Bad Day For Chevron: Even Chevron's Favorite Judge Says Oil Giant Will Likely Fail In Its Effort To Escape Justice In Ecuador

Meanwhile Shareholders Call For SEC Investigation

Yesterday was a bad day for Chevron once again. Its favorite judge, Lewis Kaplan, basically said the charges the oil giant has brought against the Ecuadorians and their representatives are not likely to stand up in court. And, Chevron shareholders asked the SEC to investigate the company's lack of disclosure concerning the risks it faces from the $18 billion judgment.

See here about the SEC investigation. Below is the press statement released by the Amazon Defense Coalition about Kaplan's ruling:

Chevron suffered two new legal setbacks today when a U.S. federal judge who usually favors the company rejected its attempt to attach the assets of the Ecuadorians and their counsel who won an $18 billion judgment for environmental damage and separately tossed out two fraud-related claims against an American lawyer, according to published court decisions.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan -- who for the last two years has almost uniformly favored Chevron in the hotly contested case -- also cast doubt on the viability of Chevron's two remaining claims under the federal civil racketeering statute, dealing another blow to the oil giant's campaign to evade paying the landmark judgment that was issued in February of 2011.

The decisions are the latest in a series of legal setbacks this year against Chevron over the $18 billion judgment.  They include the unanimous reversal of Kaplan in a U.S. federal appeals court of a worldwide injunction against enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment; an Ecuadorian appellate court's confirmation of a trial court decision that Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into Ecuador's Amazon; and now, a refusal to attach the assets of the Ecuadorians and a narrowing of the fraud case.

Kaplan also cast doubt on the remaining RICO claims, saying they "raised a question concerning whether and to what extent Chevron may recover ... for injuries sustained" outside of the United States.

"Suffice it to say for present purposes that Chevron on the present record has not established that it is likely to prevail on its claim" that funds spent to defend the case in Ecuador would be recoverable in the fraud case, essentially eviscerating the company's ability to recover damages, according to the court.

In making his rulings on a pre-trial motion to dismiss the fraud case, Kaplan was required by law to assume that all facts alleged by Chevron were true even though they are contested by the rainforest communities and their counsel, who allege that Chevron committed criminal acts and fraud to cover up its extensive contamination in the South American nation.

Yet even with the assumption its disputed allegations were true, Chevron still found two of its claims tossed out and was soundly rebuked by Kaplan on the attachment issue, said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorians.  At this point, Chevron is the only party in the litigation facing attachment of its assets given that the Ecuador judgment is enforceable around the world, Hinton added.

"These rulings by Judge Kaplan are yet another devastating setback for Chevron's prospects to avoid paying the Ecuador judgment," said Hinton.  "The fact Chevron is now running into resistance from its most favored U.S. federal judge shows just how dim the company's legal outlook has become on the Ecuador case."

"Chevron has suffered a virtually uninterrupted string of defeats in courts in Ecuador and the United States over the past year and we expect this trend to continue in the coming months in courts around the world," Hinton added.

Hinton also released this statement to reporters:

"Judge Kaplan's decisions to deny Chevron attachment and to throw out several fraud claims represent yet another setback for the oil company and its shareholders.  In the last year, Chevron has seen courts in Ecuador and the U.S. vacate its worldwide injunction against enforcement of the Ecuador judgment; affirm the Ecuador trial court judgment; reject an international investor arbitration attempt to block the Ecuador trial; deny a motion to attach the assets of the Ecuadorian rainforest communities; and throw out a good portion of its fraud case against the Ecuadorians and their American lawyers.  Given that it still refuses to pay the Ecuador judgment, it is Chevron that now faces attachment actions against billions of dollars of company assets in courts around the world for intentionally polluting the Ecuadorian rainforest.

"That said, Chevron's RICO charges always have been baseless and are nothing more than a public relations stunt to hide the company's environmental abuses and fraud in Ecuador that destroyed the rainforest and killed numerous people with cancer and other oil-related diseases. If the RICO case proceeds to trial, which is highly doubtful in light of today's ruling, the rainforest communities and their counsel plan to file counterclaims against Chevron and certain of its executives for fraud and are confident that the case will result in a finding of additional liability against individuals in Chevron who are responsible for the environmental disaster and cover-up."

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Also follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.
Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.
Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Preparing Fourth Hit Job On $18 Billion Ecuador Judgment

We are flattered to report that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is once again trying to carry water for Chevron's public relations flaks over the company's $18 billion judgment for creating the world's worst oil disaster in Ecuador.  Chevron has hired six public relations firms and almost 500 lawyers to undermine the communities that sued the company.

