<?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: Chevron&#8217;s Brief in Opposition to Cert.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/05/31/lago-agrio-chevrons-brief-in-opposition-to-cert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/05/31/lago-agrio-chevrons-brief-in-opposition-to-cert/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:47:49 +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/2017/05/31/lago-agrio-chevrons-brief-in-opposition-to-cert/#comment-2887</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24863#comment-2887</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/05/31/lago-agrio-chevrons-brief-in-opposition-to-cert/#comment-2886&quot;&gt;Peter Lynn&lt;/a&gt;.

That&#039;s a terrific question, Peter. The injunction would disappear, of course. But the open question is what would happen to Judge Kaplan&#039;s findings of fact? Would they have any preclusive effect, either in the US or elsewhere? I don&#039;t know that there is a perfect answer to that. On the one hand, the judgment will no longer be final; on the other hand, the issues of fact were actually litigated.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/05/31/lago-agrio-chevrons-brief-in-opposition-to-cert/#comment-2886">Peter Lynn</a>.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a terrific question, Peter. The injunction would disappear, of course. But the open question is what would happen to Judge Kaplan&#8217;s findings of fact? Would they have any preclusive effect, either in the US or elsewhere? I don&#8217;t know that there is a perfect answer to that. On the one hand, the judgment will no longer be final; on the other hand, the issues of fact were actually litigated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Peter Lynn		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/05/31/lago-agrio-chevrons-brief-in-opposition-to-cert/#comment-2886</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Lynn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24863#comment-2886</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So if the Supreme Court were to take this case to resolve the circuit split, and they determine that injunctive relief is not available to private parties under RICO, do you have any thoughts on what would then become of Judge Kaplans ruling?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if the Supreme Court were to take this case to resolve the circuit split, and they determine that injunctive relief is not available to private parties under RICO, do you have any thoughts on what would then become of Judge Kaplans ruling?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
