hRb7u

plaintiffs' attorneys required the government's cooperation to bring a potentially lucrative
lawsuit in Ecuador. The U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys had no desire to sue Petroecuador or Ecuador
for the harms that had occurred-despite their actual culpability-because, as Defendant
Donziger explained, "[T]he government here will never pay for any judgment. In contrast,
Texaco can pay." In order to get the "juicy check" that, as Fajardo put it, was the ultimate goal,
the U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys struck a deal with the Ecuadorian government to enable those
attorneys to bring an action against a convenient U.S. target.
61. The U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys agreed not to sue Petroecuador and assured the
Republic of Ecuador that it would benefit from any judgment entered against Chevron in
exchange for public and private governmental support for the U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys' case.
62. The U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys presented Ecuador's Attorney General with written
promises not to pursue legal action against the Republic of Ecuador or Petroecuador or to collect
a judgment against Ecuador ifone were awarded to them. Bonifaz stated, "[I]fthe U.S. court [in
the Aguinda or Jota actions] finds both Petro ecuador and Texaco guilty, we will not accept the
percentage of the claim assigned to [Petroecuador]." And he admitted that the Lago Agrio
Plaintiffs had "committed in legal documents not to sue Ecuador."
63. With reported legislative assistance from the U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys, Ecuador
enacted the Environmental Management Act of 1999 (the "EMA"). For the first time, the EMA
enabled private individuals to bring generalized environmental injury claims previously held
exclusively by the state. It also extended standing for the first time to private citizens to enforce
"collective environmental rights" for environmental harm. These actions are private in name
only, however, because the EMA provides that any monetary judgment be awarded to the
"community."
64. With a new and highly advantageous legal framework thus in place, the U.S.
plaintiffs' attorneys, joined and assisted by other RICO Defendants and their co-conspirators,
filed the Lago Agrio Litigation, Maria Aguinda et al. v. Chevron-Texaco, in May 2003 in the
Superior Court of Nueva Loja, Ecuador. As a result of the EMA, and the RICO Defendants'
29