The Work
September 24, 2009 4:43 PM
From Lago Agrio to The Hague: Chevron Looks East for New Venue
Posted by Brian Baxter
By David Hechler, Corporate Counsel
UPDATE: Sept. 25, 8:30 a.m. The Ecuadorian government says that it will 'vigorously" defend itself in an international arbitration claim filed by Chevron.
Chevron filed an international arbitration
claim Wednesday against the government of Ecuador, essentially arguing that its
judicial process is broken and cannot fairly adjudicate the long-running oil
pollution litigation that plaintiffs brought in the South American country
against Texaco (now a Chevron subsidiary). Last year a court-appointed special
master said damages in the case, which is being tried in Lago Agrio, Ecuador,
could run as high as $27.3 billion.
The arbitration claim, filed in the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in The Hague, cites Ecuador's violation of investment agreements,
international law, and its treaty with the United States.
Earlier this month, Chevron posted on its Web site a
secretly recorded video of the Ecuadorian judge hearing the pollution case. The
judge appeared to acknowledge that he had already decided Chevron was guilty.
(He has denied he'd prejudged the case.) A second recording allegedly showed a
member of Ecuador's ruling party soliciting bribes for remediation contracts in
anticipation of a favorable verdict.
Chevron's new general counsel, Hewitt Pate, released a
statement that accompanied the announcement of the new claim. "Because
Ecuador's judicial system is incapable of functioning independently of
political influence, Chevron has no choice but to seek relief under the treaty
between the United States and Ecuador."
The company's press release emphasized that Chevron is
not alone in highlighting "the demise" of Ecuador's judiciary. It
quoted from a recent State Department report: "Systemic weakness
and susceptibility to political or economic pressures in the rule of law
constitute the most important problem faced by U.S. companies investing in or
trading with Ecuador."
A lawyer representing Ecuador says he's seen Chevron's
tactic before. "What Chevron is doing is forum shopping," argues Eric
Bloom, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Winston & Strawn, who
has represented the country for four years. Chevron first fought (successfully)
to force plaintiffs to try their lawsuit in Ecuador rather than U.S. courts.
Then it sought (unsuccessfully) to win indemnification in U.S. courts from a
possible judgment in Ecuador. And now it's filed for arbitration. "They've
got buyer's remorse," Bloom says, and they're essentially asking for a
"do over."
"These are all different mechanisms for avoiding a
multibillion judgment," Bloom adds. He notes that any judgment is
"still prospective because the court in Ecuador certainly has not
ruled."
Bloom expects that the arbitration will be "a
multiyear process" and doesn't believe it will have any effect on the
trial in Ecuador.
The new claim comes as no big surprise to officials in
Ecuador. The country's solicitor general, Diego GarcĂa, said in a prepared
statement: "Chevron has signaled for years its intention to file the
instant arbitration, although only after an adverse judgment had issued and the
appellate process completed.
"The environmental case should be resolved by the courts," Garcia added, "not in an arbitration in which the private parties are not even represented."
This story originally appeared on the Web site of sister publication Corporate Counsel.
Related Stories:
Chevron Accuses Ecuadorian Judge of Soliciting Bribes in Mammoth Tort Case
Former Chevron GC Speaks Out On Ecuadorian Recordings
Turning the Tables: Chevron Takes the PR Offensive in Ecuador Case
Plaintiff's Lawyer in Chevron Environmental Lawsuit Speaks Out
Chevron's Slugfest in Ecuador Showing No Signs of Slowing in the Late Rounds
New Chevron GC Has Attention of Law Firm Leaders
Men Behind Alleged Ecuador Bribery Videos Lawyer Up
Comments (0)
Save & Share: Facebook |
Del.ic.ious |
| Email |
Reprints & Permissions
The comments to this entry are closed.
Comments
Report offensive comments to The Am Law Daily.