Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.

"Bowoto v. Chevron Corp." is a pending case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that arises out of alleged human rights violations in Nigeria. The plaintiffs are Nigerian citizens who were injured or the survivors of those killed. The perpetrators were Nigerian military personnel allegedly supported by Chevron Nigeria Ltd [http://www.petroinfonigeria.com/chevron.html] (a subsidiary of Chevron USA Inc.). Now in its seventh year of litigation, this case raises important issues regarding liability of multinational corporations in U.S. courts.

Factual Background

In the late 1990s, local Nigerian community members were protesting the negative environmental and social impacts resulting from Chevron’s business activities in Nigeria. They sought cessation of Chevron’s conduct, reparations, and cleanup of the damages. [Available at Center for Constitutional Rights [http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/corporate_accountability/corporateArticle.asp?ObjID=4rj5rmLv5U&Content=41] ] This case stems from two incidents where Chevron allegedly hired, or at least provided assistance to, Nigerian security forces to confront the local citizens. In dispute in this case is Chevron's exact role in these incidents, and therefore its liability for the resulting damages. ["Indonesian Bloodshed Provokes ExxonMobil Lawsuit X: Nigeria II--"Bowoto v. Chevron" "Newsdesk.org" (May 13, 2002). [http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/003179.html] ] [Huang, Jennifer "U.S. Courts Tackle Foreign Abuses," "Newsdesk.org" (Jun. 26, 2004). [http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/newsdesk/2004/07/19_atca] ]

From May 25–28, 1998, approximately 100 area community members occupied the Parabe platform, a Chevron Nigeria-owned offshore drilling platform and construction barge located in the Niger delta. Chevron Nigeria allegedly hired Nigerian government security forces to forcibly remove the protesters, and provided them with Chevron-leased helicopters to transport their troops to and from the platform and barge. Security forces shot four of the protesters, killing two, and captured and tortured another. ["Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.", 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2004).] Chevron claims that the protesters were “kidnappers and extortionists who held 175 people hostage for three days while (Chevron Nigeria) vainly tried to negotiate with them.” [Jurgens, Rick (May 18, 2003). "Chevron Scrutinized for Role in Nigeria Lawsuit," "Contra Costa Times", pg. G01.]

On January 4, 1999 the Nigerian government security forces allegedly attacked the Opia and Ikenyan villages. Military personnel shot civilians and set fire to the villages. Chevron Nigeria Ltd. allegedly provided assistance to the Nigerian military forces in the form of helicopters and sea trucks piloted by Chevron Nigeria employees. [Center for Constitutional Rights [http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/corporate_accountability/corporateArticle.asp?ObjID=4rj5rmLv5U&Content=41] ] Other accounts suggest that Chevron hired the security forces and helped plan the attack on the villages in retaliation for the protesters’ activities. [Jurgens, pg. G01.] However, on March 12, 2008, the plaintiffs' attorneys voluntarily dismissed claims connected to Opia and Ikenyan due to fraud or a conflict of interest. ["Nigerians pull half of claims in Chevron suit" San Francisco Chronicle [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/12/BUMAVHSSU.DTL&hw=illston+chevron&sn=001&sc=1000] ]

Legal Claims

With the assistance of several nonprofit organizations including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Public Interest Lawyers Group, and Earthrights International [http://www.earthrights.org/] , a group of victims and the survivors of some of those killed in the attacks filed suit against ChevronTexaco Corporation in 1999. The complaint alleged that “ [t] he military, at the request of, and with the participation and complicity of Chevron, killed and injured people, destroyed churches, religious shrines and water wells; burned down homes, killed livestock; and destroyed canoes and fishing equipment belonging to villagers.” [Liane Jackson, (Apr. 2003). "Nigerians Seek Retribution from Oil Giant," "Corporate Legal Times" pg. 56.] The plaintiffs raised several federal claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). They also alleged California state law claims of wrongful death, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence per se, among others. [See Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. Complaint [http://www.earthrights.org/legaldocs/current_federal_complaint.html] ]
The first major ruling in the case came in 2004 when the district court denied Chevron’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs had supplied sufficient evidence that ChevronTexaco could be found responsible for the actions of its subsidiary. Therefore, the case could go forward to trial to determine if plaintiffs may pierce the corporate veil. ["Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.", 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2004).]

It was not until June 2005 that the plaintiffs and the court learned that ChevronTexaco failed to disclose that Chevron USA, Inc. rather than Chevron Overseas Petroleum Inc. controlled the subsidiary in Nigeria. This is significant because the plaintiffs were suing the wrong defendant. Presiding U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston chided Chevron’s attorneys for keeping silent, and intimated that they may have done so on purpose to delay or otherwise obstruct the plaintiffs' claims. [MacLean, Pamela A. (Sept. 4, 1996). "Lawyers Rebuked in Human Rights Case," "The National Law Journal", pg. 4.]

In a series of decisions in August 2006, Judge Illston handed down some dramatic decisions in the case. First and foremost, she allowed the plaintiffs to make Chevron USA Inc. a defendant. She also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Claims Act. However, the court allowed the international law claim of crimes against humanity to go forward temporarily. ["Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.", No. C99-02506SI, 2006 WL 2455752 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).] [MacLean, pg. 4.] But on August 13, 2007, Judge Illston dismissed the claim of crimes against humanity.

Most recently, in March 2007, the court granted Chevron’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ RICO claim. To win a RICO claim, the plaintiffs needed to show (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity. The court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the first element; although they provided evidence that a significant amount of the oil extracted in Nigeria was exported to the United States, the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence that the two incidents underlying this litigation or Chevron’s treatment of the local communities had any impact on the U.S. economy. ["Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.", No. C99-02506SI, 2007 WL 800940 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2007).]

At present, there are several pending motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' surviving claims. A trial is scheduled for September 27, 2008.

Legal Implications

Legal regulation of multinational corporations is difficult because they are not under the control of any one jurisdiction. Rather, they are subject to multiple legal systems, including the country of their corporate headquarters as well as the countries in which they operate. There is no international oversight body to regulate multinational corporations, or an international forum in which suit may be brought against multinational corporations. It can be difficult for domestic courts to hold multinational corporations responsible for jurisdictional reasons, or because the particular government lacks the legal infrastructure to impose liability. An example of a jurisdictional shortcoming in the United States is the difficulty of piercing the corporate veil. It can be extremely difficult to hold a parent company liable for acts committed by its subsidiary. "Bowoto v. Chevron Corp." is an example of the difficulties in suing a multinational corporation for alleged violations of human rights, and perhaps the need for more formal regulation and accountability of multinational corporations.

References