By: Lucien J. Dhooge
This article analyzes Canadian litigation captioned Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation which seeks recognition of an $18.2 billion judgment entered in Ecuador in 2011 in what has been labeled as one of the world’s largest environmental lawsuits. The article examines Chevron’s involvement in Ecuador through its predecessor in interest (Texaco) and the history of proceedings in Ecuador, Canada, and the United States and before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The article then discusses the recognition of foreign judgments in Canada with emphasis upon the public policy defense. The article concludes that utilization of this defense presents significant issues affecting the reputation and credibility of the Canadian judiciary and its liberal approach with respect to recognition of foreign judgments.
Read More... (Sneak Preview: Public Policy and the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Canada)
| Posted by Stephen A. Moore on Fri. November 8, 2013 8:00 AM
Categories: Canada, Conflict of Laws
By: Matteo M. Winkler
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (), 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the well-known 200-years-old statute that entitles aliens to sue before federal courts for torts committed in violation of the law of nations, does not apply extraterritorially. The Court followed the 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank (), 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), that excluded from the reach of U.S. courts any F-cubed actions, i.e. actions that present three foreign elements such as foreign plaintiffs, foreign defendants and facts happened in a foreign forum.
Kiobel concerned claims for damages for grave violations of human rights allegedly committed against the Ogoni community in Nigeria by the subsidiaries of the Shell group operating in the country. It was a typical F-cubed case, and the Court found it very easy to apply Morrison as leading precedent.
Read More... (Sneak Preview: What Remains of the Alien Tort Statute After Kiobel?)
| Posted by Stephen A. Moore on Wed. November 6, 2013 8:00 AM
Categories: International Human Rights, U.S. Supreme Court