Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation

MTBE

Chevron and many other companies in the petroleum industry have used methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline additive. Chevron is a party to six pending lawsuits and claims, the majority of which involve numerous other petroleum marketers and refiners. Resolution of these lawsuits and claims may ultimately require the company to correct or ameliorate the alleged effects on the environment of prior release of MTBE by the company or other parties. Additional lawsuits and claims related to the use of MTBE, including personal-injury claims, may be filed in the future. The company’s ultimate exposure related to pending lawsuits and claims is not determinable. The company no longer uses MTBE in the manufacture of gasoline in the United States.

Ecuador

Background Chevron is a defendant in civil litigation proceedings stemming from a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court for the province of Nueva Loja in Lago Agrio, Ecuador in May 2003 by plaintiffs who claim to be representatives of residents of an area where an oil production consortium formerly operated. The lawsuit alleged harm to the environment from the consortium’s oil production activities and sought monetary damages and other relief. Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet), a subsidiary of Texaco Inc., was a minority member of the consortium from 1967 until 1992, with state-owned Petroecuador as the majority partner. Since 1992, Petroecuador has been the sole owner and operator in the concession area. After the termination of the consortium and following an independent third-party environmental audit of the concession area, in 1995, Texpet entered into a formal agreement with the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador under which Texpet agreed to remediate specific sites assigned by the government in proportion to Texpet’s minority share of the consortium. Pursuant to that agreement, Texpet conducted a three-year remediation program. After certifying that the assigned sites were properly remediated, in 1998, Ecuador granted Texpet and all related

corporate entities a full release from any and all environmental liability arising from the consortium operations.

Chevron defended itself in the Lago Agrio lawsuit on the grounds that the claims lacked both legal and factual merit. As to matters of law, Chevron asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction, the plaintiffs sought to improperly apply a 1999 law retroactively, the claims were time-barred, and the lawsuit was barred by releases signed by the Republic of Ecuador, Petroecuador, and the pertinent provincial and municipal governments. With regard to the facts, the company asserted that the evidence confirmed Texpet’s remediation was properly conducted and that any remaining environmental impacts reflected Petroecuador’s failure to timely fulfill its own legal obligation to remediate the concession area and Petroecuador’s conduct after it assumed control over operations. In February 2011, the provincial court rendered a judgment against Chevron, awarding approximately $8.6 billion in damages, plus approximately $900 million for the plaintiffs’ representatives, and approximately $8.6 billion in additional punitive damages unless the company issued a public apology within 15 days, which Chevron did not do. In January 2012, an appellate panel affirmed the judgment and ordered that Chevron pay an additional 0.10% in attorneys’ fees. In November 2013, Ecuador’s National Court of Justice ratified the judgment but nullified the $8.6 billion punitive damage assessment, resulting in a judgment of $9.5 billion. In December 2013, Chevron appealed the decision to Ecuador’s highest Constitutional Court, which rejected Chevron’s appeal in July 2018. No further appeals are available in Ecuador.

The Lago Agrio plaintiffs’ lawyers have sought to enforce the judgment in Ecuador and other jurisdictions. In May 2012, they filed a recognition and enforcement action against Chevron Corporation, Chevron Canada Limited and another subsidiary (which was later dismissed as a party) in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. In September 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over Chevron Corporation and Chevron Canada Limited for purposes of the action. In January 2017, the Superior Court ruled that Chevron Canada Limited and Chevron Corporation are separate legal entities with separate rights and obligations, and dismissed the action against Chevron Canada Limited. In May 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the dismissal of Chevron Canada Limited. The Supreme Court of Canada denied the plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal in April 2019, rendering the dismissal of Chevron Canada Limited final. In July 2019, by consent of the parties, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the recognition and enforcement action against Chevron Corporation with prejudice and with costs in favor of Chevron. In June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a recognition and enforcement action against Chevron Corporation in the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia, Brazil. In May 2015, the Brazilian public prosecutor issued an opinion recommending that the court reject the plaintiffs’ action on grounds including that the Lago Agrio judgment was procured through fraud and corruption and violated Brazilian and international public order. In November 2017, the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs’ recognition and enforcement action on jurisdictional grounds, and in June 2018 the dismissal became final in Brazil. In October 2012, the provincial court in Ecuador issued an ex parte embargo order purporting to order the seizure of assets belonging to separate Chevron subsidiaries in Ecuador, Argentina and Colombia. In November 2012, at the request of the plaintiffs, a court in Argentina issued a freeze order against Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and another Chevron subsidiary. In January 2013, an appellate court upheld the freeze order, but in June 2013, the Supreme Court of Argentina revoked the freeze order in its entirety. In December 2013, Chevron was served with the plaintiffs’ complaint seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment in Argentina. In April 2016, the public prosecutor in Argentina issued an opinion recommending rejection of the plaintiffs’ request to recognize the Ecuadorian judgment in Argentina. In November 2017, the National Court, First Instance, dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds and the Federal Civil Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in July 2018. The plaintiffs’ appealed to the Supreme Court of Argentina. On July 30, 2020, in a unanimous 5-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Argentina dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the decision by the Federal Civil Court of Appeals.