The irrepressible Mary Anastasia O'Grady – who purports to comment on events in Latin American as a columnist – called Karen Hinton, the spokesperson for the Ecuadorians, and, in a hurried interview yesterday, asked a series of questions reflecting Chevron's misleading talking points about the Ecuador trial.  O'Grady said she is preparing a column on Chevron's claim that an expert report submitted to the court was "secretly" authored by the plaintiffs.  This is one of Chevron's urban myths that has been fully debunked by the plaintiffs and rejected by Ecuador's appellate courts.

Let's test O'Grady's integrity.  Hinton sent her the following email responding to her questions in writing.  Read it and judge for yourself how much of these facts make it into O'Grady's upcoming column, should she indeed publish it:

Mary,

I want to reinforce and expand upon my answers to some of the questions you raised today in our phone call about the Chevron case in Ecuador. I am hoping you will strongly consider all of my comments as you write your column and not gloss over them. 

It is clear your questions are based on Chevron's misleading talking points. One of my colleagues informs me that you interviewed him by phone in 2007 and that you subsequently canceled a meeting where he was prepared to present information refuting Chevron's arguments as lies. Even though you did not write then on this issue, the editorial page of your newspaper has subsequently staged three separate attacks against the case based on Chevron's misinformation and extrajudicial strategy to undermine the proceedings to evade accountability for creating what is likely the world's worst oil-related disaster. We wrote letters to the editor in response to each of those articles correcting various inaccuracies. We hope that process does not repeat itself with your column.

We also have confirmed that the WSJ editorial page never disclosed that at least one of the two unsigned editorials attacking the Ecuador case was written by Bret Stephens, a columnist and now deputy editorial page editor who previously had written a signed column on the same issue with the same viewpoint.   

Here is some additional perspective on some of the issues you raised:

On whether Richard Cabrera met with the plaintiffs before he was appointed the global expert, and whether he and the plaintiffs planned what the global report would say:

Chevron has presented thousands of pages of papers and videos to the Ecuador court on this issue, and that court rejected the material as irrelevant and disregarded the results of the Cabrera report in making its decision finding Chevron liable.  Instead, it based its decision on 104 other technical reports -- the majority submitted by court experts named by Chevron, paid by Chevron, and whose reports were written by Chevron lawyers -- in deciding that Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon, abandoned hundreds of toxic waste pits, flared poisonous gas into the air, and therefore should pay for a clean-up of what experts consider to be the world's worst oil-related disaster.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the Cabrera report. The contents of that report -- which relied heavily on Chevron's own technical reports submitted as evidence that proved contamination -- is valid from a technical and empirical standpoint.  Some of the information and conclusions were presented to Cabrera by top-level technical experts, consistent with court rules. The fact Cabrera adopted these findings and relied on his own independent soil and water sampling reflected his judgment that they were valid and reflected the evidence.  This is no different than what judges do all the time in the U.S. when presented with findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties in a disputed litigation. The fact Cabrera was paid exclusively by the plaintiffs was required by the Ecuador court; other court-named experts were paid exclusively by Chevron, also consistent with court rules that require the party asking for a report to pay for it.  Again, this is no different than a party in the U.S. paying for the costs of an expert witness.

Chevron boycotted the Cabrera report process because it did not want to legitimate any aspect of the proceeding that it knew it would lose based on the scientific evidence. Thousands of soil and water samples had already been taken by both parties that showed extensive contamination at 100% of Chevron's former well sites.  Chevron knew Cabrera had access to this data, and this fact terrified the company's lawyers. So Chevron now reaps what it sowed with its unilateral boycott: a report that does not reflect its point of view in any way, shape, or form.  But it did succeed in getting the report knocked out of evidence by waging an unrelenting, entirely improper pressure campaign against the judges presiding over the trial.

When Chevron says the plaintiffs met secretly with Cabrera, that is a complete misrepresentation of the process.  The plaintiffs met with Cabrera (and with other experts appointed by the court) consistent with court rules, as did Chevron's lawyers.  We remind you that to the extent these rules seem different than those in the U.S., it does not mean they reflect an inferior system.  In fact, these procedures are consistent with the rules in most civil law countries and have been confirmed as valid by multiple legal experts in Ecuador and elsewhere.  Chevron has been unable to cite one statute or court rule justifying its position on the Cabrera report.  

Chevron also has tried to market two additional lies about Cabrera -- that he was paid with a "secret" bank account, and that he was "bribed".  Both of these accusations collapse when viewed in light of the evidence. There was no secret bank account. Cabrera was always paid for work performed consistent with court rules and the contractual obligation of the parties to pay for experts who produced reports they requested.

On whether attorneys for the plaintiffs will be paid $5.7 billion in fees. The judgment categorizes how $9 billion will be spent on cleanup, water and health. Where does the rest of the money go?

If you are relying on documents Chevron obtained through discovery from U.S. counsel to opine on this issue, we are putting you on notice that those documents have been interpreted inaccurately by Chevron lawyers and in any event have been superseded by other documents.

The vast majority of the judgment will be used to remediate Chevron's horrific and deliberate contamination of the rainforest -- a contamination so great in magnitude that it dwarfs the size of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico where liability has been estimated to be a minimum of $40 billion.  By comparison, Chevron is getting off easy in Ecuador because the court rejected several claims for damages made by the rainforest communities.  The money will be used to remediate contaminated soils and groundwater, provide clean drinking water to dozens of communities, create a health care infrastructure to deal with high cancer rates in the region, and to restore indigenous lands.  The attorneys will be paid a modest contingency fee per private contract with the affected communities -- a fee that is low compared the two decades of work spent preparing and litigating the lawsuit, and the risk undertaken by lawyers in advancing their own funds and time in the pursuit of a fair result for their clients.

On Chevron's contention that the Cabrera report and the court judgment contain identical language from documents written by the plaintiffs.

As in the U.S. court system, a court expert or judge often adopts language offered to the court by one of the parties. What happened in Ecuador was no different. Cabrera accepted some of the documents we submitted because his own testing proved their accuracy.

Chevron's assertions about the "ghostwriting" of the judgment is a complete lie and reflects the company's desperation. The documents in question have been submitted to the court in various forms, either as direct submissions from the plaintiffs or Chevron, or via expert reports.  In fact, none of Chevron's so-called "experts" on this issue has even reviewed the entire trial record.  And some of their conclusions simply do not withstand serious inquiry.

This is nothing more than last-minute hysteria by a desperate litigant.  Chevron stalled the case for ten years in U.S. courts, thinking it would disappear once a U.S. federal judge moved it to Ecuador.  When the evidence of contamination began to pour in, Chevron began to cry foul as part of a concerted strategy to undermine the very court system it repeatedly had praised. The only way out was to either be held accountable or concoct accusations of fraud. Now that the communities have won a landmark victory and are preparing to enforce their judgment, Chevron is appealing once more to journalists with one-sided presentations of facts that have no relationship to the body of evidence that overwhelmingly proved Chevron's guilt.

Finally, we have extensively documented Chevron's violations of anti-bribery statutes in the U.S. and Ecuador in various sworn affidavits.  Most recently, Chevron offered a $1 billion bribe to Ecuador's government to extricate itself illegally from the lawsuit.  More information on this and other examples of Chevron's malfeasance and criminality can be found on the website www.chevrontoxico.com.

Conclusion

We hope and indeed expect our version of the facts will be reflected in your analysis and that you will not allow your column to become a de facto public relations tool for Chevron's unethical attempt to evade justice.

Best, 

Karen Hinton


Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Also follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.
Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.
Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Chevron Lawyer Hew Pate Earned $7.8 Million for Losing $18 Billion Ecuador Case

Chevron's Board of Directors recently awarded its General Counsel R. Hewitt Pate a 75% raise -- bringing his 2011 salary to a whopping $7.8 million -- for losing the landmark $18 billion environmental lawsuit in Ecuador, according to a recent public filing of the company.

In reaching the $18 billion judgment -- the largest ever in an environmental case (see here and here)  -- the Ecuador trial court used Chevron's own admission that it deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic oil waste into Amazon waterways from 1964 to 1992, when the company operated in Ecuador under the Texaco brand.  The dumping decimated indigenous groups and caused an outbreak of cancer and numerous deaths, according to several peer-reviewed studies.

“Only in America could a major oil company give a 75% raise to a lawyer who lost an $18 billion case to a legal team with a fraction of the resources,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the dozens of rainforest communities who sued the oil giant.

Chevron’s 2012 proxy statement reported that Pate’s salary jumped “in part because of his 'outstanding management of Ecuador (lawsuit).'" See pages 28 and 43.

Pate's 75% salary increase also is out of line with the 16.6% increase in Chevron's 2011 year-end stock valuation - a key metric for investors in deciding to support annual 'say-on-pay' votes. Chevron CEO John Watson received an even more ludicrous 65% raise to $24.7 million in 2011 compensation.

"Chevron's enormous executive pay raises are way out of step with shareholder returns and the company's dismal handling of its liability in Ecuador," said Graham Erion, a securities lawyer advising the rainforest communities.

In the latest of a series of legal setbacks on the Ecuador matter, a panel of appellate judges in affirmed the $18 billion judgment in January.  The same month, a U.S. federal appeals court sharply rebuked Chevron for trying to use an illegal injunction to block the Ecuadorians from enforcing their judgment.

A new report published last week also found that under Pate's leadership Chevron has continually misled its own shareholders about the Ecuador liability.  Some shareholders have criticized company management for mishandling the Ecuador litigation while others have asked for an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pate recently reported that Chevron has used 483 lawyers and legal assistants on the Ecuador case from at least 39 different law firms.  The rainforest communities are led by Pablo Fajardo, a 40-year-old Ecuadorian man who grew up in poverty and recently was award a CNN "Hero" prize. See this CNN piece and Vanity Fair article.

A former Bush Administration antitrust lawyer with little experience in the oil industry, Pate took over Chevron's legal department in 2009.  Since that time, the oil giant has suffered multiple legal setbacks in Ecuador and elsewhere: 

• Part of the $18 billion judgment in Ecuador is to compensate the rainforest communities for harm caused by Pate’s hyper-aggressive and unethical litigation tactics, including the repeated filing of frivolous motions and the threatening of the presiding judge with jail time if he didn't rule in favor of the company.

• Last September, jurists from across the world blasted Pate's strategy for trying to illegally use a U.S. trial court to block the international enforcement of the Ecuador judgment.  Chevron's lead attorney on that case, Randy Mastro of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, was harshly criticized by the appellate panel. See page 19 of this transcript.

• Chevron in 2009 orchestrated a video entrapment scheme against a sitting judge in Ecuador which backfired against the company and prompted an investigation of the company's attempts to corrupt the country's justice system. The incident has created potential exposure for Chevron under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

• U.S. courts have repeatedly sanctioned Pate's lawyers for engaging in unethical behavior. Recently a U.S. federal judge fined Chevron after finding that Gibson Dunn lawyer Kristin Hendricks (an associate working under Mastro) abused the discovery process to harass a respected environmental organization. A Colorado judge in 2010 rebuked Gibson Dunn lawyer Andrea Neumann for trying to intimidate a witness.

• Under Pate’s leadership, reports recently surfaced that Chevron floated a $1 billion bribe offer to Ecuador's government to kill the legal case, made via an official in charge of an environmental project; that Chevron lied to its own expert witnesses so they would defend the use of deceptive sampling practices during the trial; and that the company used a secret lab to hide evidence of contamination from the court.

During Pate's tenure, Chevron faces a $22 billion lawsuit in Brazil after it appeared to mislead investigators about the impacts of an offshore spill; paid a $600,000 penalty for environmental violations at approximately 100 storage tanks in Puerto Rico; paid $24.5 million to California for violations of laws governing the disposal of hazardous materials; and suffered a horrific pipeline spill in Utah which resulted in a $4.5 million fine and ongoing lawsuits. The company, as part of an oil consortium, also faces a $64 million fine in Kazakhstan for releasing airborne toxins.


Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.

Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook
Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.
Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

European Investors Concerned About Chevron’s Amazon Disaster

Ecuadorian indigenous leaders meet Church of England's Investment Department

Read this great blog by Mitch Anderson of Amazon Watch, focusing on concerns by European investors about Chevron’s environmental crimes in the Ecuadorian rainforest.

"London, England – Ecuadorian indigenous leaders Humberto Piaguaje and Guillermo Grefa began a one week European tour today, where they will be educating major institutional investors in Chevron Corporation, including prestigious funds such as the Church of England Investment Fund and the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, about the oil giant’s grim environmental and human rights legacy in the Amazon. The fact that European investors are concerned about the American oil major’s growing multi-billion liability over its Amazon disaster comes as no surprise."

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.
Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.

Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Another Bad Day In Court For Chevron

Chevron had another bad day yesterday in one of the most powerful courts in the United States, proving again that when the Ecuadorians' attorneys are allowed to present their case, the oil giant's arguments quickly deflate.

See this Greenwire article below about how the Ecuadorians’ lawyer Jim Tyrrell of Patton Boggs dominated the oral arguments against top Chevron lawyer Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Randy Mastro Benched By Chevron

Gibson Dunn lawyer Randy Mastro usually argues for Chevron, but Tyrrell threw him deadly punches before the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals that later threw out a lower court decision purporting to stop enforcement of an $18 billion judgment against Chevron. See here.

Mastro also recently stumbled over his words and struggled to answer questions, even before Chevron’s favorite judge, Lewis Kaplan, about the oil giant’s latest and most preposterous scheme to attach its own assets to block the Ecuadorians from obtaining funds to cleanup its mess in the rainforest.

Yes, that’s right, attach its own assets. Even the pro-Chevron Kaplan was scratching his head. If you dare, read it about it here.

Yesterday, though, Chevron benched Mastro, and Boutrous took charge but apparently to no avail.

