Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador)

Chevron in Ecuador By: Cancillería Ecuador, Creative CommonsPara 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.

LA_MANO_SUCIA_DE_CHEVRON_Credit_CancillerEcuador_via_Wikimedia_CommonsInternational 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 216, 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.  The lawyers for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs are examining further appeal options.

Canadian proceedings
In an effort to enforce the $9.51 billion Ecuadorian judgment, the Ecuadorian villagers filed a lawsuit in Canada in May 2012 targetting Chevron's assets in this country.  In September 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs were able to sue Chevron and its Canadian subsidiary in Canada.  In September 2016, hearings began in Canada.  In January 2017, the Ontario superior court ruled that the Ecuadorean judgment could not be enforced against Chevron's subsidiary, Chevron Canada, because it is a separate entity.  The plaintiffs will likely appeal.  The judge also decided that the case against Chevron Corp. can proceed to trial.

International proceedings
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.

- "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

Chevron:
- "Chevron response to U.S. Court of Appeals decision", 22 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"

Court Documents
Letter from the Office of the Prosecutor to R. Doak Bishop, Chevron's lawyer, International Criminal Court, 16 March 2015
- [EspañolFallo de la Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos en el caso Maria Aguida y Otros, Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos, 15 octubre 2012
- [EspañolFallo 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
- [EspañolJuez 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
- [EspañolJuez 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]  

Get RSS feed of these results

All components of this story

Article
16 February 2017

Ecuadorian plaintiffs in lawsuit against Chevron over oil pollution plan to appeal in Canadian court

Author: Alex Robinson, Law Times (Canada)

"Plaintiffs plan to appeal Chevron decision", 13 Feb 2017

The lawyers representing Ecuadorian plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Chevron Corporation have applied for leave to appeal a judge’s decision to dismiss an action against the company’s Canadian subsidiary...The case, Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, made headlines recently after Ontario Superior Court Justice Glenn Hainey said the assets of Chevron Canada Limited could not be seized to pay out a foreign judgment against Chevron Corp., as the seven-level indirect subsidiary is not an asset of the parent company.  The plaintiffs have now applied for leave to appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.  In their Notice of Appeal, the plaintiffs took issue with the judge’s finding that the assets of the subsidiary are not assets of Chevron Corp...A spokesman for Chevron Corporation said the company is confident that any court that rules on the case will rule in its favour.

Read the full post here

Article
3 February 2017

Interview: Lawyer for Ecuadorian community in lawsuit against Chevron over oil pollution explains Canadian court's ruling & next steps

Author: Joe Emersberger, TeleSUR (Venezuela)

"Ecuadoreans' Legal Fight Against Chevron Continues in Canada", 2 Feb 2017

In 1993, U.S. lawyer Steven Donziger and others filed a lawsuit in New York against Texaco on behalf of Indigenous nationalities and campesino communities in Ecuador’s Amazon whose land and water had been thoroughly contaminated over a 26-year period.  Donziger agreed to answer some questions about this seemingly never-ending but historic legal battle...

...Donziger: The case is a direct challenge to the fossil fuel industry’s environmentally destructive business model which assumes large oil companies can artificially inflate profits by dumping toxic waste in far-flung communities that do not have the money to fight back...

...[A] court in Toronto has just ruled that your clients can try to collect US$12 billion in damages from Chevron in Canada but said that the company’s assets might be off limits due to a technicality...

Donziger: A trial judge ruled that the villagers could go forward and try to seize Chevron’s assets in Canada.  That’s a huge victory for human rights victims worldwide and is consistent with a prior ruling in favour of the villagers by Canada’s Supreme Court.  The judge made a critical mistake, though, in that he ruled that a wholly-owned company subsidiary in Canada called Chevron Canada cannot be seized to pay the debt. We are appealing that part of the ruling...

