U.S. courts are showing increasing hostility toward Chevron and its CEO John Watson over the company’s $18 billion Ecuador liability as the oil giant’s plan to quash the landmark case continues to falter in the hands of American law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, said representatives of the Amazon indigenous groups who offered an analysis of the 18-year case to its shareholders and industry analysts.

Leaders of the indigenous groups in Ecuador – who last year won the largest environmental court case in history — are presenting their analysis because Watson misled company shareholders about the case in an earnings call last Friday.  Watson failed to disclose his own conflict of interest in that he was a key Chevron executive who drove the purchase of Texaco in 2001 without properly vetting the company for its massive Ecuador liability, said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorians.

In the earnings call, Watson charged that the Ecuador case is part of an elaborate “fraud” to extort money from Chevron — a false statement that directly contradicts court findings based on scientific evidence, including evidence provided by Chevron itself, said Hinton.

“Watson uses rhetoric as a device to hide his failed leadership on the Ecuador case,” said Hinton.  “His comments about the Ecuador liability on the earnings call were misleading and should be treated with extreme skepticism by shareholders.”

For a more accurate analysis of the risks facing the Ecuador case than that Chevron is making in its quarterly calls or in its disclosures to the SEC, Hinton said shareholders should reference a report on the Ecuador case by Simon Billeness and Sanford Lewis that was published in May of last year prior to the company’s annual meeting. Both point out risks that Chevron has not completely disclosed, including the likelihood of standard collection actions against Chevron assets in various countries that are critical to the company’s operations.

Watson’s comments on the earnings call omitted key information that has emerged recently, as follows:

After eight-year trial, the Ecuador court in February 2011 found the company liable and imposed damages of $18 billion. The court found Chevron itself proved the company discharged billions of gallons of toxic waste into the environment, decimating indigenous groups and poisoning rivers and streams that local inhabitants rely on for drinking water.

On January 3, an Ecuador appellate court affirmed the trial court judgment and blasted Chevron for its “abuse of the judicial process” in Ecuador by filing frivolous motions and threatening a judge with jail time.  The court also upheld a punitive damages sanction against the company.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York last week rejected a Chevron attempt to seek a worldwide injunction blocking the Ecuadorians from enforcing their judgment, essentially nullifying the centerpiece of the U.S. component of the oil giant’s legal strategy.

Chevron’s lead outside law firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, has created even greater risk for Chevron shareholders by bungling key aspects of the litigation.

Since the firm took over the matter in 2009, Chevron lost the underlying case;  lost at the appellate level; lost a motion to attach  assets of the Ecuadorians in the U.S.; seen its plan to block enforcement overturned by the U.S. federal appellate court; and been exposed to potential criminal liability for trying to bribe Ecuador’s government.

Documents recently obtained via U.S. discovery actions shows that Chevron engaged in extensive acts of corruption and fraud in Ecuador.  Chevron doctored soil samples to mislead the Ecuador court and used a secret lab to hide evidence of toxic contamination; paid $2.2 million in hush money to a man who threatened to expose the company’s corruption in the Ecuador trial; tried to entrap an Ecuadorian judge with secret video recordings, and used U.S.-based experts to lie to the Ecuador court about the company’s deceptive field sampling.

U.S. and Ecuadorian courts have sanctioned Chevron for the use of unethical litigation practices done at the behest of Gibson Dunn and its lead partner, Randy Mastro.  Several U.S. and Ecuadorian judges sanctioned Chevron for harassing witnesses, filing a frivolous lawsuit, and abusing the judicial process.

Recognizing it could not win the lawsuit on the merits, Chevron recently tried to bribe Ecuador’s government with a “donation” to an environmental project in exchange for the “settlement” of the legal case without the involvement of the plaintiffs, according to sources within Ecuador’s government. Chevron never denied the reports of the attempted bribe, which might violate criminal laws in both Ecuador and the U.S.

Chevron also suffered a major setback in a U.S. federal appellate court in Philadelphia when Mastro was harshly criticized for seeking the case file of an American lawyer who represented the Ecuadorians.  The panel unanimously overturned a trial court order secured by Mastro.

Chevron faces potential criminal and civil liability for orchestrating a video scandal to entrap the Ecuador trial judge in a trumped-up bribery scandal.  Several lawyers working for Chevron, including Robert Middlestadt of Jones Day, have been deposed or face potential depositions in the matter.

One of Gibson Dunn’s investigators on the Ecuador matter, San Anson, was caught trying to pay an American journalist to spy on the plaintiffs.

The Gibson Dunn strategy also includes fomenting open conflict between Chevron and Ecuador’s government, a tact considered grossly impolitic for an oil major.  Chevron is already facing likely criminal charges in Brazil – a country with enormous reserves coveted by the company — for lying about its recent spill off the coast of Rio province.

Mastro, the mastermind of Chevron’s increasingly shaky legal strategy, was laughed at as he was unable to answer basic questions posed by the New York appellate panel that issued its order last week.  One judge even asked whether Chevron’s legal expenditures on the case was a good use of shareholder money.

Hinton said shareholders needed full information to be able to understand the risks facing the company.

