Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Louis M. Solomon
written on District Judge Kaplan's decision earlier this year -
a 127-page decision preliminary enjoining enforcement, anywhere in
the world, of an Ecuadorian judgment totaling $8.646 billion obtained by Lago
Agrio plaintiffs (indigenous peoples in the Amazonian rain forest) against Chevron
Corp., which bought the assets directly or indirectly from Texaco, Inc. in
2001 and was treated as the successor in interest. Chevron Corp.
v. Donziger, et al., 11 Civ. 0691 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2011) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]. The judgment arose out of
environmental damage that the Ecuadorian court found had been done by
Texaco. The case has been a cause célèbre, full of international practice
novelties and learnings.
entering the preliminary injunction, the District Court ruled: "In
determining whether a foreign legal system "provide[s] impartial tribunals
[and] procedures compatible with due process of law," a court considers not
only the structure and design of the judicial system at issue, but also "its
practice during the period in question". The District Court also found
that the Ecuadorian judicial system "does not provide impartial tribunals and
due process". For this proposition the Court relied on sources internal
and external to the litigation. The District Court did not quantify the
other countries of the world as to which the same sources would conclude the
same thing. And in rejecting the argument that international comity would
be undermined by a U.S. court's interference with Ecuadorian judicial process,
the District Court relied on China Trade & Development Corp. v. M.V.
Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33 (2d Cir 1987) [enhanced version ],
which adumbrated the standard for the use of one of the most powerful tools in
international practice (see the discussion of enjoining parties from pursuing litigation in non-U.S.
jurisdictions in our e-book, International
Practice: Topics and Trends). The District Court found the China
Trade factors satisfied but assumed for these purposes that the U.S. court would
be rendering a substantive decision on the enforceability of the Ecuadorian
judgment itself, not the underlying facts and claims.
reluctance to condemn a non-U.S. judicial regime, the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit went in a different rhetorical direction from the Southern
District of New York. In In
re Application of Chevron Corp.,
Nos. 10-4699, 11-1099 (3d Cir. 25 May 2011) [enhanced version ], the Third Circuit stated:
In explaining our analysis of the
fraud issue, we acknowledge the seriousness of the fraud that the Chevron
applicants have alleged has been involved in this litigation. In addition to an
Ecuadorian court entering a massive judgment against Chevron, the liberty of
two individuals may be at stake. Yet the circumstances supporting the
claim of fraud largely are allegations and allegations are not factual
findings. Furthermore, the Chevron applicants are asking that American
courts make a finding that the attorneys in a civil case in Ecuador can control
the Ecuadorian criminal justice system. Though it is obvious that the
Ecuadorian judicial system is different from that in the United States, those
differences provide no basis for disregarding or disparaging that system.
American courts, though justifiably proud of our system, should understand that
other countries may organize their judicial systems as they see fit.
the Second Circuit, and, in the appeal from the District Court's preliminary
injunction ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated the preliminary injunction,
issuing its short-form order now and stating that an opinion addressing the
issues will follow "in due course". Chevron
Corp. v. Hugo Gerado Camacho Naranjo, et al., No. 11-1150-cv(L).
The order also denies an application to reassign the case away from the
District Court now assigned to the case (Kaplan, J.) but stays for the time
being the litigation of Count 9 of the Chevron complaint, which seeks relief
precluding the Ecuadorian judgment from being enforced anywhere in the world.
International Practice Law Blog for more analysis of international
and foreign law issues.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with
us through our corporate site.