Read the full post here

Article
26 January 2017

Commentary: Canadian judgment on Chevron oil pollution lawsuit was mix of good & bad for Ecuadorian community

Author: Aaron Marr Page, Forum Nobis PLLC on Huffington Post (USA)

"Can Chevron avoid paying clean-up costs by hiding behind shell companies? A Canadian judge seems to think that’s just fine...", 25 Jan 2017

The news that came out Friday from the Superior Court of Ontario, where Ecuadorian communities are trying to enforce an Ecuadorian environmental judgment against fleeing polluter Chevron Corp., was actually a mix of good and bad...Judge Glenn Hainey excused Chevron’s Canadian subsidiary (Chevron Canada) from the action, holding that it even though it is wholly-owned and controlled by Chevron...Judge Hainey essentially ruled that a multinational fleeing a valid court judgment that hides its assets in a maze of paper subsidiaries can completely insulate itself from paying its obligations, while losing nothing in terms of profit or control...Hainey allowed the case to proceed against Chevron...[R]ecognition of the judgment by Canada could provide a critical counterweight to the shameful interference in the process by U.S. courts...[T]he affected communities who won the judgment are actually celebrating the Ontario decision for its basic affirmance of their right to enforce their judgment in Canada...“[W]e are now one big step closer to our goal in Canada of forcing Chevron to comply with the rule of law...” said Carlos Guaman, the leader of the Amazon Defense Coalition...

Read the full post here

Article
23 January 2017

Canadian court rules that Ecuadorian judgement cannot be enforced against Canadian subsidiary in Chevron oil pollution lawsuit

Author: Canadian Press, on Toronto Star (Canada)

"Canadian court issues ruling in legal battle between Ecuadorian villagers and oil giant Chevron", 21 Jan 2016

Both sides found positives in a Canadian court ruling issued Friday in a..legal battle between oil giant Chevron and a group of Ecuadorian villagers.  The villagers are using the Canadian courts to try to collect on a US$9.5-billion Ecuadorian court judgment for environmental damage.  Chevron issued a news release Friday saying Ontario’s superior court has ruled the oil company’s Canadian arm isn’t a party to the Ecuadorian court decision...A spokeswoman for the villagers issued a counter statement saying the ruling gave the green light for the villagers to continue legal action against Chevron Corp...Karen Hinton’s statement minimized the setback with regards to Chevron’s Canadian subsidiary, predicting it would be “swiftly reversed” by an appeal court.  “Ultimately, we are confident that Canada’s courts will hold Chevron fully accountable for its outrageous and criminal conduct in Ecuador,”...Alan Lenczner argued...that the notion that Chevron Corp. is separate from its Canadian arm was nonsense, saying Chevron Canada is a “cash cow” that sends billions to its controlling parent. Chevron has also derided the Ecuador court judgment contending it was the product of fraud, witness tampering and obstruction of justice...

 

Read the full post here

Article
23 January 2017

Chevron Slams Canadian Backdoor in $9.5 Billion Pollution Fight

Author: Paul Barrett, Bloomberg Business Week (USA)

...In a blow to Ecuadorian villagers who contend the company sullied their lands, an Ontario judge last week protected Chevron’s Canadian assets from being seized...That’s a big victory for the second-largest U.S. fossil fuel company, because in 2011 Chevron lost a court case in Ecuador over the question of liability...Judge Glenn Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made a sharp distinction between Chevron the parent corporation and Chevron Canada the subsidiary.  Chevron Canada wasn’t the defendant in Ecuador and as a legally separate entity, the judge held, can’t be held responsible for its parent’s liabilities...R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron’s vice president and general counsel, said...“We are confident that any jurisdiction that examines the facts of this case and the misconduct committed by the plaintiffs will find the Ecuadorian judgment illegitimate and unenforceable.”...In a separate part of his Jan. 20 ruling, Judge Hainey said that if somehow the Ecuadorians succeed in moving forward with their action in Canada—for example, if a higher court reversed his finding that the subsidiary should be shielded—then the oil company would be allowed to fight asset seizures by pointing to the evidence of fraud presented in the U.S. racketeering case.  Meanwhile...the plaintiffs have started legal proceedings to enforce the controversial Ecuadorian judgment in both Argentina and Brazil...

