A distinguished international law jurist from Latin America has issued a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, asking for a review of Chevron’s “egregious misuse” of an investor treaty to evade its $18 billion liability in Ecuador for creating one of the world’s worst oil-related disasters in the Amazon rainforest, according to a letter released to thousands of arbitration specialists around the globe.

Jose Daniel Amado, a leading law scholar in Peru and a specialist in international arbitration, told the Secretary General that Chevron’s latest attempt to deny the legal claims of the rainforest communities to be decided by an arbitration panel that meets in secret “stands in direct violation of international law” and would “quash” the fundamental human rights of the 30,000 citizens who initially brought suit against Chevron in the United States in 1993.

Chevron shifted that lawsuit to Ecuador in 2002 after praising the country’s judicial system and promising to abide by any judgment there, subject only to narrow enforcement defenses that did not include international arbitration. ”Chevron has constructed what appears to be a calculated plan to manipulate a commercial investment dispute system to evade the outcome of a private litigation,” wrote Amado, who has served as a consultant to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.

Amado asked the Secretary General to conduct a review of the matter “to ensure that the BIT arbitration system is not used by Chevron to undo international law protections guaranteeing access to justice.”

In January, after a nine-year legal proceeding, a three-judge panel of the Ecuador appellate court confirmed an $18 billion award against Chevron for the deliberate dumping of billions of gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways that local inhabitants relied on for drinking water.  The Ecuador trial court found evidence that Chevron’s contamination decimated indigenous groups and caused an outbreak of cancer and other oil-related diseases.

The trial in Ecuador produced 220,000 pages of evidence and more than 64,000 chemical sampling results from independent laboratories which proved that dozens of Chevron oil production facilities suffer from extensive levels of life-threatening heavy metals and toxins, according to the findings of the Ecuador court.

On January 4, the day after the Ecuador appellate court decision, Chevron petitioned a private arbitration panel convened under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) to order Ecuador’s executive branch to interfere in its independent judiciary and block the ability of the Ecuadorian citizens to enforce their judgment in countries around the world.  Chevron had stripped its assets from Ecuador to avoid paying the judgment.

Lawyers for the Ecuadorians say the arbitration panel does not have such authority, and that in any event Ecuador’s government is obligated to ignore its orders given its own binding legal obligations under the Ecuador Constitution and various international treaties protecting the human rights of its citizens.

The arbitration panel prohibits the Ecuadorians from appearing before it and takes no steps to inform them (or the public) of the status of its proceedings or when or where it is meeting.  Nor does it release its decisions in a system that clearly lacks due process of law, said Aaron Page, who represents the Ecuadorians and who has represented governments in the arbitral proceedings.

Some commentators have like ecuadorians end the secret arbitration panel to a “kangaroo court” rife with conflicts of interest and imbued with a pro-business culture.

The arbitrators are private sector lawyers who generally rule in favor of investors and against sovereign governments — a fact which in recent years has led several countries to withdraw or threaten to withdraw in recent years from the arbitral system, said Page. ”Chevron’s radical request for relief in this case potentially undermines the credibility of the entire investor arbitral regime,” Page said.

In the letter to Ban Ki-moon, Amado noted that a recent “interim” order by the arbitration panel asking Ecuador’s government to freeze the environmental case “makes a travesty of the bilateral commercial treaty system” and represents an “illegal expansion of arbitral powers with wide-ranging implications for well-settled principles of international law, including fundamental human rights and state sovereignty.”

“Such a result is simply untenable under international law — BIT arbitral panels cannot be called on by investors to set aside countries’ constitutional systems and sovereignty, which are essential components of modern democracies,” he added.

Concern over Chevron’s latest stratagem, Amado pointed out, is shared by a U.S. federal appellate court which ruled last year that the longstanding legal claims of the Ecuadorians “cannot be settled” through the BIT arbitration given that they are not a party to those proceedings.

“The international legal community was shocked by this [interim] Order, which Chevron interpreted to force the Ecuadorian executive branch affirmatively to interfere in a judicial process and limit Ecuador’s sovereignty vis-a-vis a case that has been in the courts for 18 years,” he said.

The Amado letter was emailed to 7,000 arbitrators around the world by the Peruvian Arbitration Institute, which said it considered the letter to “of high interest” to the international arbitration community.

Amado is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the founding partner of Miranda & Amado, one of Peru’s leading law firms.  He has published numerous articles on international law topics, has lectured in various countries, and has represented both private investors and governments before BIT arbitration panels.

Amado is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Peru and is President of the Energy Legal Committee of Peru’s National Mining, Oil and Energy Society.

The three arbitrators hearing the Chevron claims — all private lawyers who represent investors before other arbitration panels in the same treaty system — stand to personally reap millions of dollars in fees if they grant jurisdiction over the case, which in itself is a hotly contested issue given that Chevron left Ecuador five years before the U.S.-Ecuador BIT took effect in 1997, Page said.

R. Doak Bishop, an American from the firm King & Spalding who is Chevron’s lead lawyer in the Ecuador matter, has served as an arbitrator in numerous cases convened under the BIT process while he simultaneously represents private clients in the same system.  Ecuador’s American lawyers are only putting up a nominal defense, essentially leaving the Ecuador plaintiffs without representation before the panel, said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the plaintiffs.

In any event, it is clear that any “award” from the panel will lack legitimacy in countries that observe the rule of law and will not be an obstacle to enforcement of the Ecuador judgment, said Amado.

“This is a far-fetched strategy by Chevron that has little chance of working,” said Amado.  “But it is our duty as international lawyers to prevent it from causing collateral damage to the international legal order that protects the human rights of all peoples worldwide.”

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/rainforestactionnetwork/

The article Letter to UN Asks for Review of Chevron in Ecuador Case appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

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!.