SlideShare a Scribd company logo
August 1, 2017
Mr. V.V. Veeder, QC
Essex Court Chambers
24 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London WC2A 3EG
United Kingdom
Prof. Vaughan Lowe, QC
Essex Court Chambers,
24 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London WC2A 3EG
United Kingdom
Dr. Horacio Grigera Naón
5224 Elliott Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
USA
Mr. Martin Doe
Ms. Jessica Wells
Permanent Court of Arbitration
Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Members of the Tribunal,
In the Tribunal’s communication of 21 July 2017, the Tribunal requests Ecuador “to
comment on the account provided by the Claimants as a factual chronology of the progress to date
of the enforcement proceedings in Canada, Brazil and Argentina,” and further invited the parties
to address, “insofar as relevant to the Respondent’s current application … the decision of The
Hague Court of Appeal of 18 July 2017.”
Regarding the latter of the two points, Ecuador is currently evaluating whether to appeal
the 18 July 2017 decision to the Dutch Supreme Court. Given that Ecuador’s application to the
Tribunal to terminate or dissolve the interim award rests on the lack of current “urgency,” a matter
not before the Dutch courts, Ecuador does not find discussion of the recent court decision germane
and declines the Tribunal’s invitation to address it here. The parties have nonetheless provided an
agreed-upon translation of the Dutch court decision to the Tribunal for its review and
consideration, and Ecuador is prepared to address any aspect of the decision should the Tribunal
so require. Ecuador thus limits its discussion herein to the three pending enforcement actions.
To persuade the Tribunal to issue the (successive) interim award(s), in 2012 Claimants
asserted that in the absence of emergency relief by this Tribunal the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs were
poised to launch a “worldwide enforcement campaign”1
involving “potentially dozens of foreign
courts.”2
Relying on the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ public rhetoric, Claimants argued that Chevron
was facing the likelihood of “ex parte” seizures of operational assets (oil tankers, wells and
pipelines) with no opportunity to be heard. These resulting seizures, Claimants concluded, would
be devastating to Chevron. “Missing product deliveries as a result of … planned asset seizures”
1
Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 2 February 2012 at 5.
2
Id. at 7 (emphasis added).
August 1, 2017
Page 2
of Chevron’s “oil tankers, wells or pipelines” would “damage Chevron’s business reputation as a
reliable supplier and harm the valuable customer goodwill Chevron has developed over the past
130 years.”3
Since the Lago Agrio Judgment became enforceable, not one single oil tanker, well or
pipeline has ever been seized. The extraordinary dangers Claimants once claimed were allegedly
imminent never materialized. The Lago Agrio Plaintiffs have brought just three enforcement
actions, all of which were initiated in or prior to 2012. Not a single enforcement action has been
launched since 2012. Additionally, Chevron continues to advise in its press releases and in its
shareholder communications that it faces no threat of serious harm.4
And as Respondent advised
in 2012 and noted again in its 12 July 2017 application, Claimants have never been able to identify
even a single jurisdiction in which it has assets where it would be denied an opportunity to be
heard in connection with any attempt to enforce the Lago Agrio Judgment.5
Claimants’ own chronology of these enforcement actions belies their 2012 claims and
instead confirms that Chevron does not confront any imminent threat of irreparable harm
warranting preservation of the interim awards.
As a preliminary matter, in Respondent’s letter to the Tribunal dated 12 July 2017, Ecuador
observed that “[e]nforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment is now a legal impossibility in the
United States, i.e., the only jurisdiction where Chevron, the party defendant in those proceedings,
apparently has direct assets (that is, other than through subsidiaries).”6
Claimants dispute neither
proposition, thereby acknowledging that enforcement is a legal impossibility in the United States
and that Chevron has no direct assets in any jurisdiction. This is reason enough to terminate the
interim awards.
Nothing in the three pending enforcement actions, even by Chevron’s accounts, suggests a
different outcome:
Proceedings in Canada. As a preliminary matter, Chevron is fully participating in the
Canadian proceedings so there is no threat of the previously-predicted “ex parte seizures.” Further,
by Claimants’ own account, just this year the Canadian first-instance court “granted a motion for
summary judgment in favor of Chevron Canada Limited, finding that it is a separate entity from
Chevron, not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit, not a debtor to the Judgment, and, therefore,
dismissed from the case,” and further “dismissed [the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’] motion to amend”
3
Id. (citing Ex. C-1039, Declaration of Rex Mitchell in Support of Chevron Corporation’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Feb 15, 2011).
4
See Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-1178, 2017 WL 1198372
(U.S. June 19, 2017).
5
Respondent’s letter to the Tribunal dated 12 July 2017 at 3-4 (quoting Hr’g Tr., 11 Feb. 2012, at 198-
201).
6
Id. at 2.
August 1, 2017
Page 3
their statement of claim.7
In sum, the Canadian court has declined to enforce the Lago Agrio
Judgment.
As it stands, the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs are left appealing the dismissal to the second instance
court, with both parties having yet the further right to seek review of any adverse decision from
the second-instance court to the Canadian Supreme Court.8
Ecuador has been advised by its expert
that any decision by the Canadian Supreme Court would likely issue not before late 2019 or early
2020.
More importantly, even if the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs were to obtain a reversal of the first-
instance court decision, Chevron would then have the right to contest enforcement—back in the
first-instance court—based on its public policy defense. That proceeding would afford the parties
the further right to discovery and an eventual trial, with both parties retaining the right to appeal
to the appellate court and eventually, again, to the Canadian Supreme Court.9
In short, there will be no ex parte seizures of any oil tankers, vessels or wells in Canada.
And there is no threat of any final decision for many years to come.
Proceedings in Brazil. The Brazilian recognition action has had little activity. As
Claimants themselves reported more than two years ago “the Federal Prosecutor issued an opinion
(published on May 13, 2015) recommending that the [first instance court] not recognize the
Judgment … and concluding that recognizing the Judgment would be contrary to Brazilian public
order.”10
Based on our research, there has been a general lack of activity in the first instance court
ever since, and there is no reason to believe a decision is forthcoming imminently. More
importantly, however, even if the first instance court were ever to override the Federal Prosecutor’s
recommendation and recognize the Lago Agrio Judgment, Chevron would have two layers of
appellate review, with no final decision expected for several years.11
As is the case in Canada, there is absolutely no threat of any ex parte seizures. For that
matter, there is no threat of any final decision for years to come.12
To be clear, the pending
proceeding is focused only on the recognition of the Ecuadorian court judgment. Only if and after
that is obtained would the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs be in a position to bring a legal action to enforce