“With these numerous setbacks over the last several months, it is even more apparent that John Watson and Gibson Dunn have brought Chevron’s shareholders to the edge of the proverbial cliff,” said Hinton.

“No matter what Watson does, Chevron simply cannot change the fact its horrific contamination in Ecuador is visible to the naked eye and has been confirmed by journalists and courts the world over,” she added.  “The evidence is so overwhelming that no amount of trickery can save the day for Chevron at this point.

“It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Gibson Dunn has sold Chevron’s management a bill of goods for which it has charged hundreds of millions of dollars over the last two years,” added Hinton.  “If this management team doesn’t monitor the situation more carefully, some additional and very unpleasant consequences for the company’s shareholders could be in store.”

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

The article Chevron CEO’s Plan to Evade $18b Ecuador Liability Falters 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!.

While indigenous groups in Ecuador’s Amazon face possible death and grave illness from Chevron’s “Rainforest Chernobyl” disaster, several prominent U.S. law firms and their well-known partners are billing the oil giant hundreds of millions of dollars to forestall a clean-up that could save thousands of lives, according to court documents.

Chevron’s lead outside law firm in the U.S., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, has 60 lawyers working extensively on the case, a recent court filing revealed. The filing also showed that Chevron has paid almost 500 attorneys and paralegals from 39 different law firms since the celebrated case was filed in U.S. federal court in 1993.

The litigation was shifted to Ecuador at Chevron’s request in 2002, with a subsequent eight-year trial resulting in an $18 billion judgment against the oil giant for causing what experts believe could be the world’s worst oil-related contamination.

The Ecuador litigation represents the first time that indigenous groups have successfully sued a large oil company for harm caused to their health and ancestral lands, said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorians.  Evidence from independent health evaluations concluded that more than 9,000 rainforest dwellers face the risk of contracting cancer absent a rapid cleanup of the damage.

In all, Gibson Dunn was billing Chevron an estimated $250 million per year in 2010 and 2011 as the company launched lawsuits against the plaintiffs in 16 different federal courts, helped to litigate an international arbitration action against Ecuador’s government, filed a fraud case against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers in U.S. federal court, and supervised Chevron’s battery of local lawyers in Ecuador as they faced multiple setbacks that culminated in the adverse judgment against Chevron, said Hinton.

“Chevron’s environmental destruction in Ecuador is the best thing that ever happened to the bottom line of Gibson Dunn,” said Hinton, who noted the firm reported a 20% increase in per-partner profits in 2010 during a downturn in the economy as dozens of its lawyers worked full-bore on the Ecuador matter.

“Clearly, Gibson Dunn and several other firms are profiting from rainforest destruction,” Hinton added. “These lawyers have proven that fighting to deny the human rights of indigenous groups can be a very profitable business model.”

Gibson Dunn clearly has sold Chevron on its willingness to engage in questionable tactics and push the ethical envelope, said Hinton.  The firm boasts that it engages in “recuse operations” for clients in trouble and that if the law is in the way it is willing to maneuver around it to achieve client objectives. Several judges have sanctioned Gibson Dunn lawyers for trying to intimidate witnesses and for filing frivolous lawsuits on behalf of Chevron, and one well-known partner has been accused of trying to mislead the Congress about the case.

A federal judge in Oregon fined Chevron after a team of Gibson Dunn lawyers had harassed the executive director of a respected environmental organization that had filed a brief in support of the Ecuadorians.

Gibson Dunn also uses cookie cutter lawsuits, Hinton said, where defenders of human rights victims and their supporters are always accused of “fraud” for trying to hold wrongdoers like Chevron accountable for their misconduct.

“The basic Gibson Dunn template is to attack victims to distract from the evidence,” said Hinton.  “When that doesn’t work, the firm resorts to outright intimidation to silence any lawyer or advocate who stands up to the firm.”

Gibson Dunn’s approach also has created numerous problems for Chevron in Ecuador, the fifth-largest oil producing nation in South America.  Chevron’s legal team in Ecuador is said to be furious with the Gibson Dunn lawyers for losing the case because of their arrogant treatment of Ecuadorian judges, said Hinton.

Chevron lawyers in Ecuador working closely on the case with Gibson Dunn’s “rescue” team have been sanctioned repeatedly for filing frivolous motions (once filing a motion eighteen times in 30 minutes), threatening the presiding judge with jail time if he didn’t rule in Chevron’s favor, and paying a Chevron contractor to secretly videotape a judge to try to entrap him in a trumped-up bribe scandal.

The Ecuador court imposed a large punitive damages award on Chevron in large part for its abuse of the judicial process in Ecuador, according to the judgment.

In the meantime, the case has become a financial bonanza for several other large law firms who represent Chevron. The list of 39 law firms disclosed by the company in a U.S. court action also includes the prominent criminal defense firm of Arguedas, Cassman & Headley; Jones Day; King & Spalding; Akin, Gump, Strauss; Hauer & Feld; Holland & Knight; Jones Day; Steptoe & Johnson; and Williams & Connolly.

