Amazon Defense Coalition: Chevron Fraud in Ecuador -- Response to Article by EON


More Info
									Amazon Defense Coalition: Chevron Fraud in
Ecuador -- Response to Article
September 13, 2010 07:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time  

WASHINGTON--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--The Amazon Defense Coalition issued the following response
today to an article that appeared today on about the oil contamination lawsuit against Chevron, filed by
Ecuadorians living in the contaminated area:

Roger Parloff’s legal analysis in Fortune (Evidence of fraud mounts in Ecuadorian suit against Chevron, September
13) is one-sided and fails to adequately capture the enormous financial risk faced by Chevron in Ecuador, even if
one accepts his erroneous theory about fraud regarding an expert damage assessment. Importantly, Parloff has never
been to Ecuador, never examined the 200,000-page trial record, never seen an original lab report from the 64,000
sampling results at trial, never talked to any witnesses who have testified in the case, and utterly fails to understand
either the enormous quantum of evidence or the procedural rules that govern trials in Chevron’s preferred forum of

Chevron Attacks Court, Not Content of Report

Parloff’s theory (and one adopted by several U.S. judges without expertise in Ecuadorian law and procedure) is that
ex parte contacts with or party submissions to a court-appointed expert are improper and that therefore the
Ecuador damages assessment of $27 billion, prepared by court expert Richard Cabrera, is somehow invalid. This is
incorrect as a matter of fact and law. Moreover, neither Parloff nor Chevron can point to even one aspect of the
Cabrera report that is not reasonable, scientifically sound, and based on the evidence before the court. Given what
we know from the BP disaster in the Gulf and other large environmental clean-ups, the damages number in Ecuador
is actually modest when one considers the half-century of time that the extensive contamination has been harming the
rainforest and its tens of thousands of inhabitants.

Chevron Met Ex Parte & Its Work Used in Court Reports

Parloff failed to fully explain that both parties before the Ecuador court have cooperated with court-appointed
experts throughout the case. Cabrera invited the parties to give him information; this is memorialized in various court 
orders. Chevron, for tactical reasons (apparently because it wanted to discredit the court), chose to boycott the
Cabrera process. But throughout the trial both parties had ex parte contact with a variety of experts on various
occasions and often prepared materials for experts in whole or in part for adoption. This includes Chevron’s
contacts with court-appointed experts such as Gerardo Barros and Jorge Bermeo, who did independent reports on
various aspects of the damages. Some of the independent court experts who prepared reports at Chevron’s request
either used or adopted materials that Chevron’s legal team (including U.S. counsel and U.S. consulting experts)
drafted – exactly the supposed “fraud” that Chevron’s public relations machine falsely claims taints the trial.

Manufactured Controversy Is a Sideshow

Much of the evidence that Parloff breathlessly reports that Chevron’s outside counsel “discovered” has been known
to the court in Ecuador and Chevron itself for more than two years. This includes the fact that Cabrera was given
(under court order) thousands of pages from the plaintiffs for use in his report. The manufactured controversy over
the Cabrera report is a sideshow designed by Chevron to fog up the issue of its own enormous liability in the face of
questions from several of its large institutional shareholders and analysts who cover the oil industry. There are now
more than 100 expert reports in evidence before the Ecuador court, totaling tens of thousands of pages. An
additional damage assessment from each party is due September 16th; Chevron, which has never been interested in
the truth, has announced that it will boycott that process and forego the submission of its own report.

Plaintiffs In Strong Enforcement Position
The idea that Ecuador’s court must base damages only on the Cabrera report is ludicrous. Under Ecuadorian law,
the judge is not required to adopt any portion of any expert report. Thus, for Chevron to focus its million-dollar U.S.
discovery strategy on the Cabrera report is increasingly futile. Parloff fails to realize that even if an enforcement court 
in the U.S. or some other country were to find contacts between a party and court experts to be improper, it would
not nullify a finding of liability and damages given the voluminous evidence against Chevron and the numerous
independent bases to impose liability and damages -- including Chevron’s own technical reports, which prove the
case of the plaintiffs. Contrary to Parloff’s conclusion, that puts the Amazonian plaintiffs in a very strong litigation
position in an enforcement context.

Chevron’s Abusive Litigation Causes More Suffering

Chevron faces an enormous liability in Ecuador because it deliberately and indisputably discharged billions of gallons
of toxic waste into the rainforest over a 26-year period, decimating indigenous groups and poisoning the water
supply in an area the size of Rhode Island. Rather than deal with the evidence, Chevron has unleashed a massive
public relations assault on the Ecuador court system, tried to sue lawyers for the plaintiffs, tried to intimidate court-
appointed experts into quitting the case and launched an abusive collateral litigation strategy in U.S. federal courts to
try to exhaust the resources of the Amazonian communities. Lacking a real defense, Chevron has tried to undermine
the rule of law as part of “delay and distract” stratagem that keeps tens of thousands of suffering people waiting
decades for a resolution of their claims. Chevron’s latest ploy was to recruit a journalist to go undercover in Ecuador
to spy on court personnel and the plaintiffs, who in the past have been victimized with death threats and an attempted
kidnapping. Chevron’s behavior in the Ecuador trial is a textbook example of abusive litigation.

Chevron Turns Down Chance To Submit Its Own Damage Assessment

The Ecuador court order in early August allowed Chevron to submit its own damages assessment. That should have
been seen as a victory for the company. One would think its lawyers would be grinning from ear to ear. Instead, the
company’s local counsel filed a motion to block the court’s order and hence the company’s own ability to get what it
always asked for – the right to go head to head with Cabrera on a damages assessment. This is just the latest and
most obvious sign of the Chevron’s obstructionism.

The Real Story is Chevron’s Fraud

Chevron’s problem in Ecuador is that it is losing the case based on the evidence and that its own officials are under
criminal indictment for fraud related to a sham remediation. The real story is that the evidence convincingly
demonstrates that an American company went to a foreign nation and deliberately devastated the Amazon rainforest
environment out of greed. The destruction was done in violation of Ecuadorian laws, industry standards, Chevron’s
own operating contract, and all sense of basic decency. Chevron’s allegations of “fraud” are themselves part of an
elaborate scheme to cover up the company’s pervasive illegality in its Ecuador drilling operation and in its advocacy
during the trial.

Amazon Defense Coalition
Karen Hinton, 703-798-3109


To top