Read the full post here

Article
+ 繁體中文 - Hide

Author: Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

"第三大支柱: 讓跨國公司侵犯人權行為的受害者獲得司法救濟", 2013年2月

“獲得司法救濟項目”(A2JR)設立的目的是確認並分析美國、加拿大和歐洲在該領域存在的阻礙…在開發該報告過程中我們進行了詳盡的現狀分析,結論顯示國家普遍沒有承擔為企業境外侵權行為的受害者提供有效司法救濟的義務。受害者在尋求救濟時仍然面臨著眾多的阻礙,有時還出現尋求救濟的途徑被完全堵死的情況。雖然相關國家在立法、法庭程序、人權保護和法律傳統方面存在著差異,但在所有司法制度下都存在著阻礙受害者尋求救助的情況。在一些案例中,這些阻礙被成功地克服,其原因往往是:律師採用了全新的訴訟方案;受害者有足夠的耐心;有著敏銳洞察力的法官願意受理此類維權訴訟。國家必須制定強硬、一致的政策,重申受害者的人權重於企業的經濟利益。企業侵權人權行為的受害者,無論侵權行為在何地發生,都有權獲得全面、有效的司法救濟。為實現上述目標,每一個國家都應該審視司法制度中的存在障礙,並考慮採取行動加以消除,特別是考慮本報告提出的相關建議...

Read the full post here

Report
+ 简体中文 - Hide

Author: Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

"第三大支柱: 让跨国公司侵犯人权行为的受害者获得司法救济", 2013年2月

“获得司法救济项目”(A2JR)设立的目的是确认并分析美国、加拿大和欧洲在该领域存在的阻碍…在开发该报告过程中我们进行了详尽的现状分析,结论显示国家普遍没有承担为企业境外侵权行为的受害者提供有效司法救济的义务。受害者在寻求救济时仍然面临着众多的阻碍,有时还出现寻求救济的途径被完全堵死的情况。虽然相关国家在立法、法庭程序、人权保护和法律传统方面存在着差异,但在所有司法制度下都存在着阻碍受害者寻求救助的情况。在一些案例中,这些阻碍被成功地克服,其原因往往是:律师采用了全新的诉讼方案;受害者有足够的耐心;有着敏锐洞察力的法官愿意受理此类维权诉讼。国家必须制定强硬、一致的政策,重申受害者的人权重于企业的经济利益。企业侵权人权行为的受害者,无论侵权行为在何地发生,都有权获得全面、有效的司法救济。为实现上述目标,每一个国家都应该审视司法制度中的存在障碍,并考虑采取行动加以消除,特别是考虑本报告提出的相关建议...

Read the full post here

Download the full document here

Article
4 November 2016

US court denies victims' rehearing over decision in favour of Chevron in lawsuit for environmental pollution in Ecuador

Author: Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal (USA)

"Second Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing on $8.6B Pollution Case Against Chevron", 1 Nov 2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has rejected a petition seeking rehearing en banc of its decision in the case over allegations of environmental damage caused by an oil company later absorbed by Chevron Corp.  The circuit denied the request of attorney Steven Donziger to have the full court rehear his appeal from Judge Lewis Kaplan's decision blocking enforcement of an $8.6 billion judgment against Chevron for water and soil contamination in Ecuador allegedly caused by Texaco, a predecessor to Chevron.  Kaplan had found the judgment was procured by bribery, coercion and fraud and he imposed a constructive trust for Chevron's benefit on any property Donziger and his clients obtained that is traceable to the judgment...The circuit denied rehearing in a one-line order captioned Chevron v. Donziger, 14-0826. 

Read the full post here

Article
28 September 2016

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

Author: Amazon Defense Coalition, CSRwire (USA)

"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...

Read the full post here

Article
14 September 2016

In Canada Trial, Chevron Fighting Desperately to Hide Embarrassing Information From Public

Author: Amazon Defense Coalition, CSRwire (USA)

Chevron lawyers and corporate executives are fighting desperately to prevent critical and apparently embarrassing information from spilling over into public view during the high-stakes enforcement trial over the Ecuador environmental judgment that began this week in a Canadian courtroom. In the enforcement trial...critical information in the main brief of the communities remained heavily redacted on the second day of the four-day proceeding – resulting in the odd spectacle of the villagers themselves and their supporters watching the argument of their own lawyer with no real way to completely understand what was being said...Lenczner, considered one of Canada’s foremost litigators, for weeks has been trying to convince Chevron to lift its “completely overbroad” confidentiality order, according to argument in court yesterday.  Lenczner claimed all of what Chevron wants redacted from his briefs is available publicly in the company’s annual reports and securities filings and is therefore not proprietary. Lenczner also argued that Chevron is obviously scared to have all the information about the corporate control of its subsidiary in one place rather than buried in obscure documents where the public would never be able to connect the dots that prove it is lying when it claims its Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada, is an independent entity...

Read the full post here