Showing posts with label litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label litigation. Show all posts

Friday, May 14, 2010

Gulf Oil Disaster an Ominous Sign for Chevron

In what can only be interpreted as an ominous development for Chevron in its 17-year odyssey to escape liability for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste in Ecuador's Amazon, The Economist reported this week that BP faces complete liability for the Deepwater Horizon disaster and that the event has already reduced the capitalization of the company by $30 billion, or roughly 16% of its market value.

Specifically, the magazine reported that:

The costs fall to BP because, as the majority shareholder in the consortium leasing the Deepwater Horizon (the junior partners are America's Anadarko and Japan's Mitsui) and the project's operator, it is liable under American law for the costs of cleaning up.

(Under U.S. law either being the majority shareholder OR being the operator is sufficient to make a company liable for the costs of cleaning up).

Why is this ominous for Chevron? Because one its main excuses to avoid a potential $27.3 billion liability in Ecuador is that it doesn't currently own the oil fields where it contaminated, even though it operated them alone for 25 years from 1965 to 1990.

Nice try, John Watson (Chevron CEO) and Hew Pate (Chevron General Counsel).

What Watson and Pate try to hide from the public markets is what the Economist recognizes: under the law, the operator of the oil fields is 100% responsible for any pollution caused under its watch, regardless of the overall ownership structure.

So as BP is responsible for the damage caused in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it is setting a harrowing precedent for Chevron – one that must have the lawyers and executives in the company casting a wary eye at the company's toxic legacy in Ecuador. A damages assessment in the trial there (taking place in Ecuador at Chevron's request) places the cost of clean-up at roughly $27 billion, with a final decision expected later this year.

Chevron has refused to fully disclose this potential liability in its SEC filings. Stay tuned.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Chevron Using “Every Trick In The Book” To Evade Justice in Ecuador

Chevron's attempt to continually play its games to evade any semblance of justice in Ecuador is blasted in this post ("Ecuador Class Action Plaintiffs Strike Back at Chevron's Cynical Game of Musical Jurisdictions") from the International Business Law Advisor. Read on for Santiago Cueto's take on Chevron's activities:

The seventeen-year war between Ecuador's 30,000 class plaintiffs against oil giant Chevron continues its global odyssey, as the oil giant pulls out every trick in the book to avoid an impending $27 Billion judgment against it in Ecuador for contaminating an immense portion of rainforest and devastating the local population.

Chevron first fought successfully to force plaintiffs to try their lawsuit in Ecuador rather than U.S. courts. Then it sought (unsuccessfully) to win indemnification in U.S. courts from a possible judgment in Ecuador. And now it's filed for arbitration seven thousand miles across the Atlantic in Holland.

Chevron's latest tactical attempt to escape justice in Ecuador is consistent with its October 2007 press release, in which it promised the plaintiffs "a lifetime" of appellate and collateral litigation if they persisted in pursuing their claims.

Unfortunately for Chevron, it grossly underestimated the resolve of the class plaintiffs. As reported in The Wall Street Journal article, Chevron Plaintiffs Ask U.S. Court for Action, the People of Ecuador just filed a Petition to Stay Arbitration in United States District Court (S.D.N.Y) to enjoin Chevron from proceeding on the baseless international arbitration claim it recently filed in Holland. In December the Government of Ecuador filed its own Petition to Stay Arbitration.

As a litigator, I'm mindful that an attorney's obligation to zealously advocate his clients' interest may involve forum shopping as part of the procedural calculus, however, the obligation must be tempered with a keen understanding of what becomes abusive litigation.

Chevron's global quest for a favorable forum is a text book example of abusive litigation. To litigate a lawsuit across three continents is a cynical game of musical jurisdictions and takes corporate arrogance and the civil justice system to a new low. Isn't it time for Chevron to take a seat when the music stops in Ecuador?

What do you think?

This is the third in a series of posts discussing this extremely important case. Be sure to read Chevron Files International Arbitration Claim Against Ecuador: Forum Shopping in the Hague? and Chevron's Missteps: How Not to Handle Foreign Litigation.



Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Chevron Wins Dubious Honor: Named to “10 Worst Corporations of 2008”

According to MoneyWeb, as 2008 ushered in a financial tsunami that became the biggest economic shakedown since the Great Depression, wide scale corporate corruption was forced out into the open witnessing a slew of business scandals.

AIG, Cargill, Chevron, Constellation Energy, CNPC, Dole, General Electric, Imperial Sugar, Philip Morris International and Roche top the list as the worst of the worst according to Multinational Monitor's annual list of the ten most terrible companies of the year.

"In the 20 years that we've published our annual list of worst corporations," says Robert Weissman, editor of the bi-monthly global economic publication. "We've covered corporate villains, scoundrels, criminals and miscreants. But we've never had a year like 2008."

"The financial meltdown and economic crisis," says Weissman, "illustrates that corporations - if left to their own worst instincts - will destroy themselves and the system that nurtures them."

The Multinational Monitor writes about Chevron:

Chevron: "We can't let little countries screw around with big companies"

The world has witnessed a stunning consolidation of the multinational oil companies over the last decade.

One of the big winners was Chevron. It swallowed up Texaco and Unocal, among others. It was happy to absorb their revenue streams. It has been less willing to take responsibility for ecological and human rights abuses perpetrated by these companies.