on the judgment, in which case Chevron would have the right to contest enforcement.13
7
Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 19 July 2017 at 4.
8
R-443, Affidavit of George J. Pollack, at 21, 22, 19.
9
Id. at 19-22, 25, 36.
10
Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 19 July 2017 at 5.
11
R-444, Affidavit of Uyeda and Dourado, at 17-24.
12
Id. at 22.
13
Id. at 19, 20, 28.
August 1, 2017
Page 4
Proceedings in Argentina. According to Claimants, as in Brazil, the Public Prosecutor
issued an opinion “recommending that [the Lago Agrio Judgment] should not be recognized, and
ratified that opinion on December 20, 2016.”14
Recognition proceedings are more than five years
old, and yet still remain before the first instance court. Moreover, even if the first instance court
were to override the recommendation by the Public Prosecutor and find in favor of the Lago Agrio
Plaintiffs, Chevron has the right to appeal both to the appellate court and to the Argentine Supreme
Court.15
No final decision is imminent by any measure.
More fundamentally, however, the Argentine Supreme Court has already established as
“an undisputed fact” that Chevron’s subsidiaries in Argentina are distinct legal entities, separate
and apart from Chevron and, critically, not a party defendant in the Lago Agrio Litigation (i.e., not
a judgment debtor).16
It is on this basis that the Argentine Supreme Court rejected and revoked an
attempt to secure the effective enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment by going after Chevron’s
subsidiaries in that jurisdiction.17
And it is on this same basis that attempts at enforcing the Lago
Agrio Judgment in Argentina are likely to follow the Canadian precedent, with the Argentine
Courts declining to enforce the Judgment against Chevron’s subsidiaries in that jurisdiction. At
the very least, and for present purposes, there is no threat—imminent or otherwise—of any ex
parte seizure in Argentina.
The lesson of the last five and a half years is that the feared enforcement actions never
materialized in either the volume (“potentially dozens”) or in the form (ex parte actions to seize
operational assets) hyperbolically predicted by Claimants. To the contrary, there exist only three
enforcement actions, each of which is proceeding at a deliberate pace consistent with the practice
and laws of each State, as Respondent represented and presumed in 2012.18
In their correspondence of 19 July 2017, Claimants cite to the Fourth Interim Award, in
which the Tribunal noted that it “bears much in mind that the amounts at stake are potentially huge
in these arbitration proceedings, measured in multiple billions of US dollars. For the Claimants,
that means that an award of damages expressed in tens of billions of US dollars could provide no
adequate remedy, if their full case were to prevail against the Respondent and if the Lago Agrio
Judgment were in the meantime enforced and executed.”19
But what is clear is that Claimants face no immediate urgency as it relates to an award
“expressed in the tens of billions of US dollars.” Putting aside that the entirety of the Lago Agrio
Judgment was slashed in half and is in toto under ten billion dollars, resolution of the pending
issues in the three pending recognition and enforcement actions remains many years away.
14
Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 19 July 2017 at 5.
15
R-468, Declaration of Marcelo Rufino, at 30, 31.
16
C-1877, Argentine Supreme Court decision of June 4, 2013 at 3, 4.
17
Id.
18
Hr’g Tr., 11 Feb. 2012, at 198-201.
19
Claimants’ Letter to Tribunal (July 19, 2017) at 7 (quoting Fourth Interim Award at 83).
August 1, 2017
Page 5
Claimants’ 19 July 2017 response does not dispute this. More fundamentally, Claimants ignore
the very language it quotes in which the Tribunal expressed concern about the actual enforcement
of a multi-billion dollar judgment, and instead has been forced to rely on the more mundane cost
of defending at three enforcement actions, only one of which is even active in any form (Canada),
as its evidence of irreparable harm.20
It is difficult to fathom how the incurrence of litigation costs
can possibly constitute irreparable harm. It cannot. Nor was it the basis of this Tribunal’s interim
awards.
For its part, Ecuador has complied with every monetary award entered against it. In the
circumstances here, however, it had no means by which it could comply under its law. Just as the
United States Supreme Court found that the United States could not comply with the interim
measures imposed by the Avena tribunal, so too Ecuador had no choice but to defer to its Judiciary,
which twice found21
that Ecuador’s obligation under the Inter-American Convention on Human
Rights to provide a remedy to a prevailing plaintiff prevented its courts from indefinitely
suspending the judgment at issue here, i.e., a judgment requiring the defendant (Chevron) to
provide relief in the form of funds to remediate contamination that the court found posed a threat
to human health.22
Granting Ecuador’s request and, as a result, terminating the interim awards, would not
prejudice Claimants. They remain free to seek emergency relief if urgent and new circumstances
warrant and an imminent threat of irreparable harm actually emerges. At this point, however, any
threat posed to them is merely hypothetical and, to the extent real, remote.
In light of five and a half years of Chevron’s uninterrupted operations, Claimants are hard-
pressed now to seriously argue that any threat to its operations is real or genuine, or otherwise
20
Id. at 5 (noting desire to avoid “excessive costs” in defending enforcement action).
21
See R-398, Decision of Lago Agrio Court (Feb. 17, 2012) at 2, 4 (Court “concurs with Chevron Corp.’s
assertions regarding Ecuador’s obligations at the international level”; “this Chamber ratifies Ecuador’s
commitment with its international obligations, both at the investment and human rights levels, but according
to our analysis it is very clear that under the Vienna Convention and other international obligations, in case
of doubt on the application of a law, the latter, i.e. human rights, take precedence.”); R-399, Decision of
Lago Agrio Court, Mar. 1, 2012 at 1-3, 5-8 (“suspension of the right of the plaintiffs to enforce an
enforceable judgment would violate their right to judicial protection (Art. 25), or at least would render it
completely ineffective for this specific case. To comply with the Award would make it impossible for us to
act in compliance with our obligation to ‘ensure that the competent authority provided by the state legal
system decides on the rights of any person claiming such a remedy,’ […] Accordingly, this Court agrees
that the judicial protection necessarily includes the guarantee of enforcement of a judgment, the absence of
which would render it entirely ineffective. Therefore, we are certain that to proceed as Chevron requests
and as the Arbitral Panel orders would be a direct attempt by us, as administrators of justice, on this
guarantee to access to effective justice that all citizens of Ecuador have”).
22
See, e.g., C-931, Lago Agrio Judgment at 182 (noting need to provide for plaintiffs’ “most basic needs”);
183 (referring to “the individualized reparation of the health of the affected persons” and acknowledging
too that “measures can be ordered that equally tackle the problem in a general way”); 184 (“it has been
proven that a serious public health problem exists” for which a remedy must be fashioned.).
August 1, 2017
Page 6
passes the threshold from inchoate to concrete. Good cause exists to dissolve the interim awards
because time has established that the alleged urgent threat once advertised does not currently exist.
Respectfully submitted,
Blanca Gómez de la Torre
Procuraduría General del Estado
Eric W. Bloom
Winston & Strawn LLP
Eduardo Silva Romero
Dechert (Paris) LLP
Ricardo E. Ugarte
Winston & Strawn LLP

