Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.

Last updated

Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. was a lawsuit against Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a subsidiary of Chevron USA, which went to trial in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, Nigerian citizens who had been injured during or who had survived human rights violations perpetrated by Nigerian military personnel, alleged that the Chevron subsidiary backed the military action and that the parent company thus should bear liability in US courts for the resultant fallout. The suit was decided on December 1, 2008, when nine jurors unanimously agreed Chevron was not liable for any of the numerous allegations. Judgment was entered the next day, officially exonerating Chevron.

Contents

Background

During the late 1990s, Nigerian community organizers were protesting Chevron's regional business activities, alleging negative environmental and social impact. These organizers sought cessation of Chevron's conduct, reparations, and cleanup. [1]

The Bowoto case stems from two incidents in which Chevron was alleged to have hired or provided assistance to Nigerian security forces confronting local citizens. At dispute in the case was Chevron's role in these incidents and whether this role could be tied to liability for resultant damages. [2] [3]

Between May 25 and 28, 1998, approximately 100 community protesters occupied the Parabe platform, a Chevron Nigeria-owned offshore drilling rig and construction barge located in the Niger delta. Chevron Nigeria was believed to have hired Nigerian government security agents to forcibly remove the protesters and to have provided the agents with Chevron-leased helicopters to transport their troops to and from the barge. The security forces allegedly shot four protesters, killing two, and captured and tortured a fifth. [4] Chevron claimed the protesters were "kidnappers and extortionists who held 175 people hostage for three days while (Chevron Nigeria) vainly tried to negotiate with them." [5]

On January 4, 1999, Nigerian government security forces launched an assault on the villages of Opia and Ikenyan, military personnel shooting civilians and setting fire to buildings. Chevron was alleged to have provided assistance to the Nigerian military forces in the form of helicopters and sea trucks piloted by Chevron Nigeria employees. [6] Other accounts suggest Chevron hired the security forces and helped plan the attack on the villages in retaliation for the protesters' activities. [7] (On March 12, 2008, the Botowo plaintiffs' attorneys voluntarily dismissed claims connected to Opia and Ikenyan due to fraud or conflict of interest.) [8]

With the assistance of several nonprofit organizations including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Public Interest Lawyers Group, and EarthRights International , a group of victims and the relatives of some of those killed in the attacks filed suit against ChevronTexaco Corporation in 1999. The complaint alleged that "[t]he military, at the request of, and with the participation and complicity of Chevron, killed and injured people, destroyed churches, religious shrines and water wells; burned down homes, killed livestock; and destroyed canoes and fishing equipment belonging to villagers." [9] The plaintiffs raised several federal claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). They also alleged California state law claims of wrongful death, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence per se, among others. [10]

The first major ruling in the case came in 2004 when the district court denied Chevron's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs had supplied sufficient evidence that ChevronTexaco could be found responsible for the actions of its subsidiary. Therefore, the case could go forward to trial to determine if plaintiffs may pierce the corporate veil. [4]

It was not until June 2005 that the plaintiffs and the court learned that ChevronTexaco failed to disclose that Chevron USA, Inc. rather than Chevron Overseas Petroleum Inc. controlled the subsidiary in Nigeria. This is significant because the plaintiffs were suing the wrong defendant. Presiding U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston chided Chevron's attorneys for keeping silent, and intimated that they may have done so on purpose to delay or otherwise obstruct the plaintiffs' claims. [11]

Judge Illston made a series of decisions in August 2006. First and foremost, she allowed the plaintiffs to make Chevron USA a defendant. She also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Claims Act. However, the court allowed the international law claim of crimes against humanity to go forward temporarily. [12] [13] On August 13, 2007, however, Judge Illston dismissed the claim of crimes against humanity.

In March 2007, the court granted Chevron's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' RICO claim. To win a RICO claim, the plaintiffs needed to show (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity. The court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the first element; although they provided evidence that a significant amount of the oil extracted in Nigeria was exported to the United States, the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence that the two incidents underlying this litigation or Chevron's treatment of the local communities had any impact on the U.S. economy. [14]

On December 1, 2008, the jury delivered a complete defense verdict for Chevron. On September 10, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict in favor of Chevron Corporation. [15]

Legal regulation of multinational corporations is difficult because they are not under the control of any one jurisdiction. Rather, they are subject to multiple legal systems, including the country of their corporate headquarters as well as the countries in which they operate. There is no international oversight body to regulate multinational corporations, or an international forum in which suit may be brought against multinational corporations. It can be difficult for domestic courts to hold multinational corporations responsible for jurisdictional reasons or because the particular government lacks the legal infrastructure to impose liability. An example of a jurisdictional shortcoming in the United States is the difficulty of piercing the corporate veil. It can be extremely difficult to hold a parent company liable for acts committed by its subsidiary. Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. is an example of the difficulties in suing a multinational corporation for alleged violations of human rights, and perhaps the need for more formal regulation and accountability of multinational corporations.

