Just a quick note for those who haven’t heard: the National Court of Justice has affirmed the Lago Agrio judgment in part, but reversed on the punitive damage award. The Wall Street Journal has early coverage, and, courtesy of Roger Parloff, I have a copy of the very lengthy opinion.
I don’t think it makes sense to comment too much on the decision until I’ve been able to digest it, but here is what I will be looking for:
- Did the court consider Chevron’s arguments about corruption in the lower court—either attempts at corruption by the LAPs (e.g. the Cabrera issue) or corruption on the bench itself? If not, did Chevron make those arguments to the court, or was there some other procedural avenue for Chevron to make them?
- What account, if any, did the court take of the arbitral award that requires Ecuador to suspend the operation of the judgment?
More to come!