23.03.2013 Views

jjR0b

jjR0b

jjR0b

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

standing to represent and assert legal claims for environmental damage. Ecuador, and only<br />

Ecuador, could demand environmental remediation; individuals could assert only individual<br />

property damage or personal injury claims. Accordingly, TexPet's settlement with Ecuador and<br />

the affected municipalities and provinces fully discharged TexPet from any responsibility or<br />

liability that may have existed for environmental impact as a result ofthe consortium's activities,<br />

except individual personal injury claims.<br />

2. U.S. Plaintiffs' Lawyers Devise Baseless Litigation Against Chevron in<br />

Ecuador<br />

58. Certain plaintiffs' attorneys in the United States sought to exploit any<br />

environmental harm in the Oriente region by turning it into a financial windfall for themselves.<br />

These U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys (including Defendant Donziger, and co-conspirators Kohn and<br />

Bonifaz), devised a plan to use TexPet's former participation in the consortium as the basis for<br />

extracting large sums of money from TexPet's parent, Texaco, Inc. ("Texaco"). As Kohn<br />

described his motivation, "[A]t the end of the day ... , it [would] be a lucrative case for the<br />

firm." As Donziger described it, "I sit back and dream .... Billions of dollars on the table. A<br />

movie, a possible book." In other words, a financial windfall of unprecedented proportion, and<br />

one that would make Donziger "quite wealthy." According to Donziger's estimates, he thought<br />

his "own fee right now would be around 200m[illion]."<br />

59. In 1993 and 1994, these U.S. plaintiffs' attorneys filed two lawsuits against<br />

Texaco in federal district court in New York, purportedly on behalf of classes of"30,000<br />

residents" of the Oriente and "25,000 residents" of Peru. See Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., No. 93<br />

Civ. 7527 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 1993) ("Aguinda") and Jota v. Texaco, Inc., No. 94 Civ. 9266<br />

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 1994) ("Jota"). Those actions were dismissed on grounds includingjorum<br />

non conveniens, international comity, and failure to join indispensable parties Petroecuador and<br />

the Republic of Ecuador.<br />

60. Because Ecuador and Petroecuador had released TexPet from liability following<br />

its remediation efforts and because Ecuadorian law does not allow class actions, the U.S.<br />

28

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!