Preliminary Injunction
| Pages | 17-19 |
17
international law update Volume 18, January–March 2012
© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
defend this action in Ohio is heavy because he lives
in Russia and would have to travel around the world
to engage in litigation.” [Slip op. 16-17]
“Second, Ohio has no interest in this lawsuit—
which involves an alleged agreement that was not
negotiated in Ohio, agreed to in Ohio, or intended
to be performed in Ohio—when neither party is
a resident or citizen of Ohio, foreign law will be
applied, and no eects from the dispute will be felt
in Ohio.”
“Finally, although Conn clearly has an interest
in bringing this action in Ohio, he is not foreclosed
from bringing the suit in the District of Columbia—
indeed, his counsel agreed at oral argument that
this was an option—and Conn may always bring
the lawsuit in a Russian court, which he admits
would have jurisdiction and would hear the case on
the merits, even if the merits appear to be stacked
against Conn under Russian law. erefore, Ohio
is not the only forum where Conn may attempt to
gain relief from his alleged harm.” [Slip op. 17]
: Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (6th Cir.
2012).
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
I
E
N Y, S
C ’
, []
P
[] N Y ’ U
F M J R
A
’
From 1964 to 1992, Texaco collaborated with
the Ecuadorian government to extract oil in the Lago
Agrio region of the Ecuadorian Amazon. In 1992,
Texaco withdrew from its oil extraction eorts. e
Plaintis are residents of the Lago Agrio region and
led a federal suit in the Southern District of New
York, alleging several tort claims. e district court
dismissed the Plaintis’ claims on the ground of
international comity and forum non conveniens. e
court found that the claims were not related to the
United States but solely related to Ecuador. After
several years of litigation, Texaco agreed to submit to
the jurisdiction of the Ecuadorian courts; however,
it contested the validity of the ultimate Ecuadorian
judgment.
In 1994, Texaco entered into a settlement with
the Ecuadorian government and its government-
owned oil company, Petroecuador. Under the
settlement, Texaco’s subsidiary agreed to fund several
environmental remediation projects to gain a release
from liability. e parties nalized the settlement
in 1998, after Chevron, which acquired Texaco in
2001, spent $40 million on the remediation.
Ecuador and Chevron continue to litigate the
validity and eect of the settlement, however, before
an arbitration panel. After the court dismissed the
New York action, the Plaintis led a lawsuit against
Chevron in Ecuador. After seven years of litigation,
the Ecuadorian trial court issued a decision holding
Chevron liable for $8.6 billion in compensatory
damages and $8.6 billion in punitive damages unless
Chevron apologized within fourteen days. Chevron
did not apologize and the court entered a judgment
of $17.2 billion against it.
In 2005, one of the Plaintis contacted a
documentary lmmaker and created a lm depicting
the relevant environmental and political issues
which had arisen in Ecuador. During the lm, the
lmmaker included footage that suggested that one
of the Plainti’s experts had been working hand-in-
glove with the Plaintis during his investigations.
After Chevron saw this footage, it launched
several discovery proceedings in various U.S. district
courts. rough these proceedings, Chevron gained
access to an extraordinary quantity of material.
Included in the material were several hundred
hours of outtakes from the documentary lm. is
footage featured the expert stating his disdain for
the Ecuadorian judiciary; his poor opinion of the
Plaintis’ litigation; his views on various legislative,
and political strategies; and how the Plaintis
planned to use any resulting Ecuadorian judgment
to force a quick settlement with Chevron.
Based on this new material, Chevron alleges
that fraud had tainted the Ecuadorian judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial