Law Center Search Results

This case is part of the long-running story about the efforts by Ecuadorian natives and their American lawyers and consultants to win billions of dollars for pollution from oil drilling operations in Ecuador many years ago. The issue is whether an American court may bar enforcement of an $18 billion judgment from an Ecuador court to prevent fraud. The NAM and the National Foreign Trade Council filed an amicus brief on June 30, 2011, arguing that the preliminary injunction issued by the trial judge is entirely consistent with principles of international comity and should be affirmed. The United States has the authority to halt a campaign of apparent fraud and alleged corruption orchestrated by U.S. citizens and designed to benefit foreign citizens with significant contacts in the United States. In addition, we argued that U.S. courts can conduct parallel proceedings using concurrent prescriptive jurisdiction, and can prevent the enforcement of an improper judgment in other jurisdictions that do not have prescriptive jurisdiction.

On September 19, the appeals court vacated the trial court's injunction, put those proceedings on hold, and received assurances from the plaintiffs that they would not seek to enforce the Ecuadoran judgment while it is being appealed in Ecuador.

On Jan. 26, 2012, the Second Circuit issued an opinion that the New York Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act does not allow pre-enforcement challenges of foreign judgments. Chevron has to wait until the Ecuadorian plaintiffs try to enforce their damages award in New York before it can challenge the award. Other issues in the case were therefore moot. The court's decision is based on an interpretation of state law that does not address the company's claims of fraud in the underlying litigation.

The Second Circuit ruled that the New York Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act does not allow pre-enforcement challenges of foreign judgments. If Chevron wants to prevent enforcement of an $18 billion judgment from an Ecuadorian court, it must wait until the Ecuadorian plaintiffs try to enforce their damages award in New York. The court's decision is based on an interpretation of state law that does not address the company's claims of fraud in the underlying litigation.

Chevron appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the NAM filed an amicus brief supporting the appeal. A summary of the lower court's proceeding is linked below. Our amicus brief told the Supreme Court the importance of the case, since the Second Circuit's ruling could inflict significant injury on manufacturers that do business in foreign states. The brief argued that principles of international comity support Chevron's request for an injunction that helps to ensure that the international legal system is not tainted and burdened by alleged fraud occurring in part in the United States. We argued that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the alleged fraud, and that the trial court's injunction was an appropriate exercise of the power to enforce substantive legal norms as long as there is no direct conflict with another nation that has similar authority over the conduct. Only Ecuador has such an interest, and the injunction here did not interfere with their jurisdiction.

On Oct. 9, the Court declined to review the case.