Court considers Chevron's request for documents in Ecuador litigation

Lawrence Hurley, E&E reporter

Published: Tuesday, April 17, 2012

A federal appeals court today seemed inclined to rule that a lower court judge acted too hastily in allowing Chevron Corp. access to documents prepared by a consulting firm working for Ecuadorean plaintiffs in a high-profile case that has dragged on for almost 20 years.

The oil giant wants documents from the Weinberg Group, a scientific consulting firm that the plaintiffs had hired to prepare a report on the alleged environmental damages in the eastern part of Ecuador.

Last year, a judge in Ecuador ruled that Chevron was liable for up to $18 billion for contamination caused by Texaco Petroleum Corp. Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001.

Chevron believes the Weinberg documents could help it in a racketeering case it has filed against the plaintiffs and their American lawyers.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared unconvinced that U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola correctly ruled that Chevron could get access to about 1,000 documents. The judges seemed to agree with the plaintiffs that Facciola did not correctly follow precedent in determining whether Weinberg should hand over the material.

The judges strongly indicated they would remand the case to Facciola but would likely not dismiss it altogether, as the plaintiffs hope.

Today's argument was a sideshow to a legal battle that is playing out in various venues around the world.

In an effort to undermine the Ecuadorean court's judgment, Chevron has alleged that the plaintiffs committed fraud, going as far as to file the racketeering suit in New York.

As part of that strategy, Chevron has sought to question as many people as possible, including Steven Donziger, the American lawyer who masterminded the effort to sue the oil company in Ecuador.

The Weinberg Group is another target. It claims that it should not have to hand over documents because it is covered by the attorney-client privilege.

But Chevron maintains, as did Facciola, that the privilege is trumped by what is known as the "crime-fraud exception" that forces production of documents if there is evidence that a crime or fraud took place.

Weinberg was hired by the plaintiffs after Chevron attacked the credibility of the Ecuadorean court-appointed scientific expert, Richard Cabrera. The consulting group's job was to bolster the plaintiffs' case by rounding up new experts to weigh in on the evidence of environmental damage.

Among Weinberg's arguments is the claim that Facciola inappropriately deferred to the findings of the judge in the Southern District of New York, Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the racketeering case and consistently ruled in favor of Chevron.

In March 2011, Kaplan issued an extensive opinion in which he granted Chevron's request for an injunction that would have prevented the plaintiffs from enforcing the Ecuadorean judgment in U.S. courts. On appeal, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, saying it had been imposed prematurely.

James Tyrrell, the Patton Boggs attorney representing Weinberg in court today, seized on the 2nd Circuit's decision, noting that Facciola made no independent findings of fact on which to base his decision.

Chevron's attorney, Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, faced a uniformly skeptical panel.

Chief Judge David Sentelle noted that all of Facciola's findings were "intertwined" with the recitation of facts in Kaplan's opinion.

He also said that most judges would have taken a look at the documents to gauge their relevance.

"Wouldn't that have been a nice thing for the judge to have looked at?" he said.

Likewise, Judge Brett Kavanaugh asked whether it would be "prudent" to remand the case because Facciola's findings were "heavily, if not completely, influenced" by Kaplan's opinion.

Questioning Facciola's approach, Judge David Tatel pointed out that under court precedent, the magistrate judge was required to make a finding that the Weinberg documents were created "in furtherance of a fraud," which he failed to do.

"Our cases are very clear about that," Tatel said.

The ongoing tussle in the racketeering case is just one strand of a tangled web of litigation over the $18 billion judgment.

Chevron's final appeal in Ecuador is currently before that nation's highest court while, separately, an international arbitration panel is considering a 2009 claim brought by Chevron against Ecuador in which the oil company claims the Andean nation violated a bilateral trade agreement between it and the United States (E&ENews PM, Feb. 28).

The case is infamous in part because of the now notoriously frosty relationship between the opposing parties, which Sentelle referenced when asking them to focus on the legal issues.

"We have heard the vitriol that both sides want to spill on each other," he said.

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit . and like us on Facebook.
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch andRainforest Action Network.

Read More

Ecuadorians & Environmental Groups Provide Clean Water To Rainforest Residents Chevron Ignores

Ecuadorian indigenous groups and international environmental groups are doing what Chevron has refused to do in Ecuador’s oil-ravaged rainforest – provide clear, clean drinking water to people living near contaminated soil and water left behind by the oil giant almost 20 years ago.

The new effort, called ClearWater expands upon other initiatives to ensure rainforest residents have safe, unpolluted water.

Chevron has turned its back on the rainforest and its people. The ClearWater project is not the complete solution, but it is part of one, and we praise the indigenous and environmental groups for doing what Chevron should be doing.

