May, 20 2016, 04:30pm EDT
Chevron CEO Faces Pressure Cooker Over Ecuador, Climate Change at Shareholder Meeting
OAKLAND, Calif.
Chevron's unprecedented $11 billion pollution liability in Ecuador and its refusal to address climate change are set to dominate the company's annual meeting as CEO John Watson faces increasing pressure from his own shareholders, court rulings, and environmental groups who are accusing the company of trying to intimidate critics and evade its legacy contamination problems.
A renowned indigenous leader, Humberto Piaguaje of the Secoya nationality, is traveling from his jungle home in the Ecuadorian Amazon to confront Watson over Chevron's refusal to pay the historic court judgment requiring that the company remediate billions of gallons of toxic waste dumped into the rainforest. The court judgment is considered one of the greatest triumphs in the corporate accountability movement in history and prompted a U.S. congresswoman to demand an SEC investigation of company management for hiding the risk from shareholders.
(Here is a summary of the evidence against Chevron. Here is a 60 Minutes segment documenting the company's toxic dumping in Ecuador. Here is a recent podcast interview about the case conducted by Alec Baldwin.)
"John Watson and Chevron's Board are facing a perfect storm of burgeoning problems stemming from the company's poor environmental record and primitive governance structure," said Paul Paz y Mino, Associate Director at Amazon Watch, an Oakland-based environmental group that works with Chevron's victims. "Watson's refusal to clean up his toxic waste in Ecuador and his evasive approach to climate change might explain why the company is now seen as the poster child for corporate greed.
"These issues will come to the fore in a big way both inside and outside the shareholder meeting, where protestors will gather to urge responsible action from Chevron's narrow-minded management team," Paz y Mino said.
Chevron operated in Ecuador under the Texaco brand from 1964 to 1992, leaving behind an environmental and public health catastrophe called the "Amazon Chernobyl" by locals. The pollution has devastated dozens of indigenous and farmer communities, driven up cancer rates, and cost Chevron an estimated $2 billion in legal and other fees while the company's reputation has been pounded by journalists and good government groups.
A top Chevron official has said the company would fight the indigenous groups "until hell freezes over" and "then fight it out on the ice." Although Chevron insisted for years that the environmental claims be heard in Ecuador and had accepted jurisdiction there, the company later sold all of its assets in the country and now refuses to pay the judgment.
The indigenous groups last year won a resounding victory before Canada's Supreme Court in their effort to force Watson to comply with the judgment by seizing the company's assets. In Canada, Chevron has an estimated $15 billion worth of oil fields, bank accounts, and refineries - or more than enough to pay the entirety of the Ecuador judgment. Watson and his chief lawyer, R. Hewitt Pate, have tried to argue that company assets in Canada should be off limits to the Ecuadorians because they are held by a wholly-owned subsidiary.
Chevron also faces mounting pressure from a growing international movement of communities from Europe and Latin America who have banded together to oppose the company's sub-standard environmental practices. This year's action, called the "Anti-Chevron Day", will take place from May 20-21 and will include online and live activities in several countries that will denounce Chevron's environmental and human rights violations. (See here for background.)
Apart from pressure from the Amazonian communities, some of Chevron's own shareholders are also demanding that Watson - who in 2015 personally earned $22 million despite a 75% drop in company revenue - comply immediately with the Ecuador court judgment and clean up the estimated 1,000 toxic waste pits and other pollution it left behind when it departed the South American nation in 1992.
Seattle-based Newground Social Investment this year filed a shareholder resolution (see p. 80 of Chevron's 2016 proxy) that sharply rebukes Watson for his mishandling of the Ecuador litigation. Chevron has used dozens of law firms and up to 2,000 lawyers to fight the indigenous groups, but it continues to suffer courtroom setbacks.
Eighteen consecutive appellate judges in Ecuador and Canada have now ruled against Chevron in a case that is fast becoming a potential "litigation catastrophe" for the company. The Supreme Courts of both Ecuador and Canada have unanimously ruled against Chevron; another U.S. appellate court unanimously ruled against the company when it tried to use a U.S. trial judge to block enforcement of the Ecuador judgment anywhere in the world.
The Newground resolution calls for Chevron to make it easier to hold special meetings given that Watson's management team "has mishandled a number of issues in ways that significantly increase both risks and costs to shareholders. The most pressing of these issues is the ongoing legal effort by communities in Ecuador to enforce a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment for oil pollution." (The judgment is now roughly $11 billion because of statutory interest.)