More Related Content

What's hot

Make whole.ga
Make whole.gaMake whole.ga
Make whole.ga
mzamoralaw
 
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...
Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...
Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...
LegalDocsPro
 
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionFederal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Marcellus Drilling News
 
Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California
Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California
Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...
LegalDocsPro
 
Trial Strategy: The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...
Trial Strategy:  The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...Trial Strategy:  The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...
Trial Strategy: The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...
NationalUnderwriter
 
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in California
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in CaliforniaSample motion for consolidation of cases in California
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in California
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjurySample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy court
Sample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy courtSample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy court
Sample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy court
LegalDocsPro
 
Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...
Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...
Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...
LegalDocsPro
 
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-away
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-awayDoc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-away
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-away
malp2009
 
2365026_1
2365026_12365026_1
2365026_1
Edward Premo
 
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473
LegalDocsPro
 
21 60845-cv0
21 60845-cv021 60845-cv0
21 60845-cv0
Laurent Sailly
 
Writing Sample Dec 2015
Writing Sample Dec 2015Writing Sample Dec 2015
Writing Sample Dec 2015
Mikhail Albuseiri
 
Court of Appeals response in Leandro
Court of Appeals response in LeandroCourt of Appeals response in Leandro
Court of Appeals response in Leandro
EducationNC
 
Sample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of fault
Sample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of faultSample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of fault
Sample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of fault
LegalDocsPro
 

What's hot (20)

Make whole.ga
Make whole.gaMake whole.ga
Make whole.ga
 
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...
 
Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...
Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...
Sample California motion to compel responses to requests for production of do...
 
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionFederal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
 
Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California
Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California
Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California
 
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under Code of Civl Proced...
 
Trial Strategy: The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...
Trial Strategy:  The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...Trial Strategy:  The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...
Trial Strategy: The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...
 
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
 
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in California
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in CaliforniaSample motion for consolidation of cases in California
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in California
 
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjurySample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury
 
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...
 
Sample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy court
Sample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy courtSample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy court
Sample motion for new trial in united states bankruptcy court
 
Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...
Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...
Sample California motion for reconsideration under Code of Civi Procedure sec...
 
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-away
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-awayDoc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-away
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-away
 
2365026_1
2365026_12365026_1
2365026_1
 
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment under ccp section 473
 
21 60845-cv0
21 60845-cv021 60845-cv0
21 60845-cv0
 
Writing Sample Dec 2015
Writing Sample Dec 2015Writing Sample Dec 2015
Writing Sample Dec 2015
 
Court of Appeals response in Leandro
Court of Appeals response in LeandroCourt of Appeals response in Leandro
Court of Appeals response in Leandro
 
Sample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of fault
Sample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of faultSample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of fault
Sample California motion to vacate judgment with attorney affidavit of fault
 

Similar to Ex. 109

Chevron Case: 2014.11.07 Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...
Chevron Case: 2014.11.07   Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...Chevron Case: 2014.11.07   Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...
Chevron Case: 2014.11.07 Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...
Embajada del Ecuador en USA
 
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
Pruvit
 
MHR - Dispute Resolution
MHR - Dispute ResolutionMHR - Dispute Resolution
MHR - Dispute Resolution
MHR Legal
 
Ex. 126
Ex. 126Ex. 126
Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docx
Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docxTiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docx
Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docx
JOHNFLORENTINOMARIAN
 
Ex. 129
Ex. 129Ex. 129
B243062 cpr marina
B243062 cpr marinaB243062 cpr marina
B243062 cpr marina
jamesmaredmond
 
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueNewtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
Angela Kaaihue
 
Приватбанк против Коломойского
Приватбанк против КоломойскогоПриватбанк против Коломойского
Приватбанк против Коломойского
Andrew Vodianyi
 
Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0
Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0
Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0
Andrew Vodianyi
 
Countdown to 2021
Countdown to 2021Countdown to 2021
Countdown to 2021
Nicole Benjamin
 
Countdown to 2021: 60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...
Countdown to 2021:  60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...Countdown to 2021:  60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...
Countdown to 2021: 60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...
Nicole Benjamin
 
B245114 cpr marina
B245114 cpr marinaB245114 cpr marina
B245114 cpr marina
jamesmaredmond
 
Reply to Opposition (Final).docx
Reply to Opposition (Final).docxReply to Opposition (Final).docx
Reply to Opposition (Final).docx
ArnoldManzano4
 
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissLang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Robert Scott Lawrence
 
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeGS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
Mike Keyes
 
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...
Theworld Crawler
 
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
awasalam
 
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
awasalam
 
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
jamesmaredmond
 

Similar to Ex. 109 (20)

Chevron Case: 2014.11.07 Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...
Chevron Case: 2014.11.07   Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...Chevron Case: 2014.11.07   Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...
Chevron Case: 2014.11.07 Public - Respondent's Supplemental Counter Memoria...
 
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
 
MHR - Dispute Resolution
MHR - Dispute ResolutionMHR - Dispute Resolution
MHR - Dispute Resolution
 
Ex. 126
Ex. 126Ex. 126
Ex. 126
 
Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docx
Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docxTiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docx
Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.docx
 
Ex. 129
Ex. 129Ex. 129
Ex. 129
 
B243062 cpr marina
B243062 cpr marinaB243062 cpr marina
B243062 cpr marina
 
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueNewtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
 
Приватбанк против Коломойского
Приватбанк против КоломойскогоПриватбанк против Коломойского
Приватбанк против Коломойского
 
Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0
Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0
Приватбанк против Коломойского 2.0
 
Countdown to 2021
Countdown to 2021Countdown to 2021
Countdown to 2021
 
Countdown to 2021: 60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...
Countdown to 2021:  60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...Countdown to 2021:  60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...
Countdown to 2021: 60 Important Supreme Court Decisions for Rhode Island Civ...
 
B245114 cpr marina
B245114 cpr marinaB245114 cpr marina
B245114 cpr marina
 
Reply to Opposition (Final).docx
Reply to Opposition (Final).docxReply to Opposition (Final).docx
Reply to Opposition (Final).docx
 
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissLang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
 
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeGS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
 
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...
 
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
 
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
Ca phc apn_117_2013_2
 
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
 

More from Embajada del Ecuador en Washington

Ex. 134
Ex. 134Ex. 134
Ex. 133
Ex. 133Ex. 133
Ex. 132
Ex. 132Ex. 132
Ex. 131
Ex. 131Ex. 131
Ex. 130
Ex. 130Ex. 130
Ex. 128
Ex. 128Ex. 128
Ex. 127
Ex. 127Ex. 127
Ex. 125
Ex. 125Ex. 125
Ex. 124
Ex. 124Ex. 124
Ex. 123
Ex. 123Ex. 123
Ex. 122
Ex. 122Ex. 122
Ex. 121
Ex. 121Ex. 121
Ex. 120
Ex. 120Ex. 120
Ex. 119
Ex. 119Ex. 119
Ex. 117
Ex. 117Ex. 117
Ex. 116
Ex. 116Ex. 116
Ex. 115
Ex. 115Ex. 115
Ex. 114
Ex. 114Ex. 114
Ex. 113
Ex. 113Ex. 113
Ex. 112
Ex. 112Ex. 112

More from Embajada del Ecuador en Washington (20)

Ex. 134
Ex. 134Ex. 134
Ex. 134
 
Ex. 133
Ex. 133Ex. 133
Ex. 133
 
Ex. 132
Ex. 132Ex. 132
Ex. 132
 
Ex. 131
Ex. 131Ex. 131
Ex. 131
 
Ex. 130
Ex. 130Ex. 130
Ex. 130
 
Ex. 128
Ex. 128Ex. 128
Ex. 128
 
Ex. 127
Ex. 127Ex. 127
Ex. 127
 
Ex. 125
Ex. 125Ex. 125
Ex. 125
 
Ex. 124
Ex. 124Ex. 124
Ex. 124
 
Ex. 123
Ex. 123Ex. 123
Ex. 123
 
Ex. 122
Ex. 122Ex. 122
Ex. 122
 
Ex. 121
Ex. 121Ex. 121
Ex. 121
 
Ex. 120
Ex. 120Ex. 120
Ex. 120
 
Ex. 119
Ex. 119Ex. 119
Ex. 119
 
Ex. 117
Ex. 117Ex. 117
Ex. 117
 
Ex. 116
Ex. 116Ex. 116
Ex. 116
 
Ex. 115
Ex. 115Ex. 115
Ex. 115
 
Ex. 114
Ex. 114Ex. 114
Ex. 114
 
Ex. 113
Ex. 113Ex. 113
Ex. 113
 
Ex. 112
Ex. 112Ex. 112
Ex. 112
 

Recently uploaded

Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024
Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024
Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
 
CFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon Canada
CFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon CanadaCFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon Canada
CFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon Canada
pmenzies
 
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 41
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 412024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 41
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 41
JSchaus & Associates
 
AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024
AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024
AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024
Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa
 
CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054
CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054
CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054
Congressional Budget Office
 
A Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC Charlotte
A Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC CharlotteA Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC Charlotte
A Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC Charlotte
Cori Faklaris
 
Item # 10 -- Historical Presv. Districts
Item # 10 -- Historical Presv. DistrictsItem # 10 -- Historical Presv. Districts
Item # 10 -- Historical Presv. Districts
ahcitycouncil
 
在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样
在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样
在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样
9d5c8i83
 
World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.
World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.
World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.
Christina Parmionova
 
在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
yemqpj
 
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance Center
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance CenterRFP for Reno's Community Assistance Center
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance Center
This Is Reno
 
IEA World Energy Investment June 2024- Statistics
IEA World Energy Investment June 2024- StatisticsIEA World Energy Investment June 2024- Statistics
IEA World Energy Investment June 2024- Statistics
Energy for One World
 
PPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code Amendments
PPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code AmendmentsPPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code Amendments
PPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code Amendments
ahcitycouncil
 
PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)
ahcitycouncil
 
Item #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code Amendment
Item #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code AmendmentItem #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code Amendment
Item #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code Amendment
ahcitycouncil
 
PAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptx
PAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptxPAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptx
PAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptx
PAS_Team
 
A proposed request for information on LIHTC
A proposed request for information on LIHTCA proposed request for information on LIHTC
A proposed request for information on LIHTC
Roger Valdez
 
Abiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Updates
Abiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality UpdatesAbiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Updates
Abiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Updates
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
 
PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)
ahcitycouncil
 
Practical guide for the celebration of World Environment Day on june 5th.
Practical guide for the  celebration of World Environment Day on  june 5th.Practical guide for the  celebration of World Environment Day on  june 5th.
Practical guide for the celebration of World Environment Day on june 5th.
Christina Parmionova
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024
Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024
Texas Water Development Board Updates June 2024
 
CFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon Canada
CFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon CanadaCFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon Canada
CFYT Rolling Ads Dawson City Yukon Canada
 
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 41
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 412024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 41
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 41
 
AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024
AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024
AHMR volume 10 number 1 January-April 2024
 
CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054
CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054
CBO’s Outlook for U.S. Fertility Rates: 2024 to 2054
 
A Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC Charlotte
A Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC CharlotteA Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC Charlotte
A Guide to AI for Smarter Nonprofits - Dr. Cori Faklaris, UNC Charlotte
 
Item # 10 -- Historical Presv. Districts
Item # 10 -- Historical Presv. DistrictsItem # 10 -- Historical Presv. Districts
Item # 10 -- Historical Presv. Districts
 
在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样
在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样
在线办理美国乔治华盛顿大学毕业证(gwu毕业证书)学历学位证书原版一模一样
 
World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.
World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.
World Food Safety Day 2024- Communication-toolkit.
 
在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
在线办理(ISU毕业证书)爱荷华州立大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
 
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance Center
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance CenterRFP for Reno's Community Assistance Center
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance Center
 
IEA World Energy Investment June 2024- Statistics
IEA World Energy Investment June 2024- StatisticsIEA World Energy Investment June 2024- Statistics
IEA World Energy Investment June 2024- Statistics
 
PPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code Amendments
PPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code AmendmentsPPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code Amendments
PPT Item # 8&9 - Demolition Code Amendments
 
PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 4 - 434 College Blvd. (sign. review)
 
Item #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code Amendment
Item #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code AmendmentItem #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code Amendment
Item #s 8&9 -- Demolition Code Amendment
 
PAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptx
PAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptxPAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptx
PAS PSDF Mop Up Workshop Presentation 2024 .pptx
 
A proposed request for information on LIHTC
A proposed request for information on LIHTCA proposed request for information on LIHTC
A proposed request for information on LIHTC
 
Abiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Updates
Abiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality UpdatesAbiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Updates
Abiy Berehe - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Updates
 
PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)
PPT Item # 5 - 318 Tuxedo Ave. (sign. review)
 
Practical guide for the celebration of World Environment Day on june 5th.
Practical guide for the  celebration of World Environment Day on  june 5th.Practical guide for the  celebration of World Environment Day on  june 5th.
Practical guide for the celebration of World Environment Day on june 5th.
 

