After being found liable in Ecuador for creating one of the world’s worst oil disasters, Chevron filed a notice of appeal to Ecuador’s highest court where it seeks special treatment not afforded any other litigant under the nation’s laws — the waiver of a bond required to suspend enforcement of a judgment during the pendency of any appeal.

It would be illegal under Ecuadorian law for the appellate court to grant Chevron’s unusual and unprecedented request to waive the bond requirement, said Pablo Fajardo, the lead attorney for the indigenous and farmer communities who brought suit against the oil giant for the dumping of billions of gallons of toxic waste into the waterways used by several indigenous groups and farmer communities.

“Chevron has every right under the law to seek an extraordinary appeal to the highest court as long as it can cite a proper legal basis,” said Fajardo.  “But Chevron is yet again seeking a special exemption under Ecuadorian law when it claims the bond requirement should not apply to it, while it applies to every other litigant in the country.”

“Chevron behaves in Ecuador as if it is above the law while thousands of people continue to suffer the devastating effects of the company’s toxic contamination,” said Fajardo.  ”This abuse of the judicial process must end.”

For execution of a court judgment in Ecuador to be suspended pending appeal to the highest court — called the National Court of Justice — the losing party must post a bond that is usually calculated at roughly 8% of the amount of damages awarded (roughly $1.5 billion in this case). Chevron is seeking to have enforcement suspended even without posting a bond even though the indigenous and farmer communities continue to suffer grave health effects engendered by the company’s delaying tactics, said Fajardo.

Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorians, said in a statement that “for almost two decades, Chevron has stood in the way of a comprehensive cleanup of billions of gallons of crude oil and toxic waste water it deliberately dumped into the pristine rainforest of Ecuador.”

“Thousands of people have died or suffered from illnesses as Chevron and its army of lawyers have waged a campaign to distract attention from the overwhelming scientific evidence against the company,” said Hinton. “Chevron has always believed that Ecuador’s many laws prohibiting environmental contamination should not apply to its misconduct.”

The bond requirement, typical in countries around the world including the U.S., is intended to protect the winning side from unnecessary delays during appellate review.  Ecuador’s first-level appellate court already affirmed the trial court judgment that the company is required to pay $18 billion for a clean-up, a relatively modest amount compared to BP’s estimated $60 billion liability for the smaller Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Fajardo also said that an arbitral order cited by Chevron as justification for its request for a bond waiver is not binding on the rainforest communities as they are not a party to that proceeding, which is held in secret pursuant to a U.S.-Ecuador investment treaty.

In any event, the arbitral panel never ordered — and under the law cannot order — that Ecuador’s courts take steps that would “clearly violate” Ecuador’s Constitution and international treaties binding the government to protect the fundamental human rights of its citizens, including the right to life and the right to seek legal redress in national courts, said Fajardo.  Further, the arbitral panel has never even held an evidentiary hearing on Chevron’s claims that a remediation contract with Ecuador’s government released it from liability.

“We believe Chevron clearly is misinterpreting the scope of authority of the arbitration,” he added. ”We want to reiterate that Chevron has every right to appeal to Ecuador’s National Court of Justice, but it has no right to special treatment during the pendency of the appeal,” Fajardo added.

The trial court decision, issued in February 2011, found that Chevron systematically dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon, poisoning waterways that local inhabitants use for drinking water and causing increased cancer rates. Damages were set at $18 billion.  In 2002, the case was shifted from U.S. federal court to Ecuador at Chevron’s request.

The trial court in Ecuador also repeatedly sanctioned Chevron’s legal team for filing frivolous motions intended to delay the proceedings, and for threatening a judge with jail if he did not rule in favor of the company.  These actions led to a punitive damages award that accounts for roughly half of the total judgment.

Chevron has roughly two more weeks under Ecuadorian law to determine if it will publicly apologize for its misconduct, which would allow it to eliminate the punitive damages component of the award.

As support for the contention that Chevron believes it does have to adhere to the law in Ecuador, Hinton cited a comment in a 60 Minutes interview where Chevron attorney Silvia Garrigo – pressed as to why the company said it would never pay any adverse judgment in Ecuador – said: “We don’t believe we should be in any court, much less the courts of Ecuador.”

The 188-page trial court judgment is undergirded by a wide body of scientific and testimonial evidence submitted during eight years of proceedings that prove Chevron designed a system of oil extraction that deliberately discharged toxic oil waste into the environment to keep production costs to a minimum. Chevron also has been heavily criticized for trying to defraud the Ecuador court and sabotage the proceedings.

In briefs submitted to U.S. and Ecuadorian courts, the rainforest communities submitted evidence that Chevron technicians staked out “clean” spots at contaminated well sites to test prior to court-supervised judicial inspections; sent dirty soil samples to a secret lab to prevent their disclosure to the court; and doctored a “judicial playbook” document so two academic experts in the U.S. would endorse the company’s misleading sampling protocol, among other charges.

A separate ruling by a New York federal appellate court marks Chevron’s third consecutive legal setback in its effort to block enforcement of the Ecuador judgment.

In September, a federal appellate panel blocked Chevron’s attempt to seek an unprecedented worldwide injunction blocking enforcement. In January, a federal district court judge denied Chevron’s illegal attempt to freeze the assets of the plaintiffs. And on January 3, Ecuador’s first-level appellate court confirmed the validity of the trial court judgment.

The article Chevron Claims Special Treatment Under Ecuadorian Law appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In a stark departure from its normal litigation practices, Chevron has refused to request that the Ecuador appellate court that recently affirmed the $18 billion judgment against the oil major reconsider or clarify its decision.

