CounterSpill

On Feb. 14, the controversial lawsuit between the indigenous people of Ecuador and Chevron-Texaco seemingly came to an end when the presiding judge ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion in fines and punitive damages.

However, Chevron promptly appealed, claiming false charges. And the Ecuadorian plaintiffs appealed, claiming the judgement amount to be far below what was needed to restore the region. The slew of additional lawsuits, accusations and jurisdictional issues may keep the 18-year legal battle from ending any time soon. 

To keep the facts straight, here's a primer on the legal twists and turns after the ruling.

'Extortion'

Before the Chevron case was settled, the oil company preemptively launched a racketeering (RICO) lawsuit on Feb. 1, accusing the plaintiffs of conspiring to commit extortion with fabricated evidence.

The New York Times reported that the lawsuit may be a part of a "wider strategy aimed at helping the oil giant reach a more favorable settlement, according to legal experts."

Douglas Rees, a partner at Chicago's Jenner & Block law firm, told the Times that the connotation of RICO lawsuits -- as with mob crime organizations that brought about its inception -- can be used as leverage against defendants when negotiating a settlement, as their public image is tainted.

"It packs a punch from a PR perspective," he said.

Within the lawsuit, Chevron specifically attacked attorney Steven Donziger, the U.S. legal adviser to the Ecuadoreans, claiming that his primary goal was to "to extort, defraud, and otherwise tortiously injure" the oil company.

Donziger is one of the most visible figures in the legal battle, as he was featured extensively in the controversial documentary "Crude", which followed the plaintiffs as they planned legal actions against Chevron.

Last May, Chevron won access to outtakes from "Crude", wherein they claimed to have seen "pervasive corruption and fraud" by lawyers, with a motive of hatching "an illegal scheme to corrupt the proceedings in Ecuador." 

In an amended complaint, Chevron maintains that similar errors in judgement documents and private files held by the plaintiffs suggest an illegal degree of collaboration. R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron's general counsel, told the Wall Street Journal:

"There is no apparent explanation as to how the judgment would have incorporated these errors and irregularities without cooperation between the Ecuadorian court and the plaintiffs' representatives."

'Bias'

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan blocked the judgement payouts just six days after the ruling, echoing the accusations made in the oil company's racketeering lawsuit. He renewed the block in March, reports the AP:

"Chevron would be forced to defend itself and litigate the enforceability of the Ecuadorean judgment in multiple proceedings. There is a significant risk that assets would be seized or attached, thus disrupting Chevron's supply chain, causing it to miss critical deliveries to business partners."

In response, the plaintiffs have filed a recusal motion to remove Kaplan from overseeing the lawsuit due to "prejudicial and untenable conclusions." They also have accused the judge of losing "all semblance of impartiality."

'Unenforcable'

Judge Kaplan granted Chevron's request to bifurcate so an earlier trial may specifically test the enforceability of the $18 billion judgement. 

Donziger's lawyer, John Keker, filed a statement saying that Chevron is trying to block Donziger from attending the enforceability appeal in court. Keker, says his client should be present, especially in light of what had been said of him. Keker told the Wall Street Journal that:

“Donziger will be severely prejudiced if a trial in which his allegedly fraudulent and criminal conduct is at issue is held without his participation, as Chevron has requested, and without a jury first resolving all factual issues pertaining to Donziger’s alleged misconduct."

But even if the lawsuit moves forward, further complications may arise from jurisdictional issues -- Chevron no longer has any functioning property in Ecuador, meaning that there is little to push the company to cooperate. Mark Gilman, an analyst at Benchmark Co. in New York, told Bloomberg:

“It’s probably unenforceable... given the lack of local assets, Ecuador is going to have difficulty enforcing this.”