Readers, only one of you was foolhardy brave enough to take a guess about the outcome of the Second Circuit RICO appeal. That’s okay. Here for what it is worth is my prediction. Before giving it, a word of explanation is in order. I am not using any particular methodology, and I am not going to give much explanation. Think of this post as my turn in a parlor game “for entertainment value only.” You’ve been warned. Continue reading →
The Lago Agrio plaintiffs filed their reply brief a few days ago. The brief, by Burt Neuborne, is very well done, as expected. I am not going to review it in detail. One interesting note: Neuborne cites Paul Barrett to make a point that I’ve made here before: whatever the quality of the Ecuadoran courts when they rendered their decisions in the Lago Agrio case, they were no great shakes before. I don’t suppose Barrett expected to be cited in the plaintiffs’ brief!
I haven’t studied the schedule in the case, and I’m not completely sure why Steven Donziger has not filed a reply brief. But in any event, the briefing is either complete or very nearly complete, and so it’s time to invite you, readers, to make your predictions about the outcome of the case in the comments to this post. You can be as technical or as impressionistic as you like. You’ll have a chance to revise your predictions after oral arguments if you want. I will also make my prediction in a few days.
The reader with the best answer (in my sole and unreviewable discretion!) will win fortune and glory, and a special Letters Blogatory prize.
I’m sorry to have to report that advocates for the Lago Agrio plaintiffs or Steven Donziger have again issued a press release making false accusations of impropriety. This time, the target is Judge Kaplan, and the claim is that he failed to disclose a financial interest in Chevron: Continue reading →