Related Research Articles

Texaco, Inc. is an American oil brand owned and operated by Chevron Corporation. Its flagship product is its fuel "Texaco with Techron". It also owned the Havoline motor oil brand. Texaco was an independent company until its refining operations merged into Chevron, at which time most of its station franchises were divested to Shell plc through its American division.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chevron Corporation</span> American multinational energy corporation

Chevron Corporation is an American multinational energy corporation predominantly specializing in oil and gas. The second-largest direct descendant of Standard Oil, and originally known as the Standard Oil Company of California, it is headquartered in San Ramon, California, and active in more than 180 countries. Within oil and gas, Chevron is vertical integrated and is involved in hydrocarbon exploration, production, refining, marketing and transport, chemicals manufacturing and sales, and power generation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

A civil conspiracy is a form of conspiracy involving an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A form of collusion, a conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Constitutional Rights</span> U.S. nonprofit organization

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a progressive non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, New York, in the United States. It was founded in 1966 by Arthur Kinoy, William Kunstler and others particularly to support activists in the implementation of civil rights legislation and to achieve social justice.

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC is a US plaintiffs' law firm, established in 1965 and based in New York City. It has mounted many class action cases on behalf of investors, and has been recognized as among the leading firms in its field by the National Law Journal, RiskMetrics Group, Securities Class Action Services, and Law360.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pablo Fajardo</span> Ecuadorian lawyer and activist

Pablo Fajardo Mendoza is an Ecuadorian lawyer and activist. He is the lawyer that has been leading the litigation against Chevron Corporation related to the environmental disaster he alleged was caused by the oil operations of Texaco in the Lago Agrio oil field between 1964 and 1990. In this process, Fajardo represented the over 30,000 local inhabitants affected by the spill of crude oil and toxic waste. Chevron, which instead blames Petroecuador and has not paid the judgement, has had repeated success in arguing against it. The judgement has been validated by further Ecuadorian courts and the Supreme Court of Canada but it has been declared fraudulently obtained by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and an arbitration court in The Hague.

Human rights violations in Aceh, Indonesia occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s when ExxonMobil hired Indonesian military units to guard their Arun gas field, and these military units raided and razed local villages. Government inquiries have extensively documented these abuses. Victims allege that ExxonMobil knew about the atrocities, which include assault, torture, and murder, and should be liable for them. The company denies these accusations; its primary defense is that the human rights violations which were occurring were not a result of specific intention of the organization and therefore it cannot be held liable.

The Lago Agrio oil field is an oil-rich area near the city of Nueva Loja in the province of Sucumbíos, Ecuador. It is located in the Western Oriente Basin. The site's hydrocarbon-bearing formations are the Cretaceous Napo and Hollin formations. Oil was discovered in the area in 1960s. The Lago Agrio field is known internationally for the serious ecological problems that oil development has created there, including water pollution, soil contamination, deforestation and cultural upheaval. Located in Cofan territory near the Colombian border, it is one of twelve production areas that developed when Ecuador began to export petroleum.

The Wiwa- family lawsuits against Royal Dutch Shell were three separate lawsuits brought in 1996 by the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa against Royal Dutch Shell, its subsidiary Shell Nigeria and the subsidiary's CEO Brian Anderson. Charges included human rights abuses against the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta, summary execution, torture, arbitrary arrest, and wrongful death. After 12 years of Shell petitioning the court not to hear the cases, they were heard 26 May 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amazon Watch</span>

Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996, and based in Oakland, California, it works to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. It partners with indigenous and environmental organizations in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Brazil in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.

<i>Doe v. Unocal Corp.</i>

Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.

<i>Crude</i> (2009 film) 2009 American film

Crude is a 2009 American documentary film directed and produced by Joe Berlinger. It follows a two-year portion of an ongoing class action lawsuit against the Chevron Corporation in Ecuador.