Chevron let a deadline pass that allowed either party to contest or clarify the decision, which was issued on January 3. The appellate court on Friday January 13 reaffirmed its original decision in response to ten separate clarification requests submitted by lawyers for the rainforest communities.

Normally in Ecuador, the losing party in an appeal seeks clarification of an appellate court decision unless it decides it is withdrawing from the litigation or simply accepting the result. Asking for clarification in Ecuador is roughly similar to filing a motion for reconsideration in the United States.

It is unclear why Chevron did not contest or seek clarification of the appellate court decision, but its failure to do so could be seen as a disadvantage as the case moves forward both in Ecuador and potentially in other jurisdictions where the rainforest communities might seek enforcement, said Pablo Fajardo, the lawyer for the Ecuadorian communities who brought the lawsuit.

Chevron, which requested that the trial take place in Ecuador, stripped its assets from the country and has announced it will not pay the judgment. ”By not contesting the appellate court decision, Chevron is essentially conceding that it has no problem with the court’s reasoning or logic,” said Fajardo.

“Chevron also is effectively abandoning its argument that it exhausted all legal remedies in the courts of Ecuador before it tries to block any possible enforcement actions,” he added.

Chevron normally “litigates to the hilt” in Ecuador while simultaneously attacking Ecuador’s courts as unfair, a charge vigorously rejected by the plaintiffs based on expert testimony, said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorians.

“Failing to take advantage of every right afforded it by procedural law is a real departure from Chevron’s normal litigation practice in courts around the world,” said Hinton. “It might reflect a new strategy, or it might reflect simple confusion as the company’s legal options narrow.”

The trial court decision, issued in February 2011, found that Chevron deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon, poisoning waterways that local inhabitants use for drinking water and causing a spike in cancer rates. See here and here. Damages were set at roughly $18 billion.

Chevron operated in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992 under the Texaco brand.

The trial court in Ecuador also repeatedly sanctioned Chevron’s legal team for filing frivolous motions and threatening a judge if he did not rule in favor of the company, leading to a punitive award that constitutes roughly half of the total damages.

In response to the request by the plaintiffs for clarification, the three-judge appellate panel in Ecuador issued a second opinion on January 13 that rejected several Chevron arguments but also made clear that the company could stop enforcement of the judgment if it posts a bond during the pendency of any appeal to the nation’s highest court.

That court, called the National Court of Justice, is similar to the Supreme Court in the U.S. and is located in the capital of Quito.

Chevron must decide by Friday, Jan 20, if it will file a notice of appeal to the higher court, which has the discretion to accept or reject it much like the Supreme Court in the U.S., said Hinton.

The request for the appeal must be made to the intermediate appellate court that affirmed the trial court decision, which then has the discretion to set a bond before sending the case to the National Court of Justice for consideration. Chevron must request the bond as a way to suspend enforcement of the judgment pending further appeal, said Hinton.

A bond is customarily set by the intermediate appellate court at approximately 8% of the amount of the judgment, or in this case approximately $1.6 billion. Chevron reported annual revenues in 2011 of close to $240 billion, with profits expected to be roughly $30 billion based on its latest quarterly earnings report.

The Ecuador appellate court also made the following points in its second ruling on Jan. 13:

**Chevron has 15 business days (tolled from Monday of this week) to eliminate a punitive damages component of the award by issuing a public apology, considered a key component of accountability under international human rights law. Such an apology could effectively cut the $18 billion award in half.

**The appellate court provided detailed guidance as to the nature and scope of the apology that Chevron would need to make. Among other things, the court said Chevron must admit that it used unacceptable waste disposal practices in Ecuador that caused harm to the rainforest and its inhabitants. It also must publish its apology in newspapers in Ecuador and the U.S.

**The appellate court reiterated that its judgment represents the “final and definitive step” under the Ecuadorian legal system to settle the dispute of the parties. An appeal to National Court of Justice is considered “extraordinary” under Ecuador law and will not block a potential enforcement action unless a bond is posted.

The bond in Ecuador is designed to compensate the winning party for any further delays in collecting its judgment — similar to a running interest rate, which is often used by courts in other countries during the pendency of any appeal. If Chevron were to prevail at the National Court of Justice, the bond monies would be returned to the company.

**The appellate panel also said it “rejects… definitively and as unfounded, [Chevron's] affirmation … that the judgment has been based on information foreign to the record, or with secret assistance.”

**The appellate also found that the trial court ruling was “firmly rooted” in the voluminous 220,000-page evidentiary record, which included thousands of chemical sampling results from both Chevron and the plaintiffs that proved extensive contamination at hundreds of former Chevron oil production sites.

In its original judgment affirming the trial court decision, members of the panel were clearly outraged at Chevron’s abuse of the judicial process in Ecuador. The court found that many of Chevron’s legal filings were “abusive” and “clearly designed to obstruct the administration of justice.”

Inhabitants from dozens of rainforest communities filed the class action case in 1993 in U.S. federal court. Chevron had the trial shifted to Ecuador after heaping praise on that country’s judicial system.

Once the evidence in the subsequent trial started to point to Chevron’s guilt, the company shifted gears and tried repeatedly to attack the courts it had previously praised. In the meantime, several courts have sanctioned Chevron’s lead outside firm in the U.S., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, for engaging in ethical violations on behalf of Chevron’s campaign to evade the Ecuador judgment.

The article Chevron Refusing to Contest Ecuador Appellate Court appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.