One of the inherited legacies from Chevron's 2001 acquisition of Texaco is litigation in Ecuador over the company's alleged decimation of the Ecuadorian Amazon over a 20-year period of operation. In 1993, 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorians filed a class action suit in U.S. courts, alleging that Texaco had poisoned the land where they live and the waterways on which they rely, allowing billions of gallons of oil to spill and leaving hundreds of waste pits unlined and uncovered. They sought billions in compensation for the harm to their land and livelihood, and for alleged health harms. The Ecuadorians and their lawyers filed the case in U.S. courts because U.S. courts have more capacity to handle complex litigation, and procedures (including jury trials) that offer plaintiffs a better chance to challenge big corporations. Texaco, and later Chevron, deployed massive legal resources to defeat the lawsuit. Ultimately, a Chevron legal maneuver prevailed: At Chevron's instigation, U.S. courts held that the case should be litigated in Ecuador, closer to where the alleged harms occurred.

Having argued vociferously that Ecuadorian courts were fair and impartial, Chevron is now unhappy with how the litigation has proceeded in that country. So unhappy, in fact, that it is lobbying the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to impose trade sanctions on Ecuador if the Ecuadorian government does not make the case go away.

"We can't let little countries screw around with big companies like this — companies that have made big investments around the world," a Chevron lobbyist said to Newsweek in August. (Chevron subsequently stated that "the comments attributed to an unnamed lobbyist working for Chevron do not reflect our company's views regarding the Ecuador case. They were not approved by the company and will not be tolerated.")

Chevron is worried because a court-appointed special master found in March that the company was liable to plaintiffs for between $7 billion and $16 billion. The special master has made other findings that Chevron's clean-up operations in Ecuador have been inadequate.

Another of Chevron's inherited legacies is the Yadana natural gas pipeline in Burma, operated by a consortium in which Unocal was one of the lead partners. Human rights organizations have documented that the Yadana pipeline was constructed with forced labor, and associated with brutal human rights abuses by the Burmese military.

EarthRights International, a human rights group with offices in Washington, D.C. and Bangkok, has carefully tracked human rights abuses connected to the Yadana pipeline, and led a successful lawsuit against Unocal/Chevron. In an April 2008 report, the group states that "Chevron and its consortium partners continue to rely on the Burmese army for pipeline security, and those forces continue to conscript thousands of villagers for forced labor, and to commit torture, rape, murder and other serious abuses in the course of their operations."

Money from the Yadana pipeline plays a crucial role in enabling the Burmese junta to maintain its grip on power. EarthRights International estimates the pipeline funneled roughly $1 billion to the military regime in 2007. The group also notes that, in late 2007, when the Burmese military violently suppressed political protests led by Buddhist monks, Chevron sat idly by.

Chevron has trouble in the United States, as well. In September, Earl Devaney, the inspector general for the Department of Interior, released an explosive report documenting "a culture of ethical failure" and a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" in the U.S. government program handling oil lease contracts on U.S. government lands and property. Government employees, Devaney found, accepted a stream of small gifts and favors from oil company representatives, and maintained sexual relations with them. (In one memorable passage, the inspector general report states that "sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arms-length.") The report showed that Chevron had conferred the largest number of gifts on federal employees. It also complained that Chevron refused to cooperate with the investigation, a claim Chevron subsequently disputed.

Looks like we're not the only ones keeping an eye on Chevron's behavior around the world…

Monday, January 5, 2009

Science Doesn’t Lie. Or Does It?

Katie Bezrouch over at Imagine 2050 hit on an interesting thread last week: Chevron has apparently commissioned "scientific studies" to create findings supporting their analysis that there has been no harm to the Ecuador region that the company devastated. The catch is that these studies are apparently funded by the big oil company and are done by a company that shares a member of its board of directors with Chevron. Not exactly independent research. Bezrouch writes:

"According to Judith Kimerling (2007 recipient of the Parker Gentry Award for Conservation Biology), "…from 1972 until it left Ecuador in 1992, Texaco intentionally dumped more than 19 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into the region and was responsible for 16.8 million gallons of crude oil spilling from the main pipeline into the forest." This pollution has caused massive amounts of eco-degradation and human health problems. There has been increased cancer rates in oil producing villages and higher miscarriage rates. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health attributes this to living in the proximity of a contaminated water source, and it just so happens that the streams in the region contain more than 280 times more oil chemicals than European communities would allow.

But Chevron has a different perspective. Their analysis of Ecuador data reveals no increased cancer levels in the oil region. They fabricated this information by funding a study of their own called "Cancer Mortality and Oil Production in the Amazon Region of Ecuador, 1990-2005," key word being "funding". The study was conducted by three scientists at a consulting firm called Exponent. When I went to the their website and found that the veteran member of the Exponent Board of Directors (Samuel H. Armacost) is also a board member of the Chevron Corporation, I couldn't help myself from laughing out loud.

Anyone with a critical eye should be able to see right through Chevron's junk science. An independent court-appointed expert found that 100% of Chevron's former well sites are contaminated with illegal levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Most all of the samples contain well known carcinogens, or, cancer causing agents.

Makes you wonder exactly how reliable that data is.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Bloomberg Article Details Health Impact of Chevron's Ecuadorian Legacy

We've written at some length about the tremendous damage that Chevron's activities in Ecuador have caused to the local communities in Ecuador in this blog. Well, Bloomberg released a very interesting story - "Texaco Toxic Past Haunts Chevron as Judgment Looms" - today covering the health impact of Chevron's actions in Ecuador. The Bloomberg reporters really dug into the issue and provided independent verification by multiple and credible third party sources of much of what the plaintiffs suing Chevron for Texaco's actions have been alleging. The reporters cited oncologists, the court-appointed expert's report, physician Miguel San Sebastian, Mike Brune from the Rainforest Action Network, the Havoc Laboratory verifying toxin levels, former Texaco engineer Jorge Viteri, and a report published by the Ecuadorian government from before the trial began. This is the first mainstream news article I've seen that really digs deep into the cancer issue, and it is heartbreaking to read about the deaths that Texaco's substandard operations caused in Ecuador.

The article is worth taking a look at over at Bloomberg.com.