From 1964 to 1992, Chevron, operating under the Texaco brand, explored for oil in the Ecuador rainforest. To maximize profits, the company used substandard practices and, as a result, intentionally dumped over 16 billion gallons of toxic water into waterways, used by local people to drink, cook, and bathe.

Chevron also built over 900 huge, unlined pits to store permanently pure crude oil. The pits remain there today and continue to leech into and contaminate the underground water and soil.

In 1993, Ecuadorian indigenous groups sued Chevron for the oil contamination, but the company has fought them at every turn. Eighteen years later, an Ecuador court finally awarded the groups $18 billion in damages. An Ecuadorian appellate court upheld the judgment, allowing the Ecuadorians to enforce it.

Because Chevron has no assets in Ecuador and has refused to pay, they are preparing to enforce in other countries’ courts, where Chevron has assets.

See this video for more information about the devastation caused by Chevron’s deliberate acts.

Supported by organizations such as like Saving an Angel, Groundwork Opportunities, Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch and the Amazon Defense Coalition, the ClearWater project will provide sustainable clean water to more than 2,000 indigenous and farmer families across 20 villages in the oil-ravaged areas of the northeastern Ecuadorian rainforest.

Emergildo Criollo, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Chevron and supporter of the CleanWater project, said despite the ongoing legal battle, “the rivers are still poisoned, and the water tests of oil and salt. This must change. Water is the source of life. Without clean water we cannot survive.” Two of Criollo’s children died as a result of the contamination.

In early October, 2011, the ClearWater pilot project broke ground in the community of Cofan Dureno with the community-led installation of 52 rainwater catchment systems, benefitting over 300 Cofan people.

According to the ClearWater web site these systems are relatively easy to install in villages and rural town homes, and if maintained properly, can last up to 50 years. Specially designed filtered catchment units will enable families, health clinics and schools to have clean water.

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit . and like us on Facebook.
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Chevron to Ecuadorians: Drop Dead

Huffington Post Publishes Photos of People Who Have Died or Are Sick From Contamination

A lead Chevron lawyer has told an arbitration panel that the 30,000 Ecuadorian victims of the oil giant's contamination are "irrelevant" to the court case that led to an $18 billion judgment against the company.

Doak Bishop

Doak Bishop, a Chevron lawyer from the American firm King & Spalding, said the following before a panel of international investment arbitrators on February 15th: “The plaintiffs are really irrelevant. They always were irrelevant. There were never any real parties in interest in this case. The plaintiff's lawyers have no clients... There will be no prejudice to [the rainforest communities] or any individual by holding up enforcement of the judgment."

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post today published over a dozen photos of Ecuadorians who have died or have severe medical problems resulting from Chevron's contamination. See here for photos, taken by Lou Dematteis.

By arguing that no Ecuadorians had been harmed or were in danger of being harmed, Bishop was trying to convince the panel of arbitrators that they should block the Ecuadorians from enforcing their judgment against Chevron in other countries, a strategy which has failed for multiple reasons. See here.

Bishop has come under harsh criticism for his conflicts of interest with the arbitration panel.

Chevron has a long history of trying to dehumanize the Ecuadorians by denying their very existence, said Pablo Fajardo, the lead lawyer for the communities.

In 2010, Chevron tried to claim that the signatures of 20 of the 48 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit had been forged by their attorneys. The charge was quickly rebutted after the plaintiffs appeared before a public notary to affirm their signatures were legitimate. See here.

The existence and relevance of the Ecuadorians has been affirmed by multiple independent journalists, including 60 Minutes, The Sunday Night Show in Australia and multiple media outlets such as the New York Times and The Washington Post.

The $18 billion damage award, levied by an Ecuador court, will be used to clean up Chevron’s deliberate contamination of the rainforest and provide clean drinking water and health care to the residents of the company’s former concession area. The damage decimated indigenous groups and caused an outbreak of cancer, according to evidence relied on by the court in issuing the judgment. See this video for more information.

Chevron, under the Texaco brand, operated in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992. Chevron admitted dumping 16 billion gallons of toxic drilling fluids directly into waterways and streams relied on by local residents for their drinking water

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit. Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit .Like us on Facebook.

Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Chevron Says These People Don't Matter

These moving photos were taken by Lou Dematteis, a photographer and writer who documented the lives of many Ecuadorian indigenous people who have died, lost family members or are sick from diseases as a result of Chevron's intentional contamination of the Ecuadorian rainforest. A Chevron lawyer recently said these people are “really irrelevant.”

Luz Maria Marin holds the head of her husband Angel Toala one day before he died of stomach cancer in his home in Shushufindi.

Chevron says the people in these photos don’t matter.