John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp (09–7125) is a lawsuit filed in the United States by 11 Indonesian villagers against ExxonMobil Corporation alleging that the company is responsible for human rights violations in the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. The case has broad implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries. Indonesian security forces committed torture, rape, and murder against the plaintiffs and their families while under contract with ExxonMobil to guard the Arun gas field during the late 1990s and early 2000s; plaintiffs claim that Exxon is responsible for these atrocities.

Susan L. Burke is an American lawyer noted for her work to reform the military system of prosecuting rape and assault and in representing plaintiffs suing the American military or military contractors, such as the Abtan v. Blackwater case. She represented former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison in a suit against interrogators and translators from CACI and Titan Corp. who were tasked with obtaining military intelligence from them during their detention. Her work was featured in the documentaries The Invisible War and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In 2015, the National Law Journal named Burke one of the top 75 female attorneys in the nation.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steven Donziger</span> American lawyer, human rights activist (born 1961)

Steven Robert Donziger is an American attorney known for his legal battles with Chevron, particularly Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. and other cases in which he represented over 30,000 farmers and indigenous people who suffered environmental damage and health problems caused by oil drilling in the Lago Agrio oil field of Ecuador. The Ecuadorian court awarded the plaintiffs $9.5 billion in damages, which led Chevron to withdraw its assets from Ecuador and launch legal action against Donziger in the US. In 2011, Chevron filed a RICO (anti-corruption) suit against Donziger in New York City. The case was heard by US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who determined that the ruling of the Ecuadorian court could not be enforced in the US because it was procured by fraud, bribery, and racketeering activities. As a result of this case, Donziger was disbarred from practicing law in New York in 2018.

Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. is a class-action lawsuit against Texaco Petroleum. it was filed in 1993 by Steven Donziger for indigenous collectives in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The lawsuit sought compensation for "alleged environmental and personal injuries arising out of Texaco's oil exploration and extraction operations in the Oriente region between 1964 and 1992." Legal proceedings followed in courts in Ecuador and the United States for about a decade. The case was dismissed on May 30, 2001, on grounds of Forum non conveniens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of Chevron</span> Overview of controversies involving Chevron Corporation

Chevron Corporation has been one of the most widely-criticized companies in the world, mostly stemming from its activities and involving climate change. Chevron's most widely-known scandal involves Texaco's activities in the Lago Agrio oil field, which Chevron is deemed responsible for due to its acquisition of Texaco in 2001. Chevron has been most widely criticized for its handling of litigation against it filed by residents of the Lago Agrio region, which included what activists see as the "jailing" of Lago Agrio lawyer Steven Donziger.

References

  1. ↑ Available at Center for Constitutional Rights Archived May 23, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ "Indonesian Bloodshed Provokes ExxonMobil Lawsuit X: Nigeria II--Bowoto v. Chevron" Newsdesk.org (May 13, 2002). "Newsdesk.org: Indonesian Bloodshed Provokes ExxonMobil Lawsuit. X: Nigeria II -- Bowoto v. Chevron". Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved May 15, 2007.
  3. ↑ Huang, Jennifer "U.S. Courts Tackle Foreign Abuses," Newsdesk.org (Jun. 26, 2004). "Newsdesk.org | : U.S. Courts Tackle Foreign Abuses". Archived from the original on February 13, 2007. Retrieved May 15, 2007.
  4. 1 2 Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 312F. Supp. 2d1229 (N.D. Cal.2004).
  5. ↑ Jurgens, Rick (May 18, 2003). "Chevron Scrutinized for Role in Nigeria Lawsuit," Contra Costa Times, pg. G01.
  6. ↑ Center for Constitutional Rights Archived May 23, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  7. ↑ Jurgens, pg. G01.
  8. ↑ "Nigerians pull half of claims in Chevron suit" San Francisco Chronicle
  9. ↑ Liane Jackson, (Apr. 2003). "Nigerians Seek Retribution from Oil Giant," Corporate Legal Times pg. 56.
  10. ↑ See Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. Complaint Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ MacLean, Pamela A. (Sept. 4, 1996). "Lawyers Rebuked in Human Rights Case," The National Law Journal, pg. 4.
  12. ↑ Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C99-02506SI, 2006 WL 2455752 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
  13. ↑ MacLean, pg. 4.
  14. ↑ Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 481F. Supp. 2d1010 (N.D. Cal.2007).
  15. ↑ Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621F.3d1116 (9th Cir.2010).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.