The Andean Commission of Jurists and five prestigious international law experts from around the world have joined a growing chorus of criticism targeting Chevron’s attempt to use a secret investor arbitration as part of its campaign to evade an $18 billion environmental judgment in Ecuador, according to letters released.

In a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Andean Commission said it was “alarmed” at Chevron’s attempt to use a private investor arbitration convened under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) to influence the outcome of a private litigation between indigenous groups and Chevron in Ecuador’s courts.  The panel meets in secret and bars the Ecuadorians from appearing before it.

After an eight-year trial, a three-judge appellate panel in Ecuador on January 3 affirmed an $18 billion judgment against the oil giant for causing what experts believe is one of the worst oil-related disasters on the planet. The decision was based on a 220,000-page evidentiary record, more than 100 expert reports from both parties, and 18 years of litigation in the courts of the U.S. and Ecuador.

The letter from the Andean Commission, part of growing chorus of international criticism of Chevron, accused the oil giant of continuing to use “questionable litigation tactics to deny those injured any forum to seek justice and compensation for their injuries.”

“The latest such tactic is the issue by Chevron of … an arbitration … to force Ecuador’s government to violate international law and quash the human rights of its own citizens by essentially nullifying the result of their case after almost two decades of litigation,” said the letter.

The Andean Commission, which has consulting status with the United Nations, is one of the leading human rights organizations in South America.  Its board members include Diego Garcia-Sayan, the former Chief Justice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court; renowned investor-state arbitrator Pedro Nikken; and other distinguished jurists from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

Separately, five international law experts wrote a letter to a United Nations official who oversees international arbitrations to question Chevron’s attempts to bypass the public court system of a sovereign nation where it wanted the trial held just because it lost based on the evidence.

“Allowing (arbitration) panels to determine recognition and enforcement issues in private litigation transforms them into venues of final appeal in a way that was never intended and offends the inherent trustworthiness of legal systems around the world to determine matters for themselves,” the jurists wrote to Renaud Sorieul, the Secretary of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

“(Treaty) panel awards ordering States to interfere in private judicial proceedings between different parties is a direct violation of well settled principles of sovereignty and, in this particular case, human rights under international law,” the letter added.  The letter was sent Feb 9, when the U.N. arbitration body headed by Sorieul was in session in New York to discuss the need for greater transparency in investor-State arbitration.

Recently, distinguished international law jurist Jose Daniel Amado issued a separate letter to U.N. Secretary General Ki-moon asking for a review of Chevron’s “egregious misuse” of the BIT.  Amado, a specialist in international arbitration, told the Secretary General that Chevron’s attempt to use the arbitration “stands in direct violation of international law” and threatens to “quash” the fundamental human rights of the 30,000 citizens who initially brought suit against Chevron in the United States in 1993.

Chevron shifted the environmental lawsuit from U.S. federal court 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.

The five international jurists who signed the Sorieul letter are Donald K. Anton , Associate Professor of International Law, The Australian National University College of Law; Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Jorge Avendano V., Principal Professor of Law, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru; Timo Koivurova, Research professor, The Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland; and Professor Cesare Romano, W Joseph Ford Fellow, Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.  Other jurists are expected to sign on in the coming days.

Separately, the indigenous rainforest communities filed suit last week in Washington, D.C. before a renowned international tribunal seeking an order that would prevent the oil giant from using the secret arbitration to violate their human rights.

The Ecuadorians are seeking an order from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights requiring Ecuador’s government to protect their right to life, physical integrity, health, a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the American Declaration of the Rights of Man and other international human rights treaties.  Any order from the Commission, which was established by the treaty that created the Organization of American States, is binding on the government against which it is issued.

The Ecuador court found that Chevron deliberately dumped 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, spontaneous miscarriages, and other oil-related diseases.

On January 4, the day after the Ecuador appellate court decision, Chevron petitioned the private arbitration panel to order Ecuador’s President to interfere in its independent judiciary and block the ability of the indigenous rainforest communities 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 the authority to do what Chevron is seeking, 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 private arbitration system under the BIT has come under withering criticism for its conflicts of interest and lack of due process.  Some commentators have likened the secret arbitration panel to a “kangaroo court” imbued with a pro-business culture.

The three arbitrators hearing the Chevron claims – all private lawyers who represent clients 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 any event, it is clear that any “award” from the panel will be treated with skepticism in countries that observe the rule of law and will not be an obstacle to enforcement of the Ecuador judgment, said Amado.  ”It is our duty as international arbitration experts to prevent it from causing collateral damage to the international legal order that protects the human rights of all peoples worldwide,” he emphasized.

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

The article Chevron Tries “Secret” Panel to Evade $18 Billion Ecuador Judgment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

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!.

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!.