Ex. 109

  • 1. August 1, 2017 Mr. V.V. Veeder, QC Essex Court Chambers 24 Lincoln’s Inn Fields London WC2A 3EG United Kingdom Prof. Vaughan Lowe, QC Essex Court Chambers, 24 Lincoln’s Inn Fields London WC2A 3EG United Kingdom Dr. Horacio Grigera Naón 5224 Elliott Road Bethesda, Maryland 20816 USA Mr. Martin Doe Ms. Jessica Wells Permanent Court of Arbitration Peace Palace Carnegieplein 2 2517 KJ The Hague The Netherlands Dear Members of the Tribunal, In the Tribunal’s communication of 21 July 2017, the Tribunal requests Ecuador “to comment on the account provided by the Claimants as a factual chronology of the progress to date of the enforcement proceedings in Canada, Brazil and Argentina,” and further invited the parties to address, “insofar as relevant to the Respondent’s current application … the decision of The Hague Court of Appeal of 18 July 2017.” Regarding the latter of the two points, Ecuador is currently evaluating whether to appeal the 18 July 2017 decision to the Dutch Supreme Court. Given that Ecuador’s application to the Tribunal to terminate or dissolve the interim award rests on the lack of current “urgency,” a matter not before the Dutch courts, Ecuador does not find discussion of the recent court decision germane and declines the Tribunal’s invitation to address it here. The parties have nonetheless provided an agreed-upon translation of the Dutch court decision to the Tribunal for its review and consideration, and Ecuador is prepared to address any aspect of the decision should the Tribunal so require. Ecuador thus limits its discussion herein to the three pending enforcement actions. To persuade the Tribunal to issue the (successive) interim award(s), in 2012 Claimants asserted that in the absence of emergency relief by this Tribunal the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs were poised to launch a “worldwide enforcement campaign”1 involving “potentially dozens of foreign courts.”2 Relying on the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ public rhetoric, Claimants argued that Chevron was facing the likelihood of “ex parte” seizures of operational assets (oil tankers, wells and pipelines) with no opportunity to be heard. These resulting seizures, Claimants concluded, would be devastating to Chevron. “Missing product deliveries as a result of … planned asset seizures” 1 Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 2 February 2012 at 5. 2 Id. at 7 (emphasis added).
  • 2. August 1, 2017 Page 2 of Chevron’s “oil tankers, wells or pipelines” would “damage Chevron’s business reputation as a reliable supplier and harm the valuable customer goodwill Chevron has developed over the past 130 years.”3 Since the Lago Agrio Judgment became enforceable, not one single oil tanker, well or pipeline has ever been seized. The extraordinary dangers Claimants once claimed were allegedly imminent never materialized. The Lago Agrio Plaintiffs have brought just three enforcement actions, all of which were initiated in or prior to 2012. Not a single enforcement action has been launched since 2012. Additionally, Chevron continues to advise in its press releases and in its shareholder communications that it faces no threat of serious harm.4 And as Respondent advised in 2012 and noted again in its 12 July 2017 application, Claimants have never been able to identify even a single jurisdiction in which it has assets where it would be denied an opportunity to be heard in connection with any attempt to enforce the Lago Agrio Judgment.5 Claimants’ own chronology of these enforcement actions belies their 2012 claims and instead confirms that Chevron does not confront any imminent threat of irreparable harm warranting preservation of the interim awards. As a preliminary matter, in Respondent’s letter to the Tribunal dated 12 July 2017, Ecuador observed that “[e]nforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment is now a legal impossibility in the United States, i.e., the only jurisdiction where Chevron, the party defendant in those proceedings, apparently has direct assets (that is, other than through subsidiaries).”6 Claimants dispute neither proposition, thereby acknowledging that enforcement is a legal impossibility in the United States and that Chevron has no direct assets in any jurisdiction. This is reason enough to terminate the interim awards. Nothing in the three pending enforcement actions, even by Chevron’s accounts, suggests a different outcome: Proceedings in Canada. As a preliminary matter, Chevron is fully participating in the Canadian proceedings so there is no threat of the previously-predicted “ex parte seizures.” Further, by Claimants’ own account, just this year the Canadian first-instance court “granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Chevron Canada Limited, finding that it is a separate entity from Chevron, not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit, not a debtor to the Judgment, and, therefore, dismissed from the case,” and further “dismissed [the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’] motion to amend” 3 Id. (citing Ex. C-1039, Declaration of Rex Mitchell in Support of Chevron Corporation’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Feb 15, 2011). 4 See Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-1178, 2017 WL 1198372 (U.S. June 19, 2017). 5 Respondent’s letter to the Tribunal dated 12 July 2017 at 3-4 (quoting Hr’g Tr., 11 Feb. 2012, at 198- 201). 6 Id. at 2.
  • 3. August 1, 2017 Page 3 their statement of claim.7 In sum, the Canadian court has declined to enforce the Lago Agrio Judgment. As it stands, the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs are left appealing the dismissal to the second instance court, with both parties having yet the further right to seek review of any adverse decision from the second-instance court to the Canadian Supreme Court.8 Ecuador has been advised by its expert that any decision by the Canadian Supreme Court would likely issue not before late 2019 or early 2020. More importantly, even if the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs were to obtain a reversal of the first- instance court decision, Chevron would then have the right to contest enforcement—back in the first-instance court—based on its public policy defense. That proceeding would afford the parties the further right to discovery and an eventual trial, with both parties retaining the right to appeal to the appellate court and eventually, again, to the Canadian Supreme Court.9 In short, there will be no ex parte seizures of any oil tankers, vessels or wells in Canada. And there is no threat of any final decision for many years to come. Proceedings in Brazil. The Brazilian recognition action has had little activity. As Claimants themselves reported more than two years ago “the Federal Prosecutor issued an opinion (published on May 13, 2015) recommending that the [first instance court] not recognize the Judgment … and concluding that recognizing the Judgment would be contrary to Brazilian public order.”10 Based on our research, there has been a general lack of activity in the first instance court ever since, and there is no reason to believe a decision is forthcoming imminently. More importantly, however, even if the first instance court were ever to override the Federal Prosecutor’s recommendation and recognize the Lago Agrio Judgment, Chevron would have two layers of appellate review, with no final decision expected for several years.11 As is the case in Canada, there is absolutely no threat of any ex parte seizures. For that matter, there is no threat of any final decision for years to come.12 To be clear, the pending proceeding is focused only on the recognition of the Ecuadorian court judgment. Only if and after that is obtained would the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs be in a position to bring a legal action to enforce on the judgment, in which case Chevron would have the right to contest enforcement.13 7 Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 19 July 2017 at 4. 8 R-443, Affidavit of George J. Pollack, at 21, 22, 19. 9 Id. at 19-22, 25, 36. 10 Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 19 July 2017 at 5. 11 R-444, Affidavit of Uyeda and Dourado, at 17-24. 12 Id. at 22. 13 Id. at 19, 20, 28.
  • 4. August 1, 2017 Page 4 Proceedings in Argentina. According to Claimants, as in Brazil, the Public Prosecutor issued an opinion “recommending that [the Lago Agrio Judgment] should not be recognized, and ratified that opinion on December 20, 2016.”14 Recognition proceedings are more than five years old, and yet still remain before the first instance court. Moreover, even if the first instance court were to override the recommendation by the Public Prosecutor and find in favor of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs, Chevron has the right to appeal both to the appellate court and to the Argentine Supreme Court.15 No final decision is imminent by any measure. More fundamentally, however, the Argentine Supreme Court has already established as “an undisputed fact” that Chevron’s subsidiaries in Argentina are distinct legal entities, separate and apart from Chevron and, critically, not a party defendant in the Lago Agrio Litigation (i.e., not a judgment debtor).16 It is on this basis that the Argentine Supreme Court rejected and revoked an attempt to secure the effective enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment by going after Chevron’s subsidiaries in that jurisdiction.17 And it is on this same basis that attempts at enforcing the Lago Agrio Judgment in Argentina are likely to follow the Canadian precedent, with the Argentine Courts declining to enforce the Judgment against Chevron’s subsidiaries in that jurisdiction. At the very least, and for present purposes, there is no threat—imminent or otherwise—of any ex parte seizure in Argentina. The lesson of the last five and a half years is that the feared enforcement actions never materialized in either the volume (“potentially dozens”) or in the form (ex parte actions to seize operational assets) hyperbolically predicted by Claimants. To the contrary, there exist only three enforcement actions, each of which is proceeding at a deliberate pace consistent with the practice and laws of each State, as Respondent represented and presumed in 2012.18 In their correspondence of 19 July 2017, Claimants cite to the Fourth Interim Award, in which the Tribunal noted that it “bears much in mind that the amounts at stake are potentially huge in these arbitration proceedings, measured in multiple billions of US dollars. For the Claimants, that means that an award of damages expressed in tens of billions of US dollars could provide no adequate remedy, if their full case were to prevail against the Respondent and if the Lago Agrio Judgment were in the meantime enforced and executed.”19 But what is clear is that Claimants face no immediate urgency as it relates to an award “expressed in the tens of billions of US dollars.” Putting aside that the entirety of the Lago Agrio Judgment was slashed in half and is in toto under ten billion dollars, resolution of the pending issues in the three pending recognition and enforcement actions remains many years away. 14 Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 19 July 2017 at 5. 15 R-468, Declaration of Marcelo Rufino, at 30, 31. 16 C-1877, Argentine Supreme Court decision of June 4, 2013 at 3, 4. 17 Id. 18 Hr’g Tr., 11 Feb. 2012, at 198-201. 19 Claimants’ Letter to Tribunal (July 19, 2017) at 7 (quoting Fourth Interim Award at 83).
  • 5. August 1, 2017 Page 5 Claimants’ 19 July 2017 response does not dispute this. More fundamentally, Claimants ignore the very language it quotes in which the Tribunal expressed concern about the actual enforcement of a multi-billion dollar judgment, and instead has been forced to rely on the more mundane cost of defending at three enforcement actions, only one of which is even active in any form (Canada), as its evidence of irreparable harm.20 It is difficult to fathom how the incurrence of litigation costs can possibly constitute irreparable harm. It cannot. Nor was it the basis of this Tribunal’s interim awards. For its part, Ecuador has complied with every monetary award entered against it. In the circumstances here, however, it had no means by which it could comply under its law. Just as the United States Supreme Court found that the United States could not comply with the interim measures imposed by the Avena tribunal, so too Ecuador had no choice but to defer to its Judiciary, which twice found21 that Ecuador’s obligation under the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights to provide a remedy to a prevailing plaintiff prevented its courts from indefinitely suspending the judgment at issue here, i.e., a judgment requiring the defendant (Chevron) to provide relief in the form of funds to remediate contamination that the court found posed a threat to human health.22 Granting Ecuador’s request and, as a result, terminating the interim awards, would not prejudice Claimants. They remain free to seek emergency relief if urgent and new circumstances warrant and an imminent threat of irreparable harm actually emerges. At this point, however, any threat posed to them is merely hypothetical and, to the extent real, remote. In light of five and a half years of Chevron’s uninterrupted operations, Claimants are hard- pressed now to seriously argue that any threat to its operations is real or genuine, or otherwise 20 Id. at 5 (noting desire to avoid “excessive costs” in defending enforcement action). 21 See R-398, Decision of Lago Agrio Court (Feb. 17, 2012) at 2, 4 (Court “concurs with Chevron Corp.’s assertions regarding Ecuador’s obligations at the international level”; “this Chamber ratifies Ecuador’s commitment with its international obligations, both at the investment and human rights levels, but according to our analysis it is very clear that under the Vienna Convention and other international obligations, in case of doubt on the application of a law, the latter, i.e. human rights, take precedence.”); R-399, Decision of Lago Agrio Court, Mar. 1, 2012 at 1-3, 5-8 (“suspension of the right of the plaintiffs to enforce an enforceable judgment would violate their right to judicial protection (Art. 25), or at least would render it completely ineffective for this specific case. To comply with the Award would make it impossible for us to act in compliance with our obligation to ‘ensure that the competent authority provided by the state legal system decides on the rights of any person claiming such a remedy,’ […] Accordingly, this Court agrees that the judicial protection necessarily includes the guarantee of enforcement of a judgment, the absence of which would render it entirely ineffective. Therefore, we are certain that to proceed as Chevron requests and as the Arbitral Panel orders would be a direct attempt by us, as administrators of justice, on this guarantee to access to effective justice that all citizens of Ecuador have”). 22 See, e.g., C-931, Lago Agrio Judgment at 182 (noting need to provide for plaintiffs’ “most basic needs”); 183 (referring to “the individualized reparation of the health of the affected persons” and acknowledging too that “measures can be ordered that equally tackle the problem in a general way”); 184 (“it has been proven that a serious public health problem exists” for which a remedy must be fashioned.).
  • 6. August 1, 2017 Page 6 passes the threshold from inchoate to concrete. Good cause exists to dissolve the interim awards because time has established that the alleged urgent threat once advertised does not currently exist. Respectfully submitted, Blanca Gómez de la Torre Procuraduría General del Estado Eric W. Bloom Winston & Strawn LLP Eduardo Silva Romero Dechert (Paris) LLP Ricardo E. Ugarte Winston & Strawn LLP