Chevron continues to believe the Ecuadorian judgment is illegitimate and unenforceable because it is the product of fraud and corruption, and contrary to the law and all legitimate scientific evidence. Chevron cannot predict the timing or outcome of any threatened enforcement action, but expects to continue a vigorous defense against any imposition of liability and to contest and defend any and all enforcement actions.

In February 2011, Chevron filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Lago Agrio plaintiffs and several of their lawyers and supporters, asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and state law. In March 2014, the District Court entered a judgment in favor of Chevron, finding that the Ecuadorian judgment had been procured through fraud, bribery and corruption, and prohibiting the RICO defendants from seeking to enforce the Lago Agrio judgment in the United States or profiting from their illegal acts. In August 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a unanimous decision affirming the New York judgment in full. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the RICO defendants’ petition for a Writ of Certiorari, rendering the New York judgment in favor of Chevron final.

Chevron and Texpet filed an arbitration claim in September 2009 against the Republic of Ecuador before an arbitral tribunal administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The claim alleged violations of Ecuador’s obligations under the United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and breaches of the settlement and release agreements between Ecuador and Texpet. In January 2012, the Tribunal issued its First Interim Measures Award requiring Ecuador to take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and outside of Ecuador of any judgment against Chevron in the Lago Agrio case pending further order of the Tribunal. In February 2012, the Tribunal issued a Second Interim Award mandating that Ecuador take all measures necessary to suspend or cause to be suspended enforcement and recognition proceedings within and outside of Ecuador. Also in February 2012, the Tribunal issued a Third Interim Award confirming its jurisdiction to hear Chevron and Texpet’s claims. In February 2013, the Tribunal issued its Fourth Interim Award in which it declared that Ecuador had violated the First and Second Interim Awards. The Tribunal divided the merits phase of the arbitration into three phases. In September 2013, after the conclusion of Phase One, the Tribunal issued its First Partial Award, finding that the settlement agreements between Ecuador and Texpet applied to both Texpet and Chevron and released them from public environmental claims arising from the consortium’s operations, but did not preclude individual claims for personal harm. In August 2018, the Tribunal issued its Phase Two award, again in favor of Chevron and Texpet. The Tribunal unanimously held that the Lago Agrio judgment was procured through fraud, bribery and corruption and was based on public claims that Ecuador had settled and released. According to the Tribunal, the Ecuadorian judgment “violates international public policy” and “should not be recognized or enforced by the courts of other States.” The Tribunal found that: (i) Ecuador breached its obligations under the settlement agreements releasing Texpet and its affiliates from public environmental claims; (ii) Ecuador committed a denial of justice under international law and violated the U.S.-Ecuador BIT due to the fraud and corruption in the Lago Agrio litigation; and (iii) Texpet satisfied its environmental remediation obligations through the remediation program that Ecuador supervised and approved. The Tribunal ordered Ecuador to: (a) take immediate steps to remove the status of enforceability from the Ecuadorian judgment; (b) take measures to “wipe out all the consequences” of Ecuador’s “internationally wrongful acts in regard to the Ecuadorian judgment;” and (c) compensate Chevron for any injuries resulting from the Ecuadorian judgment. The final Phase Three of the arbitration, at which damages for Chevron’s injuries will be determined, was set for hearing in March 2021. Ecuador filed in the District Court of The Hague a request to set aside the Tribunal’s Interim Awards and its First Partial Award, and in January 2016 that court denied Ecuador’s request. In July 2017, the Appeals Court of the Netherlands denied Ecuador’s appeal, and in April 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the decision of the Appeals Court and finally rejected Ecuador’s challenges to the Tribunal’s Interim Awards and its First Partial Award. In December 2018, Ecuador filed in the District Court of The Hague a request to set aside the Tribunal’s Phase Two Award.

Management’s Assessment The ultimate outcome of the foregoing matters, including any financial effect on Chevron, remains uncertain. Management does not believe an estimate of a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss) can be made in this case. Due to the defects associated with the Ecuadorian judgment, management does not believe the judgment has any utility in calculating a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss). Moreover, the highly uncertain legal environment surrounding the case provides no basis for management to estimate a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss).