<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Lago Agrio: Leonard, Lynch, and McMillen&#8212;and the John Does	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/10/22/lago-agrio-leonard-lynch-mcmillenand-john/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/10/22/lago-agrio-leonard-lynch-mcmillenand-john/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:01:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/10/22/lago-agrio-leonard-lynch-mcmillenand-john/#comment-1534</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=16612#comment-1534</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/10/22/lago-agrio-leonard-lynch-mcmillenand-john/#comment-1533&quot;&gt;Charles Siegel&lt;/a&gt;.

Well, that makes two of us! Of course, any discussion of this issue has to take into account the reservation Texaco made of its right to challenge an eventual Ecuadoran judgment on the grounds permitted by New York law, so it may be, depending on what importance you ascribe to the stipulation, that this notion of estoppel is really for future cases, not for this case.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/10/22/lago-agrio-leonard-lynch-mcmillenand-john/#comment-1533">Charles Siegel</a>.</p>
<p>Well, that makes two of us! Of course, any discussion of this issue has to take into account the reservation Texaco made of its right to challenge an eventual Ecuadoran judgment on the grounds permitted by New York law, so it may be, depending on what importance you ascribe to the stipulation, that this notion of estoppel is really for future cases, not for this case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Charles Siegel		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/10/22/lago-agrio-leonard-lynch-mcmillenand-john/#comment-1533</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Siegel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=16612#comment-1533</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I can assure you that you&#039;re not the only person who &quot;take[s] seriously the idea that Chevron assumed the risk of unfair courts when it asked to have the case heard in Ecuador and made representations about the high quality of the Ecuadoran judiciary.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can assure you that you&#8217;re not the only person who &#8220;take[s] seriously the idea that Chevron assumed the risk of unfair courts when it asked to have the case heard in Ecuador and made representations about the high quality of the Ecuadoran judiciary.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
