 |
| Texaco waste site, credit: Kayana |
Chevron lost its Supreme Court plea to block global enforcement of a $9bn judgment lodged against it by an Ecuadorian court for contamination of the Amazon rainforest.
{Chevon}. The decision to decline review of a US Second Circuit Court of Appeals order overturning an injunction against enforcement came without an opinion of the Court. The decision is somewhat surprising to Court observers who have
noted the conservative Court's willingness to protect international corporations from damage suits. In addition Chevron's case was briefed by a former Solicitor General of the United States that has built a record of success representing corporate clients before the highest federal court. The US Chamber of Commerce, Halliburton and the the National Association of Manufacturers filed briefs in support of the oil company giant. Chevron has mounted an multi-forum, international assault against the judgment, one of the largest ever assessed against a corporation for environmental damages. It was issued in 2011 after an eight-year trial in an oil town court that found Texaco, purchased by Chevron in 2001, deliberately dumped more than 16 billion gallons of toxic waste into Amazonian waterways from 1964 to 1992. 900 waste pits were dug into the rainforest floor, filled with oil sludge and abandoned by Texaco. Expert testimony estimated the amount of toxic material in these pits exceeds 5.6 million cubic meters. These pits continue to leech heavy metals and other toxins into the soil and water. The contamination has caused cancer and decimated indigenous people who rely on the water for drinking bathing and fishing. The decision was upheld on appeal in Ecuador, but Chevron refused to pay alleging fraud at the trial proceedings. Not a single US court in 23 separate actions has accepted Chevron's fraud allegations as true. Thirty thousand plaintiffs hired lawyers to file seizure actions targeting Chevron assets around the world to enforce the trial court's judgment in their favor. Chevron's latest failure to stop enforcement actions even before
courts favorable to corporate litigants indicates it may have to pay for the damage done afterall.
