increased rates of cancer as well as other serious health problems for the residents of the region. Judicial inspections of the allegedly contaminated sites commenced in August 2004. In early 2008, an independent expert recommended to the court that Chevron should pay $7-16 billion in compensation for the pollution. This expert increased his estimate of damages to $27 billion in November 2008. In 2008, Chevron reportedly lobbied the US Government to end trade preferences with Ecuador over this lawsuit. Following allegations of judicial misconduct, the original trial judge recused himself from the case and a new judge was appointed. Following a successful petition in US court to receive unused footage from the documentary "Crude", Chevron filed a petition with the court in August 2010 seeking to dismiss the lawsuit based on the company's assertion that certain parts of this footage show alleged fraud on the part of the plaintiffs. In September 2010, the plaintiffs submitted a new assessment of damages for the claims stating that the cost would be between $90 and $113 billion. In the same month, the judge concluded the evidentiary phase of the lawsuit. On 14 February 2011, the Ecuadorian judge issued a ruling against Chevron in the lawsuit. Chevron was ordered to pay $8.6 billion in damages and clean up costs, with the damages increasing to $18 billion if Chevron does not issue a public apology. Chevron indicated that it believes the ruling is "illegitimate" and "unenforceable", and it filed an appeal. On 3 January 2012 a panel of three judges from the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios upheld the February 2011 ruling against Chevron. On 20 January 2012, Chevron appealed the decision with Ecuador's National Court of Justice. In March 2012, Chevron asked the Provincial Court of Justice for the fourth time to block the Ecuadorian Government from enforcing the $18 billion judgment against it. On 28 March 2012, the court ruled that Chevron was not entitled to use an order from the international arbitration tribunal, which asked Ecuador's Government to suspend the litigation, to block the plaintiffs from enforcing the judgment. In an effort to enforce the judgment, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Canada in May 2012 and one in Brazil in June 2012 targetting Chevron's assets in those countries. On 6 August 2012, the Ecuadorian court ruled that Chevron had until the end of the day to pay the $19 billion judgment. The award was increased in July 2012, after Judge Ortiz calculated various mandatory costs required by Ecuadorian law. In October 2012, the Ecuadorian court issued an order permitting the plaintiffs to seize about $200 million of Chevron's assets located in the country, in an effort to collect on the judgment against the company. On 12 November 2013, Ecuador Supreme Court upheld the August 2012 ruling against Texaco/Chevron for environmental damage but halved damages to $9.51 billion.
In September 2014, Chevron reportedly filed a claim against Woodsford Litigation Funding, which had financed lawyers working on enforcing the $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgement against Chevron. Chevron claims the judgement was achieved by fraud and bribery.
International arbitration proceedings
In December 2006, and again in September 2009, Chevron filed an international arbitration claim before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, alleging that the Government of Ecuador violated an US-Ecuador bilateral investment treaty. Chevron claimed that the Government of Ecuador violated international law by unduly influencing the judiciary and thereby compromising the judiciary's independence. In March 2010 the arbitration panel ruled that Ecuador's government had violated the bilateral investment treaty and international law by delaying rulings on the commercial dispute currently pending in Ecuador's courts. The Government of Ecuador and the plaintiffs in the Ecuadorian lawsuit filed a lawsuit in US federal court seeking an injunction barring Chevron from proceeding with arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty. The parties argued that due process rights in Ecuador would be denied should Chevron proceed with its arbitration.
In March 2010 the US court ruled that Chevron may pursue international arbitration in this case. The plaintiffs and Government of Ecuador have appealed this ruling. In an effort to prove its case, Chevron has sued in ten different US federal courts to try and obtain discovery documents from various consultants the plaintiffs engaged in the assessment of damages.
In February 2011 the international arbitration panel issued an Interim Measures Order in favour of Chevron ordering Ecuador to take all measures to suspend enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment. In August 2011, the internatioanl arbitration tribunal awarded Chevron $96 million.
In February 2012 the arbitration panel met to review Ecuador's compliance with the Interim Measures Order. In February 2013 the arbitration tribunal ruled that Ecuador had not complied with the Interim Measures Order.
In March 2015, the arbitration tribunal held that the settlement between Chevron and Ecuador did not preclude residents from suing over the pollution in the future. The tribunal has yet to consider whether the issuing of the Ecuadorian judgment was in violation of the investment agreement with Texaco.
In January 2016, the international arbitration tribunal ruled in favour of Chevron over Ecuador being bound by the US-Ecuador investment agreement. Ecuador said it will appeal the decision.
In June 2016, The US Supreme Court declined to hear Ecuador's challenge to Chevron's arbitration award.
In July 2016, Ecuador indicated that it had executed the arbitrary decision and paid the $112 million ($96 million award plus interrests) compensation to Chevron.
US legal proceedings following Ecuadorian judgment
Chevron filed a racketeering lawsuit against the plaintiffs' lawyers and representatives in US federal court on 1 February 2011. This lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs' lawyers and representatives have conspired to extort up to $113 billion from Chevron through the Ecuadorian legal proceedings. In addition, Chevron obtained a temporary restraining order from a US federal judge, Lewis Kaplan, on 9 February 2011 enjoining the plaintiffs from attempting to enforce a judgment in the Ecuadorian legal proceedings in the United States. This temporary restraining order was extended in March 2011 and later appealed by the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, a US law firm has filed its own lawsuit against Chevron and Chevron's US legal counsel claiming that they have illegally interfered with its representation of the claimants in the legal proceedings.
On 19 September 2011, the US federal appeals court lifted the lower court’s order preventing enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment. The court also ordered a stay of the racketeering case that Chevron filed against the plaintiffs. On 29 November 2011, Chevron filed a pre-trial motion to seize assets of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs in the racketeering lawsuit. In January 2012, US federal judge rejected Chevron’s request, stating it could be renewed at a later date.
On 5 January 2012, Chevron asked the US federal appeals court to restore the injunction enjoining the plaintiffs from enforcing the Ecuadorian judgment. On 19 January 2012, the court rejected Chevron’s request. On 26 January 2012, explaining its previous decision, the court of appeals ruled that Judge Kaplan lacked authority to block the enforcement of the $18 billion judgment. On 15 May 2012, the district judge overseeing the racketeering lawsuit allowed for the racketeering claims to continue, while dismissing claims of fraud. In October 2012 the US Supreme Court refused to hear Chevron's appeal of the lower court's decision ruling that Judge Kaplan lacked authority to issue the injunction blocking enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment.
In July-August 2013, US federal courts upheld subpoenas served by Chevron on Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! demanding private user information about environmental advocates, journalists, lawyers and others. Chevron sought this as part of its fraud lawsuit against certain Ecuadorian oil pollution plaintiffs and their lawyers.
In March 2014, Judge Kaplan ruled in favour of Chevron, and found that the lawyers for the Ecuadorian community had used fabricated evidence, made bribes and ghost-wrote court documents. The plaintiffs were therefore barred from collecting the $9.51 billion judgment because the "decision was obtained by corrupt means.” The plaintiffs appealed arguing that the requirement that a US court recognizes a ruling of a foreign jurisdiction barred Chevron from challenging the judgement.
On 8 August 2016, a US court of appeals agreed with the lower court’s ruling that the Ecuadorian community cannot collect the $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgement on the basis that judgment was obtained by corrupt means. In April 2017, the lawyers for the Ecuadorian asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision allowing Chevron to use the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to try to block a foreign court judgement. On 19 June 2017, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the petition. This means that the lower court decision blocking the enforcement of the Ecuadorian award stands.
In an effort to enforce the $9.51 billion Ecuadorian judgment, the Ecuadorian villagers filed a lawsuit in Canada in May 2012 targeting Chevron subsidiary's assets in this country. In September 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court confirmed jurisdiction of the Canadian courts to hear the case. In January 2017, the Ontario Superior Court decided that Chevron’s Canada assets and shares could not be used to satisfy the claim, as it is a separate legal entity. However, the judge agreed to toss out some of the (delete the) Chevron's defence arguments concerning the Ecuadorian judgement. The plaintiffs filed an appeal.
In September 2017, the Canadian Court satisfied Chevron's request to order the Ecuadorian plaintiffs to post almost $1 million as security for costs of further proceedings. The court of appeal reversed this order ruling the case a matter of public interest litigation. Chevron was obliged to cover the costs incurred by the Ecuadorians of challenging the security order.
On 17 and 18 April 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear plaintiff’s appeals of the January 2017 ruling regarding the possibility of using Chevron's assets in Canada to enforce the Ecuadorian judgement.
Proceedings in other countries
In October 2017, attempts to enforce the case in Argentina were rejected for a lack of jurisdiction and connection to Argentina. In November, Brazil's Superior Court of Justice refused to enforce the decision on the same grounds.