Newground asserts that under Watson's leadership, Chevron "has yet to properly report these risks in either public filings or statements to shareholders. As a result, investors requested on several occasions that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigate whether Chevron had violated securities laws by misrepresenting or materially omitting information" relevant to the Ecuador liability.
Chevron also faces several other shareholder resolutions - one sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists - that suggest the company has fallen well behind its industry peers in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the challenges of climate change. One such resolution calls on the company to produce reports establishing company-wide goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Another asks for a change in dividend policy given that the global shift away from fossil fuels will likely lead to billions of dollars of stranded assets in the form of oil reserves. Watson and Chevron's Board oppose all of the climate change resolutions.
Piaguaje's trip, being made on behalf of dozens of indigenous and farmer communities devastated by Chevron's pollution, will culminate in an expected face-to-face showdown with Watson on May 25 at company headquarters near San Francisco. Piaguaje will confront Watson with the extensive evidence of the company's toxic dumping relied on by Ecuador's Supreme Court to unanimously affirm the judgment.
Chevron continues to get hit hard on the Ecuador issue. Several months ago, Chevron's star witness admitted lying under oath after being paid more than $2 million by the company, moved to the United States, and coached for 53 consecutive days by Chevron lawyers before being allowed to testify. Separately, Amazon Watch recently disclosed a Chevron whistleblower video showing company scientists trying to fraudulently hide extensive evidence of oil pollution from the Ecuador court. The video has been seen millions of times on the internet.
Piaguaje and other Ecuadorian rainforest leaders - including Goldman Environmental Prize winners Luis Yanza and Pablo Fajardo - have been pressuring Watson for years to pay the pollution liability so their ancestral lands can be remediated. Disease rates have skyrocketed in the affected area, groundwater has been contaminated, and there is virtually no clean water for tens of thousands of people. Piaguaje's Secoya community has seen its culture decimated because of a lack of fresh water and clean food, according to evidence in the case.
"Our leaders plan to confront Mr. Watson with judgments from multiple courts mandating the company pay its pollution bill to the people of Ecuador," said Piaguaje. "Mr. Watson needs to accept responsibility for Chevron's environmental crimes in Ecuador, apologize to the company's victims, and abide by court orders that compensation be paid.
"Until he abides by the rule of law, Mr. Watson and Chevron's Board members will be considered by us to be fugitives from justice subject to arrest for crimes against humanity under principles of universal jurisdiction," he added.
In previous shareholder meetings, Chevron's management has suffered a series of sharp rebukes over its Ecuador liability. One resolution calling on Watson to separate the positions of Chairman and CEO - widely considered a corporate governance anachronism - received a whopping 38% support from all company shareholders. Normally, any shareholder resolution that receives more than 10% support is considered successful.
In addition, in 2011 several of Chevron's institutional shareholders with more than $580 billion in assets under management sent Watson a letter urging the company to settle the Ecuador case. Amazon Watch also organized a letter signed by 43 non-profit human rights and corporate accountability groups blasting the company for trying to silence its critics over the Ecuador issue.
"In failing to negotiate a reasonable settlement prior to the Ecuadorian court's ruling against the company, we believe that Chevron's Board of Directors and management displayed poor judgment that has exposed the Corporation to a substantial financial liability and risk to its operations," said the investor letter.
U.S. Congressman James McGovern (D-MA), who visited the affected area in 2008, also sent a letter to President-elect Obama describing the horrid living conditions caused by Chevron's dumping practices. The company has also been criticized for trying to silence an anti-Chevron activist in Canada, for trying to intimidate lawyers and scientists for the villagers by suing them privately under racketeering laws, and for trying to shut down dissent by issuing subpoenas to more than 100 journalists, bloggers, and even some of its own shareholders who have questioned management. In 2010, his first year as CEO, Watson lost his cool at the shareholder meeting and had five people arrested who had challenged him over Ecuador.
Deepak Gupta, a prominent U.S. appellate lawyer who represents U.S. attorney Steven Donziger (the main target of Chevron's retaliation campaign), recent called Chevron's litigation strategy an "intimidation model" in an interview with Rolling Stone.
Chevron faces a critical court hearing in Canada in September that could knock out most of the company's case that it plans to use to evade enforcement of the judgment.
"The damage is so extensive that it is unclear whether the full amount of the judgment would be sufficient for a comprehensive clean-up," Piaguaje said. "The humanitarian crisis in our communities due to Chevron's pollution is dire and getting worse."
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular