IJA Brigade member Rafael Salomão Romano has sent in a brief update on the status of the Lago Agrio homologation case in Brazil. Rafael previously posted about the case back in July 2012.
Here’s the latest: the Superior Tribunal de Justiça had sought an opinion on the case from the Federal Public Attorney, because the case involved claims for environmental damages. The Public Attorney has given his opinion to the court, though I don’t have a copy, and all that remains is for the court to render the judgment.
Thanks, Rafael, for the update!
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!
The case of the day is Yanyac v. Cazassa (Conn. Super. Ct. 2013). The plaintiff, Tiffany Yanyac, brought a divorce action against Pedro Cazassa, who resided in Brazil. She sought leave to serve him by mail.
The judge correctly recognized, apparently as a matter of first impression in the Connecticut state courts, that the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory, unlike the Hague Service Convention, is not exclusive. Thus the Inter-American Convention does not bar service by mail. The judge nevertheless denied the motion on comity grounds. This is a permissible but not a necessary result. the judge cited cases for the proposition that Brazil had expressed a preference for service in its territory to be made by letter rogatory. One piece of the reasoning was a little strange: the judge focused on the desirability of ensuring that a judgment would be recognized in Brazil; but that doesn’t seem like an appropriate part of a comity analysis—it seems to me that a plaintiff proceeds at its own risk on this front—and in any case, it seems likely that in this case the US plaintiff wouldn’t have much interest in whether her divorce would be recognized in Brazil. But as I say, the result of the case was within the judge’s discretion.