The oil giant’s lawyer Doak Bishop of King & Spalding recently said:

“The plaintiffs are really irrelevant. They always were irrelevant. There were never any real parties in interest in this case. The plaintiff's lawyers have no clients... There will be no prejudice to [the rainforest communities] or any individual by holding up enforcement of the judgment."

Bishop is speaking of the Ecuadorian indigenous people who won an $18 billion judgment against Chevron for massive oil contamination in the rainforest – a judgment Chevron has refused to pay.

Chevron even went so far as to try and hire a journalist to spy on the Ecuadorians to see if they were telling the truth about being sick. Read this article about it.

Here are just a few of them, photographed and interviewed by Lou Dematteis. You can purchase his book at Lou Dematteis Photography.


At her home in Andina, Amanda Armijos stands in front of a photo of herself and husband Saul Apolo who died of stomach cancer at age 49.

Nine-year-old Jairo Yumbo shows his birth-deformed hand on the road in front of his home in Rumipamba.


Juana Apolo walks out of a cemetery in La Andina where her father, brother and sister are buried, all of whom died of cancer.


Uterine cancer victim Rosana Sisalima with her granddaughter at their home in San Carlos on November 24, 2004. Rosana succumbed to cancer in 2006.


Fifteen-year-old Myra Chicaiza sits with her mother Rosa Mercedes on the floor of their home in Dureno. Myra suffers from sever birth defects due to her mother's exposure to toxic hydrocarbon contamination when she was pregnant with Myra.

Maria Villasis shows the scars from four operations on her liver and gallbladder at her farm near Guanta oil well #8.

Miguel Mashumar and his wife Maria Claudia Antuash sit with a portrait of two of their two daughters who both died as a result of exposure to toxic hydrocarbon contamination.

Carmen Guaman with her fourteen-year-old daughter Veronica at their home in La Primavera. Veronica suffers from a neurological birth defect.


Her leg amputated because of a cancerous tumor, Modesta Briones sits in her house near Parahuaco oil well #2 in the Ecuadoran Amazon.



Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit . and like us on Facebook.
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

High Court Has Dismissed Key Chevron Arguments Against Ecuadorians

See excerpts below from two separate U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rulings concerning the Ecuadorians' lawsuit against Chevron. They counter Chevron's arguments that the $18 billion judgment should not be enforced and that its arbitration claim is binding upon the Ecuadorians.

On enforcement:
"The LAPs hold a judgment from an Ecuadorian court. They may seek to enforce that judgment in any country in the world where Chevron has assets."

Cite: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Chevron Corporation v. Naranjo, Docket Nos. 11-1150-cv (L) 11-1264 (Con), (2d Cir. January 26, 2012), at 27. (emphasis added).

On Chevron's international arbitration claim:
“[Ecuadorian] Plaintiffs are not parties to the [Bilateral Investment Treaty], and that treaty has no application to their claims, their dispute with Chevron therefore cannot be settled through [Bilateral Investment Treaty] arbitration.”

Cite: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corporation, Docket Nos. 10-1020-cv (L) 10-1026 (Con), (2d Cir. March 17, 2011), at 21. (emphasis added).

On Chevron's liability of Texaco's misconduct:

"Chevron Corporation claims, without citation to relevant case law, that it is not bound by the promises made by its predecessors in interest Texaco and ChevronTexaco, Inc. However, in seeking affirmance of the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal, lawyers from ChevronTexaco appeared in this Court and reaffirmed the concessions that Texaco had made in order to secure dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint. In so doing, ChevronTexaco bound itself to those concessions. In 2005, ChevronTexaco dropped the name “Texaco” and reverted to its original name, Chevron Corporation. There is no indication in the record before us that shortening its name had any effect on ChevronTexaco’s legal obligations. Chevron Corporation therefore remains accountable for the promises upon which we and the district court relied in dismissing Plaintiffs’ action. Throughout this Opinion, we use the various corporate names that Chevron Corporation has employed during the course of this litigation only for purposes of clarity. In so doing, we do not attribute any legal significance to the nomenclature used. While the district court did not include Texaco’s promise to satisfy any Ecuadorian judgment in its stipulation and order, an express adoption of the prior inconsistent position is not required. The court need only adopt the position “in some manner, such as by rendering a favorable judgment.” Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 1. (2d Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted); see also Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp., 128 F.3d 2 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1997).