In October 2014, Ecuadorian communities made a complaint to International Criminal Court against Chevron CEO John Watson. The complaint alleged that decisions by Chevron and its high ranking officers to pollute the rainforest, and subsequently to evade remediation, constituted a crime against humanity. According to the letter received by the Chevron's lawyer in March 2015 from the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, the allegations described in the communication to the ICC by the Lago Agrio plaintiffs were outside the Court's jurisdiction. The alleged crimes, according to the ICC Prosecutor, did not appear to amount to the international crimes under the Court's jurisdiction, based on the available information. In addition, although the ICC recently declared its intent to address environmental abuses, the Court may only hear cases occurred after 1 July 2002, whereas the alleged abuse happened in the 1990s.
- "Supreme Court May Weigh Big Weapon for U.S. Companies Sued Abroad", Paul Barrett, Bloomberg Business Week, 16 May 2017
- "ICC Won’t Prosecute Chevron", Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 2 Apr 2015
- "Ecuador court deals Chevron fresh blow in pollution case", Reuters, 16 Oct 2012
- "Chevron fails to squelch $19 billion Ecuador verdict", Paul Barrett Bloomberg Businessweek, 9 Oct 2012
- "Chevron Faces Midnight Deadline in $19 Billion Ecuador Judgment", Environment News Service, 6 Aug 2012
- "Ecuador plaintiffs target Chevron's assets in Brazil", Eduardo Garcia, Reuters, 28 Jun 2012
- "Ecuador plainitffs file lawsuit in Canada against Chevron", Eduardo Garcia, Reuters, 30 May 2012
- "Chevron Gets Some Claims Dismissed From Ecuador Lawsuit (Update 2)", Patricia Hurtado, Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg 15 May 2012
- "Ecuadorian panel again squashes Chevron motion to block judgment", Jessica M. Karmasek, Legal Newsline, 2 Apr 2012
- "Ecuadoreans Blast 'Secret' Hague Tribunal Convened for Chevron", Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service, 10 Feb 2012
- "Circuit Faults Use of State Law to Block Chevron Judgment", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 27 Jan 2012
- "Ecuador Update: One Door Shuts, Another Opens, and Chevron Lists Its Law Firms—All 39 of Them", Michael D. Goldhaber, Am Law Daily, 24 Jan 2012
- "Chevron Appeals Ruling In Ecuadorian Court", Dow Jones Newswires, 20 Jan 2012
- "So much for Plan B: Kaplan denies Chevron attachment motion", Alison Frankel, Reuters, 6 Jan 2012
- "Reversal of Fortune", Patrick Radden Keefe, New Yorker, 9 Jan 2012 [subscription only]
- "Chevron to fight Ecuador ruling", Naomi Mapstone, Financial Times, 6 Jan 2012
- "Chevron Bid to Dismiss $18 Billion Judgment Rejected in Ecuador Court", Karen Gullo & Mark Chediak, Bloomberg, 4 Jan 2012
- [Español] "Corte de Ecuador ratifica fallo contra petrolera Chevron", Reuters, 3 Jan 2012
- "U.S. court rules against Chevron in Ecuador case", David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, 20 Sep 2011
- [Español] "Corte de EEUU apoya a Ecuador en cuantioso juicio contra Chevron", AP, 19 Sep 2011
- "Ecuador: finally, the polluter is commanded to pay", Independent, 16 Feb 2011
- "Chevron Fined $8.6 Billion in Epic Environmental Case", Frank Bajak & Gonzalo Solano, Associated Press, 15 Feb 2011
- "Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of Likely Judgment Against Chevron", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 9 Feb 2011
- "Law firm fires back at Chevron in Ecuador case", Dan Levine, Reuters, 8 Feb 2011
- "Year 18 of Ecuador vs. Chevron Pollution Dispute", Michael D. Goldhaber, American Lawyer, 23 Sep 2010
- "Chevron keeps up pressure in Ecuador suit", David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, 7 Sep 2010
- "Chevron wins an Ecuador claim, awaits major ruling", Braden Reddall, Reuters, 30 Mar 2010
-"Texaco Toxic Past Haunts Chevron as Judgment Looms", Michael Smith & Karen Gullo, Bloomberg, 30 Dec 2008
- "Chevron Estimate for Amazon Damages Rises by $11 Billion", Karen Gullo, Bloomberg, 27 Nov 2008
- "A $16 Billion Problem", Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, 26 Jul 2008
- [Español] "Nueve ecuatorianos demandan a Texaco", Olga Imbaquingo, Diario el Comercio [Ecuador], 26 abril 2006
- "Amazon Indians Say Texaco Left Damage", Gonzalo Solano, Associated Press, 20 Oct 2005
- “Chevron Trial Opens”, Alan Zibel, Oakland Tribune, 21 Oct 2003
- "Brazil's High Court Rejects Attempt to Enforce Fraudulent Ecuadorian Judgment Against Chevron", 30 Nov 2017