The all-star cast of attorneys who have worked on some aspect of the case for Chevron include Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn, a former Solicitor General of the United States; Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, who reportedly represented a Chevron executive who faced potential criminal liability in Ecuador; Greg Craig of Skadden Arps, President Clinton’s impeachment lawyer who Chevron reportedly hired to explore settlement;

Mickey Kantor of Mayer Brown, the former U.S. Trade Representative under Clinton who spearheaded a Chevron effort to cut trade preferences for Ecuador; David Boies , whose firm helps the oil giant fight discovery actions in the U.S. designed to expose its corruption in Ecuador; and Alan Vinegrad , a former U.S. Attorney who represented a Chevron lawyer indicted on criminal charges of fraud for lying to Ecuador’s government about the results of a sham remediation.

Chevron also has used six public relations firms to push talking points denying the company caused any environmental damage in Ecuador, even though the judgment is undergirded by extensive scientific evidence and the allegations have been confirmed by numerous independent news accounts.

After an eight-year trial, the Ecuador trial court in 2011 found the oil giant systematically discharged billions of gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest, decimating indigenous groups and causing an array of oil-related health problems. An Ecuador appellate court affirmed the judgment in early January, potentially opening up Chevron to standard collection actions against its assets in jurisdictions around the world unless its posts a bond in Ecuador.

Chevron stripped its assets from Ecuador and has vowed never to pay for a cleanup, even though reports indicate it contacted the plaintiffs recently in an attempt to explore settlement possibilities. Ultimately, one must wonder how much Chevron shareholders are getting in return for these expensive legal services, she said.

In the last three years, since Gibson Dunn’s “rescue” operation was launched, Chevron was hit with the $18 billion judgment, the largest ever for an environmental case; the judgment was confirmed by a three-judge panel; multiple courts sanctioned the company for its unethical litigation tactics; and a U.S. appellate court in New York prevented Chevron from seeking a worldwide injunction to block enforcement of the judgment.

The article Chevron Pays Steep Fees To Prevent Clean-up of Ecuador Pollution Crisis appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Chevron has lost yet another legal round over its increasingly furious effort to evade paying an $18 billion judgment in Ecuador for causing environmental damage in the Amazon rainforest, according to a decision released by a U.S. federal judge.

Just days after an appellate panel in Ecuador, U.S. federal judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, denied the company’s motion to attach the assets of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.

The decision also comes just weeks after Chevron was exposed for trying to bribe Ecuador’s government to quash the case by making a “donation” to an environmental project, and reports surfaced that the company tried to corrupt the court process in Ecuador by using a secret lab.

Kaplan also denied a request by Chevron for a restraining order preventing the Ecuadorians and their lawyers from selling any portion of the claims, so they could finance the litigation. The Ecuadorians had argued that Chevron’s motion was nothing more than an attempt to dry up support for their 18-year case, thereby denying them legal counsel and the ability to enforce the Ecuador judgment.

“This decision is another rebuke for Chevron, and it comes on the heels of a devastating defeat in the appellate court of Ecuador,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the 30,000 Ecuadorians who have accused the oil giant of dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into their ancestral lands.

Chevron had argued to Kaplan that the Ecuador judgment was based on “fraud” and, therefore, was not entitled to be enforced, even in countries outside the U.S.  Chevron stripped its assets from Ecuador and has said it will not comply with the judgment.

Lawyers for the rainforest communities had argued that Chevron’s motion had no legal basis and that the judgment in Ecuador is based on a wide body of scientific evidence. The company caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history, decimating five indigenous groups and causing an outbreak of cancer.

The communities also argued that Chevron had the ability to block any enforcement actions by the Ecuadorians by simply posting a bond while it appeals to Ecuador’s highest court. Chevron reported profits of roughly $30 billion in 2011 and total assets of more than $204 billion.

“The relief Chevron seeks is improper and unprecedented,” argued Craig Smyser, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians, in a letter to Judge Kaplan. Smyser noted that the remedy sought by Chevron had never been granted in U.S. history under similar facts.

“Chevron’s latest histrionics and hysteria justify neither a temporary restraining order, nor an order of attachment,” Smyser said in his letter, which was submitted before Kaplan issued his decision.

Chevron faces another problem — its lead outside law firm in the Ecuador matter, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, has come under increasing attack for orchestrating a string of legal setbacks that imperil the interests of company shareholders, according to a recent blog in the Huffington Post.

The blog noted that since Gibson Dunn entered the matter two years ago, Chevron has been hit with an $18 billion judgment at the trial court in Ecuador, lost the appellate decision in Ecuador, and was reversed by a U.S. federal appeals court last September in its unprecedented effort to seek a worldwide injunction to block enforcement of the Ecuador judgment.

Gibson Dunn also faces mounting ethical questions about its sharp-edged litigation practices in the Ecuador matter, which recently led a federal court to sanction and fine Chevron after finding that a Gibson Dunn lawyer harassed a witness in the Ecuador matter.

In Ecuador, the trial court imposed a punitive damages award to the plaintiffs after finding Chevron’s lawyers tried to delay and undermine the proceedings by threatening a judge with jail time if he did not rule in the company’s favor.

The article In $18 Billion Ecuador Legal Case, Chevron Receives More Disappointment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.