Month: January 2017

  • Lago Agrio: What’s Left For Trial, And What’s Next In Canada?

    Yesterday I promised to take a look at the defenses to enforcement of the Ecuadoran judgment that remain for trial in Ontario. Here is an overview. Which Defenses Are Left? The LAPs’ counsel conceded that the claim that the Zambrano judgment was ghostwritten by the LAPs’ lawyers is a permissible defense. The defense could arise……

  • Lago Agrio: Ontario Superior Court Rules LAPs Cannot Execute The Ecuadorian Judgment In Canada

    Lago Agrio: Ontario Superior Court Rules LAPs Cannot Execute The Ecuadorian Judgment In Canada

    As expected, the Ontario Superior Court has rejected the Lago Agrio plaintiffs’ attempt to seize the assets of an indirect Chevron subsidiary, Chevron Canada Ltd., to satisfy the multi-billion dollar judgment they obtained against the ultimate parent, Chevron Corp., in Ecuador. The court found no basis on which the assets of the indirect subsidiary could……

  • Event Announcement: “The Future of International Commercial Litigation Post-Brexit”

    The Center of European Law at King’s College London will be holding the eight seminar in its Brexit series, titled The Future of International Commercial Litigation Post-Brexit. Here are the details for this interesting event. What The Future of International Commercial Litigation Post-Brexit Who The chair of the seminar is Professor Jonathan Harris, QC, of……

  • The Adelson-O’Keeffe Libel Suit Settles

    I’ve written several times about the Hong Kong libel suit brought by the thin-skinned Sheldon Adelson against Wall Street Journal reporter Kate O’Keefe, who wrote an article describing Adelson as “foul-mouthed.” The case gave rise to some § 1782 litigation in which O’Keeffe sought (and received) permission to take discovery from people who, she said,……

  • President Trump and the Unwritten Constitution

    If there’s one thing the election of Donald Trump has shown, it’s the strength of our formal political institutions. Do you disagree? Consider that in many states at many times in history, a democratically elected person so manifestly unfit for office would not have been allowed to take office. Yet there is no real risk……