The case of the day is Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (D.C. Cir. 2015). Today’s decision doesn’t relate to the main Lago Agrio case or the BIT arbitration related to the Lago Agrio case. It relates instead to another BIT arbitration in which Chevron claimed it had suffered damages on account of undue delay in the settlement of lawsuits TexPet (of which Chevron was a shareholder) had brought against Ecuador in the early 1990s. The arbitration resulted in a $96 million awared in Chevron’s favor. I’ve written about the case a few times before:
- My post on the Dutch first instance decision refusing to vacate the award.
- A post on Chevron’s motion to confirm in Washington.
- My post on the decision confirming the award. This is the decision that was on appeal in today’s case.
- My post on the Dutch Supreme Court decision.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Chevron v. Ecuador
Readers, I erroneously reported that one of the three arbitrators, Dr. Horacio A. Grigera Naón, had dissented without an opinion. In fact, he did write a brief note of dissent, which I simply hadn’t seen. I’m not going to review it in depth: in the main, the disagreement concerns how to interpret the earlier Ecuadoran precedents on how to distinguish individual from diffuse environmental claims.
I invited Chuck Kotuby to do a guest post on the Lozano case, as he is Letters Blogatory’s resident expert on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, and lo and behold, he wrote up the BG Group v. Argentina case as well! Of course, the two cases, decided on the same day, have to be read together, as Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent in the BG Group case makes clear. For prior coverage of BG Group, readers may want to review my posts on the District Court decision in January 2011 and the D.C. Circuit decision in January 2012. Chuck’s earlier coverage of the Child Abduction Convention can be found in his post on Chafin v. Chafin. Today’s post is cross-posted at the excellent Conflict of Laws blog.
Continue reading “Intellectual Whiplash”: One Day, Two International Cases, and Two Different Results at the U.S. Supreme Court