- "Argentine Court Rejects Attempt to Enforce Fraudulent Ecuadorian Judgment Against Chevron", 1 Nov 2017
- "Canadian Court Rejects Attempt to Enforce Fraudulent Ecuadorian Judgment Against Chevron Subsidiary", 20 Jan 2017
- "Chevron response to U.S. Court of Appeals decision", 22 Aug 2016
- "U.S. Appeals Court Affirms RICO Judgment Against Lawyer Behind Fraudulent Ecuador Lawsuit", 8 Aug 2016
- "Chevron Statement on United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals Order", 19 Sep 2011
- The Amazon Post
- "Ecuador Lawsuit - Facts about Chevron and Texaco in Ecuador"
- "Ecuador Lawsuit - Press Releases"
- "History of Texaco and Chevron in Ecuador" [includes links to US court decisions, certain filings by Texaco and status of Ecuadorian proceedings]
- [Español] "Texaco en Ecuador" [incluye enlaces a decisiones judiciales en los EEUU, varios documentos de Texaco y el estado actual de los procedimientos en Ecuador – material sólo en inglés]
Amazon Defense Coalition [NGO supporting plaintiffs]:
- "Step Towards Justice in Chevron Ecuador Contamination Case"
- "Chevron's $27 Billion Catastrophe"
- "Press Releases"
- "Key Documents & Court Filings from Aguinda Legal Team"
- "Communication to Office of the Prosecutor, ICC", Pablo Fajardo Mendoza & Eduardo Bernabé Toledo
- Earthrights International [filed brief in support of plaintiffs in the US proceedings]: "Amicus Brief in Jota v. Texaco and Aguida v. Texaco"
- Letter from the Office of the Prosecutor to R. Doak Bishop, Chevron's lawyer, International Criminal Court, 16 March 2015
- [Español] Fallo de la Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos en el caso Maria Aguida y Otros, Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos, 15 octubre 2012
- [Español] Fallo de la Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos en el caso Maria Aguida y Otros contra Chevron Corporation, Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos, 28 marzo 2012
- Chevron Corporation v Camacho Naranjo, et al- Order, US Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, 19 Jan 2012
- [Español] Juez ponente: Dr. Milton Toral Zevallos - Corte provincial de justicia de Sucumbíos, Sala única de la corte provincial de justicia de Sucumbíos, 3 de enero 2012
- Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios, 3 Jan 2012 [English translation of appeals court decision]
- Chevron Corporation v Steven Donziger et al - Memorandum Opinion, US District Court Southern District of New York, 6 Jan 2012
- Chevron's appeal to Chief Judge of Sucumbios Provincial Court, 21 Mar 2011
- Chevron Corporation v. Camacho Naranjo, et al. - Summary Order, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 19 Sep 2011
- [Español] Juez ponente: AB. Nicolas Zambrano Lozada - Corte Provincial de Justicia Sucumbíos, Corte Provincial de Justicia Sucumbíos [Ecuador], 14 de febrero de 2011 [Fallo completo en el caso por daños ambientales contra Chevron]
- Provincial Court of Sucumbios - Judgment of Case No. 2003-0002, 14 Feb 2011 [English translation of decision issued by the Provincial Court of Sucumbios, Ecuador]
All components of this story
NGOs ask Canadian court to unseal documents concerning relationship between Chevron Canada & parent co. to help Ecuadorian plaintiffs in oil pollution lawsuit
Author: Amazon Watch
"Record Environmental Judgement Moves to Ontario Superior Court in Toronto", 5 Apr 2018
...Friends of the Earth Canada, the Steelworkers Humanity Fund of the United Steelworkers of Canada, and Amazon Watch filed an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice calling on the court to unseal documents in the historic legal effort to enforce one of the largest environmental judgments in history...Later this month, a hearing will be held in Toronto before the Superior Court of Ontario where the Ecuadorians will appeal a lower court decision, essentially protecting Chevron Canada's assets from being seized to cover the debts of its parent company. Chevron has thus far been able to hide the documents in this case from public scrutiny and has argued that the assets of its subsidiary Chevron-Canada cannot be seized. These documents...may show that the Canadian company takes direction from Chevron management in the U.S. and operates as little more than a holding company. The motion filed today asserts that preventing the public from accessing Chevron's filings violates the principle of open justice...The Ontario Court of Appeal has also stated in a recent ruling that the case against Chevron is "public interest litigation...