"Here, Texaco had been trying to convince the district court that Ecuador would serve as an adequate alternative forum for resolution of its dispute with Plaintiffs. As part of those efforts, Texaco assured the district court that it would recognize the binding nature of any judgment issued in Ecuador. Doing so displayed Texaco’s well-founded belief that such a promise would make the district court more likely to grant its motion to dismiss. Had Texaco taken a different approach and agreed to participate in the Ecuadorian litigation, but announced an intention to disregard any judgment the Ecuadorian courts might issue, dismissal would have been (to say the least) less likely. We therefore conclude that the district court adopted Texaco’s promise to satisfy any judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, subject to its rights under New York’s Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Act, in awarding Texaco the relief it sought in its motion to dismiss. As a result, that promise, along with Texaco’s more general promises to submit to Ecuadorian jurisdiction, is enforceable against Chevron in this action and any future proceedings between the parties, including enforcement actions, contempt proceedings, and attempts to confirm arbitral awards.

"Chevron’s contention that the Lago Agrio litigation is not the refiled Aguinda action is without merit. The Lago Agrio plaintiffs are substantially the same as those who brought suit in the Southern District of New York, and the claims now being asserted in Lago Agrio are the Ecuadorian equivalent of those dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds."

Cite: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corporation, Docket Nos. 10-1020-cv (L) 10-1026 (Con), (2d Cir. March 17, 2011), at footnotes 3,4 and 5. (emphasis added).


Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like our page on Facebook.
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Maria Aguinda: The Grandmother Who Beat Chevron

Below are two photos of Maria Aguinda, the indigenous woman who has achieved global fame as the grandmother who beat Chevron in the $18 billion environmental lawsuit in Ecuador.

The first photo shows Maria Aguinda in 1993, walking on an oil-slicked road near her community of Rumipamba in the Ecuadorian Amazon. At the time, she was a young mother. The historic lawsuit bearing her name was filed later the same year in New York federal court.

The second photo, taken last week, shows Maria Aguinda almost 19 years later on the steps of Ecuador's National Court of Justice in Quito, the court that is hearing Chevron's final appeal in the case.

According to Chevron, people like Maria Aguinda and thousands of other Ecuadorians who were harmed by the oil giant don't really exist. Chevron lawyer Doak Bishop said the following before an investor arbitration on February 15th: "The plaintiffs are really irrelevant. They always were irrelevant. There were never any real parties in interest in this case. The plaintiff's lawyers have no clients... There will be no prejudice to [the rainforest communities] or any individual by holding up enforcement of the judgment."

Here is a link to a Yahoo story about Maria Aguinda published in 2011, at the time Chevron was found liable for causing an ecological catastrophe and ordered to pay $18 billion in damages. Here is a background memo on the overwhelming evidence undergirding the trial court decision.

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit. Follow us on Twitter at@ChevronPit .
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Texaco Broke It; Chevron Bought It; Now Chevron Has To Fix It

Chevron executives continue to argue before anyone who will listen (and that’s mostly people who have been paid by Chevron to listen) that just because the company bought Texaco doesn’t mean Chevron is responsible for Texaco’s massive contamination of the Ecuador rainforest.

What Chevron neglects to mention is that not only have the Ecuadorian courts refuted that nonsensical argument, but the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has as well.

Here is what the U.S. appellate court judges wrote in a related ruling in footnotes 3, 4 and 5:

“Chevron Corporation claims, without citation to relevant case law, that it is not bound by the promises made by its predecessors in interest Texaco and ChevronTexaco, Inc. However, in seeking affirmance of the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal, lawyers from ChevronTexaco appeared in this Court and reaffirmed the concessions that Texaco had made in order to secure dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint. In so doing, ChevronTexaco bound itself to those concessions.

“In 2005, ChevronTexaco dropped the name “Texaco” and reverted to its original name, Chevron Corporation. There is no indication in the record before us that shortening its name had any effect on ChevronTexaco’s legal obligations.

“Chevron Corporation therefore remains accountable for the promises upon which we and the district court relied in dismissing Plaintiffs’ action.

“Texaco had been trying to convince the district court that Ecuador would serve as an adequate alternative forum for resolution of its dispute with Plaintiffs. As part of those efforts, Texaco assured the district court that it would recognize the binding nature of any judgment issued in Ecuador. Doing so displayed Texaco’s well-founded belief that such a promise would make the district court more likely to grant its motion to dismiss. Had Texaco taken a different approach and agreed to participate in the Ecuadorian litigation, but announced an intention to disregard any judgment the Ecuadorian courts might issue, dismissal would have been (to say the least) less likely.

“We therefore conclude that the district court adopted Texaco’s promise to satisfy any judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, subject to its rights under New York’s Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Act, in awarding Texaco the relief it sought in its motion to dismiss.

“As a result, that promise, along with Texaco’s more general promises to submit to Ecuadorian jurisdiction, is enforceable against Chevron in this action and any future proceedings between the parties, including enforcement actions, contempt proceedings,
and attempts to confirm arbitral awards.”

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit. Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit .
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More