“By commencing the arbitration, it is Chevron that is trying to escape its commitments,” – Eric Bloom, attorney representing the Government of Ecuador
On the contrary, the Republic of Ecuador’s complaint against Chevron in the Southern District of New York is frivolous in much the same way as the lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador. Both are based on the made-up idea that Chevron agreed in 2001 to submit itself to the jurisdiction of Ecuador’s courts. But Chevron, which was in no way involved in the proceedings in 2001, never consented to anything, and Texaco certainly never agreed to submit to jurisdiction in Ecuador to face fabricated claims, biased courts, and corrupt proceedings being dictated against it by Ecuador’s government. That is precisely why Chevron initiated its BIT arbitration. The arguments made by the Republic in its New York lawsuit ignore these basic truths and are not grounds for enjoining arbitration anyway. Given the extensive docket of international arbitration claims challenging Ecuador’s repeated disregard for its legal obligations and the rights of investors in its country, it is not surprising that Ecuador would seek to evade another reckoning by an honest, international panel.