Ecuador: Indigenous groups reaffirm criticisms of US Judge Kaplan in long-standing legal dispute against Chevron over health, environmental impacts
“Rainforest Groups Blast U.S. Judge Kaplan for Ruling Designed to Help Chevron Evade $9.5b Pollution Liability- - 9 March 2018
A little-noticed ruling in late February by controversial U.S. federal judge Lewis A. Kaplan in Chevron’s $9.5 billion Ecuador pollution case already is damaging the judge’s personal credibility and backfiring against the oil giant in Canada where rainforest villagers are attempting to seize company assets to pay for a court-ordered environmental clean-up, according to statements issued by the communities and their U.S. legal representative…“… Carmen Cartuche, the President of the Front for the Defense of the Amazon, the group that brought the environmental case against Chevron on behalf of indigenous and farmer communities that resulted in a $9.5 billion judgment against the company [said that]…“Whenever Kaplan rules against us, it always seems to produce further evidence of Chevron’s fraud and corruption and illustrates the bias of the U.S. justice system in favor of a powerful U.S. company when it comes to the legitimate claims of impoverished people in Ecuador,” she added.
…In a separate statement, U.S. human rights attorney Steven Donziger – who has represented the affected communities in Ecuador since the inception of the case in 1993 -- criticized Kaplan for denying discovery of the Chevron lawyers and for ignoring multiple court rulings in Ecuador and Canada that validate findings that Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic oil waste into Ecuador’s Amazon region, decimating indigenous groups and causing an outbreak of cancer. Locals call Chevron’s environmental disaster the “Amazon Chernobyl”. (Here is a summary of the evidence against Chevron and the studies showing high cancer rates .)…
In Canada, Chevron Trying to Block Ecuadorians From Using U.N. Declaration to Support Historic Pollution Case
Author: Amazon Defense Coalition, CSRwire (USA)
...Chevron is trying to block submission of a legal brief over how the company’s attempt to evade paying a $9.5 billion environmental judgment in Ecuador violates both Canadian and international law regarding the rights of indigenous peoples. In a submission before the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto, Ecuadorian rainforest communities cite the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in support of their lawsuit...A hearing over Chevron’s attempt to block the new argument is scheduled for January 16 before the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto. If the submission is allowed, the Ecuadorians plan to use the U.N. Declaration during...appellate hearing scheduled for April...In the legal brief, the Ecuadorian communities cite several provisions of the United Nations Declaration to support their lawsuit to seize Chevron assets in Canada. These include “the right to … prompt decisions through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts” and “fair and equitable compensation” for their territories that have been damaged by oil extraction and other environmental harms...The latest legal submission cites the U.N. Declaration to argue that if Chevron escapes liability by placing its assets in a subsidiary, then all 400 million indigenous peoples on the planet would effectively have their rights curtailed when they try to obtain compensation from private companies for environmental harms...The submission by the Ecuadorians also cites recent decisions by Canada’s Supreme Court that provide constitutional protection to indigenous rights in the country...
On the Docket for 2018 – Ontario Court of Appeal to Address Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Chevron
Author: Chloe Snider and Noah Fenyes, Canadian Bar Association (Canada)
By a decision dated October 31, 2017, the Court of Appeal for Ontario took the unusual step of varying its own prior order concerning security for costs in Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation...[T]he panel reasoned that it could not be said...that the appeal was “wholly devoid of merit”...On appeal, the Court of Appeal will consider whether the assets of Chevron Canada can be used to satisfy a judgment that the appellants hold as against Chevron Corporation, under section 18 of the Execution Act and, if not, whether the corporate veil can be pierced in this case to allow recovery against Chevron Canada...[T]he Court of Appeal is asked to address the merits directly...[T]he Court of Appeal’s decision signals possible divergence of judicial opinions with respect to either the interpretation to be given to the Execution Act or the application of principles of corporate separateness in the context of enforcement of foreign judgments...It remains to be seen whether the Court of Appeal will accept the appellants’ “innovative and untested” arguments, especially with regard to piercing the corporate veil. The hearing on the ultimate merits is expected to provide clarification on the Canadian courts’ take on enforcing foreign judgments.
...Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously rejected an attempt to enforce a fraudulent Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation on Wednesday, November 29, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The fraudulent judgment has now been rejected in Argentina, Brazil and the United States.
...The STJ’s 10-0 vote follows a decision by an Argentine court on Oct. 31 denying recognition of the Ecuadorian judgment, also citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Prosecutors in both Brazil and Argentina had previously opined that the Ecuadorian judgment was unenforceable because it was the product of fraud and corruption. In 2015, Brazil’s deputy prosecutor general found that the judgment “was issued in an irregular manner, especially under deplorable acts of corruption that represent an offense against the international public order and even to good morals.”
Author: Amanda Romero, Buisiness & Human Rights Resource Centre
- Related stories: Perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Chevron/Texaco por actividades en Ecuador
- Related in-depth areas: Últimas noticias legales
- Related companies: Chevron Texaco (part of Chevron)
An Argentine court has dismissed an attempt to enforce a fraudulent $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation in the country.
In a 22-page decision, the National Civil Court No. 61 in Buenos Aires found the plaintiffs failed to prove that the case had any connection to Argentina that would justify recognition of the 2011 Ecuadorian judgment by the country’s courts.
The court found that Chevron Corporation is not domiciled and has no assets in Argentina, which “seals the fate of the present exequatur as it is inadmissible to recognize a foreign decision in this jurisdiction where the defendant has no point of connection.” The court relied on a previous decision from the Argentina Supreme Court which found that Chevron’s indirect subsidiary in Argentina, Chevron Argentina SRL, is a separate entity from Chevron Corporation; not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit; and an embargo against its assets in support of the Ecuadorian judgment is “manifestly contrary to Argentinean public policy.” The opinion awards costs to Chevron, as the prevailing party.
“Once again, attempts to profit from this fraudulent judgment have been rejected,”
Author: Andrew Kalamut, Mining Prospects (Canada)
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the decision of the motion judge who ordered that the foreign-resident plaintiffs post approximately $1M in security for costs in order to continue their proceeding and appeal against Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) and Chevron Canada...[T]he motion’s judge decision...called into question whether the plaintiffs would be in a position to proceed with their appeal of Justice Hainey’s decision dismissing the proceeding against Chevron Canada on the basis that its assets are not available to satisfy the plaintiffs’ foreign judgment against Chevron...The plaintiffs appealed this decision to a three-member panel...The Panel determined that in this case, the unique circumstances required that there be no order for security for costs. These unique circumstances are as follows: The matter is public interest litigation. Funds from judgment will go into a trust for use in environmental rehabilitation and health care...[T]here was no doubt that environmental devastation to the plaintiffs’ lands severely hampered their ability to earn a livelihood...The Panel made explicit reference to the fact that the plaintiffs were pursuing novel arguments to pierce the corporate veil, alluding to the potential for modifications and revisions to the common law...
Author: JUZGADO CIVIL 61, República Argentina
...“AGUINDA SALAZAR MARIA Y OTROS C. CHEVRON CORPORATION S. EXEQUATUR Y RECONOCIMIENTO DE SENTENCIA EXTR. EXP. Nº 97260/2012, en trámite por ante este Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Civil N° 61 [República Argentina]... para resolver acerca de la admisibilidad de la acción de reconocimiento de la sentencia extranjera [de la República del Ecuador] y de las restantes pretensiones introducidas como hechos nuevos por la parte demandada [Chevron Corporation]...
- Related stories: Perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Chevron/Texaco por actividades en Ecuador
- Related in-depth areas: Últimas noticias legales
- Related companies: Texaco (part of Chevron)
Affected communities abandon court action in Brazil to enforce Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron over pollution
Author: Ted Folkman, Letters Blogatory
"Lago Agrio: LAPs [Lago Agrio Plaintiffs] Abandon Recognition and Enforcement Effort in Brazil", 25 Sep 2017
The group representing the Lago Agrio plaintiffs announced last week that they have abandoned their efforts to have the Lago Agrio judgment recognized and enforced in Brazil. The announcement came on the same day the case was to be heard in the Brazilian court…
In general, the LAPs are claiming that they cannot get a fair hearing in Brazil...