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 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.
In September 2017, the Canadian Court ordered the Ecuadorians to pay a security-order of almost $1 million. The court of appeal reversed this order and Chevron were obliged to cover the costs incurred by the Ecuadorians of challenging the security order. The case will now proceed.
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.
The case in on-going
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
...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: 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...
Ecuadorian people affected by Chevron’s oil pollution continue to seek justice in other countries after US Supreme Court decision
"Washing Hands of US Supreme Court, Ecuador's Amazon Chevron Victims Seek Justice Abroad", 22 Jun 2017
After finding no justice in the U.S. Supreme Court earlier in the week, Ecuador will continue its 25-year battle against U.S. oil giant Chevron overseas. The move aims to fulfill the demands of 80 Indigenous rural Ecuadoreans in the Amazon who accuse Texaco, since acquired by Chevron, of rendering their land toxic between 1964 and 1990...
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's unwillingness to hear the case, thus blocking any ability to enforce the Ecuadorean rulings, Donziger has resorted to moving against Chevron in other countries.
In Canada, Donziger and his allies attempted to have Chevron's facilities seized and sold to fulfill the judgment, but in January, the judge ruled that the Canadian subsidiary of the oil company couldn't be held liable for the parent corporation's actions.
However, Donziger expects that his appeal of the ruling should be won this coming fall despite Chevron's “strategy to tie us up in procedural knots so the trial happens as far down the road as possible.”
The Ecuadoreans have also sought the enforcement of their country's judgment in the courts of Argentina, Brazil and the British territory of Gibraltar, but Chevron has stated that prosecutors in the two countries are urging courts not to recognize the judgment...
- Related stories: Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) US Supreme Court declines to review judgment obtained by Chevron against lawyer of community seeking enforcement of Ecuadorian $9 billion oil pollution decision
- Related in-depth areas: Latest Legal News
- Related companies: Chevron Texaco (part of Chevron)
Le géant pétrolier américain Chevron a remporté lundi à Washington une importante victoire judiciaire, la Cour suprême refusant d'examiner un appel formé par des citoyens équatoriens qui cherchent à obtenir l'application d'une amende de 9 milliards de dollars pour pollution…
Cette saga judiciaire dure depuis des décennies. Chevron ne nie pas la vaste pollution survenue dans la forêt amazonienne, mais affirme que M. Donziger [un des avocats des victimes] et ses alliés ont exercé des manipulations d'expertises et corrompu la justice équatorienne pour qu'elle inflige cette amende record d'environ 9 milliards de dollars.
"La décision d'aujourd'hui est un pas en avant important pour mettre un terme à cette action illégale", a réagi Hewitt Pate, vice-président de Chevron chargé des affaires juridiques.
En refusant de se saisir de ce dossier, la Cour suprême confirme la validité d'un jugement d'une cour d'appel de New York qui avait elle-même entériné la décision d'un juge concluant à des fraudes et des actes de corruption commis par l'équipe de Steven Donziger…
U.S. Supreme Court Makes “Grave Mistake” in Refusing to Hear Chevron's $12 Billion Pollution Liability in Ecuador
Author: Amazon Defense Coalition - FDA
Ecuadorian indigenous villagers and their lawyer today said the U.S. Supreme Court made a “grave mistake’” in refusing to hear evidence that Chevron committed a massive fraud to evade paying a $12 billion Ecuador pollution judgment…
Statement from the Amazon Defense Coalition…:
“…Chevron will be forced by other jurisdictions to pay every last dollar of the judgment imposed on it for its criminal behavior in Ecuador. We are disappointed but not surprised that U.S. courts once again have refused to deal with the pollution problem in Ecuador caused by a U.S. company… “
Statement from Steven R. Donziger, the longtime lawyer for the Ecuadorian villagers…:
"The refusal by the Supreme Court to address the fact Chevron fabricated evidence to cover up its massive pollution in Ecuador is a grave mistake and a sad reflection on the U.S. judiciary in the eyes of the world. That said, Chevron will be held accountable in Canada where courts have agreed to consider the overwhelming evidence Chevron bribed a witness and manufactured evidence to evade paying the Ecuador pollution judgment…”
Author: Lawrence Hurley, Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Chevron…by preventing Ecuadorean villagers and their American lawyer from trying to collect on an $8.65 billion pollution judgment issued against the oil company by a court in Ecuador.
The justices turned away [a petition] by New York-based lawyer Steven Donziger, who has spent more than two decades trying to hold Chevron responsible for pollution in the Ecuadorean rain forest, of lower court rulings blocking enforcement in the United States of the 2011 judgment.
While not disputing that pollution occurred…Chevron has said it is not liable and that Donziger and his associates orchestrated the writing of a key environmental report and bribed the presiding judge in Ecuador…
The plaintiffs have said they plan to continue efforts to enforce the judgment in other countries, including Canada, regardless of the outcome in the United States…
The United States Supreme Court has denied a certiorari petition seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming extensive district court findings that a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation was the product of fraud and racketeering activity, and unenforceable in the United States…
“The facts of the Ecuadorian judicial extortion scheme and the illegality of the plaintiffs’ lawyer misconduct have been finally and conclusively affirmed by the legal system of the United States,” said [a Chevron representative]. “Today’s decision is an important step toward bringing this illegal scheme to a final conclusion.”...
[The plaintiffs lawyer's] attempts to enforce the fraudulent judgment in other jurisdictions have also been met with resistance…