A brief recap of where the parties are in this continuing saga.
After obtaining a judgment against Chevron Corp. (which bought
assets directly or indirectly from Texaco, Inc. in 2001 and was
treated as the successor in interest for environmental liabilities)
of $8.646 billion, Ecuadorian plaintiffs (indigenous peoples in the
Amazonian rain forest) sought enforcement of a judgment in the U.S.
The Southern District of New York, in Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, et al., 11
Civ. 0691 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2011), issued a 127-page decision on a
motion for preliminary injunction. The decision preliminarily
enjoined enforcement, anywhere in the world, of the Ecuadorian
judgment. The District Court (discussed
here) did not hold Chevron to earlier statements it
affirmatively made in earlier court proceedings in federal court in
New York (which was laudatory about the Ecuadorian system of
justice), preliminarily concluding that the Ecuadorian judicial
system had changed in the years since those statements and that it
"does not provide impartial tribunals and due
process".
On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the Order (discussed
here). The Court of Appeals found that "[c]onsiderations
of international comity provide additional reasons to conclude that
the Recognition Act cannot support the broad injunctive remedy
granted by the district court". In passing the uniform statute
and making it a part of New York law, "New York undertook to
act as a responsible participant in an international system of
justice — not to set up its courts as a transnational
arbiter to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled
to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as
international pariahs". Indeed, the Court of Appeals explained
that "when a court in one country attempts to preclude the
courts of every other country from ever considering the effect of
that foreign judgment, the comity concerns become much
graver". Making the point that concerned us when we considered
the District Court's injunction, the Court of Appeals stated
that, in entering such a broad injunction, "the court risks
disrespecting the legal system not only of the country in which the
judgment was issued, but also those of other countries, who are
inherently assumed insufficiently trustworthy to recognize what is
asserted to be the extreme incapacity of the legal system from
which the judgment emanates
The Third Circuit similarly articulated its misgivings in
indicting or condemning the Ecuadorian judicial system (discussed
here). Said that Court:
[T]he Chevron applicants are asking
that American courts make a finding that the attorneys in a civil
case in Ecuador can control the Ecuadorian criminal justice system.
Though it is obvious that the Ecuadorian judicial system is
different from that in the United States, those differences provide
no basis for disregarding or disparaging that system. American
courts, though justifiably proud of our system, should understand
that other countries may organize their judicial systems as they
see fit.
Back in the District Court, the Court rejected some but on the
pleadings permitted some racketeering claims to proceed against
lawyers for the plaintiffs (discussed
here).
Despite emanations to the contrary from an international
arbitration tribunal, the Appellate Court in Ecuador (discussed
here) was unwilling to enforce an arbitral award that would
call into question the ability of Ecuadorian courts to dispense
justice.
Now the Ecuadorian plaintiffs have commenced additional
enforcement proceedings in Canada.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
A discussion on the importance of the country of origin analysis, in the light of a settlement reached between the US Department of Justice and an importer of pigment.
In "Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.", the US Supreme Court significantly limited the viability of Alien Tort Statute claims for human rights violations occurring on non-US soil.
On Tuesday, January 2, 2013 President Obama signed into law the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (the "FY 2013 NDAA"), a large legislative package that includes the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (the "IFCPA") -- the fourth major legislative expansion of US sanctions against Iran in just the past two years.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
