-
Judge Kaplan Denies Chevron’s Motion or an Attachment
In a little bit of an anticlimax after yesterday’s dramatic developments, there was some more good news for the Lago Agrio plaintiffs today. Judge Kaplan denied Chevron’s motion for an attachment. Recall that Chevron had sued Donziger (the Lago Agrio plaintiff’s US lawyer) and several of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs themselves for RICO violations and……
-
Case of the Day: Metso Minerals Industries v. Johnson Crushers International
The case of the day is Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. v. Johnson Crushers International, Inc. (E.D. Wis. 2011). Metso Minerals (France) S.A. brought an action against Johnson Crushers seeking a declaration that it did not infringe Johnson’s patent for an adjustment mechanism for a rock crusher. Johnson counterclaimed for infringement. Metso refused to produce documents……
-
Chevron Seeks Relief in the Second Circuit
Here’s an update on the quickly-moving Lago Agrio case, following on yesterday’s decision by the Ecuadoran appellate court affirming the multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron. Here is a copy of the Ecuadoran judgment, in Spanish, with portions translated. Chevron has filed a motion with the Second Circuit asking the court to grant relief from its……
-
Ecuadoran Appeals Court Affirms Judgment Against Chevron
The BBC is reporting that an Ecuadoran appellate court has affirmed the $18 billion judgment against Chevron. I don’t yet have further details on the decision yet. Chevron has issued a press release rejecting the decision. Opinio Juris has coverage. Readers may recall that the Ecuadoran plaintiffs stipulated that they would not begin proceedings to……
-
Case of the Day: Pacific Worldwide v. Ample Bright Development
The case of the day is Pacific Worldwide, Inc. v. Ample Bright Development, Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The Plaintiffs, Pacific Worldwide and Pacific International Alliance, are US apparel manufacturers. The defendants, Ample Bright Development, Ltd. and Fortune Enterprises, Ltd., are Hong Kong businesses that acted as the plaintiffs’ agents in Hong Kong. The facts of the……