Paper of the Day: Gómez on The Global Chase: Seeking the Recognition and Enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment Outside of Ecuador

Manuel A. Gómez, professor of law at Florida International University and friend of Letters Blogatory, has posted The Global Chase: Seeking the Recognition and Enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment Outside of Ecuador to SSRN. Manuel has been teaching a course that focuses on the Chevron/Ecuador case, so he is a natural for an article like this. Part I of the article is a helpful summary of most of the main pieces of the dispute: the lawsuit in Ecuador, and the appeals there; the attempt to enjoin enforcement in New York; the BIT arbitration; and the Canadian enforcement proceedings. Part II focuses on proceedings in Brazil and Argentina. This discussion may be of particular interest to Letters Blogatory readers, since if you’re getting your information about the case here, you won’t learn much about the details of the relevant Brazilian and Argentine law and proceedings.

Congratulations, Manuel, on the paper!

About Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman is a shareholder with Murphy & King, a Boston law firm, where he has a complex business litigation practice. He is the author of International Judicial Assistance (MCLE 2012), a nuts-and-bolts guide to international judicial assistance issues, and the publisher of Letters Blogatory, the Web's first blog devoted to international judicial assistance, which the ABA recognized as one of the best 100 legal blogs in 2012 and 2014.

2 thoughts on “Paper of the Day: Gómez on The Global Chase: Seeking the Recognition and Enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment Outside of Ecuador

  1. Ted, many thanks for the link. A very interesting paper about a very interesting case.

    I have to raise a small caveat about Prof. Gómez’s analysis of the Ontario Superior Court decision on the enforcement of the Ecuadorean judgment. I do not believe it is accurate to state, as the paper does, that the Ontario Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement proceedings (p. 450 and 451 of the paper). As I noted in my previous comments on this blog when the decision was released, my read of Justice Brown’s reasons is that they quite clearly state the opposite. The court expressly rejected the legal proposition that a plaintiff seeking to enforce a foreign judgment must demonstrate the existence of a “real and substantial connection” between the judgment debtor and Ontario (see paras. 77-85). Moreover, with respect to Chevron Canada, as it had a place of business in Ontario, the test was in any event satisfied (paras. 86-87). Instead, the court stayed the proceedings, though without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to return to court if and when they have evidence of any potential Chevron assets in Ontario such that the dispute would be more than hypothetical.

    Best regards,

    Alex

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>