Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation

Ecuador

In 2003, Chevron was sued in Ecuador for environmental harm allegedly caused by an oil consortium formerly operated by a Texaco subsidiary. The subsidiary previously had been released from environmental claims by Ecuador after it completed a three-year remediation program, which Ecuador certified. Nonetheless, in February 2011, the Ecuadorian trial court entered judgment against Chevron for approximately $9.5 billion, plus punitive damages. An appellate panel affirmed, and Ecuador’s National Court of Justice ratified the judgment but nullified the punitive damages. Ecuador’s highest Constitutional Court rejected Chevron’s final appeal in July 2018.

In 2011, Chevron sued the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and several of their lawyers and cohorts in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and state law. The SDNY ruled that the Ecuadorian judgment had been procured through fraud, bribery, and corruption, and prohibited the defendants from seeking to enforce the judgment in the United States or profiting from their illegal acts. The Second Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2017. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs sought to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognized and enforced in Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, but all of those actions were dismissed in Chevron’s favor.

In 2009, Chevron filed an arbitration claim against Ecuador before an arbitral tribunal administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, under the United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty. In 2018, the Tribunal ruled that the Ecuadorian judgment was procured through fraud, bribery, and corruption, and was based on environmental claims that Ecuador had already 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 ordered Ecuador to remove the judgment’s status of enforceability and to compensate Chevron for its injuries. The arbitration’s final phases, to determine the amount of compensation owed to Chevron and to allocate the arbitration’s costs, remain pending. In 2020, the District Court of The Hague denied Ecuador’s request to set aside the Tribunal’s award. Based on Ecuador’s admissions during the litigation, the Court stated that it now is “common ground” between Ecuador and Chevron that the Ecuadorian judgment is fraudulent. In June 2022, The Hague Court of Appeals dismissed Ecuador’s appeal. In September 2022, Ecuador appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court. In a separate proceeding before the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Ecuador also admitted in July 2020 that the Ecuadorian judgment is fraudulent.

Management continues to believe that the Ecuadorian judgment is illegitimate and unenforceable and will vigorously defend against any further attempts to have it recognized or enforced.

Climate Change

Governmental and other entities in various jurisdictions across the United States have filed legal proceedings against fossil fuel producing companies, including Chevron entities, purporting to seek legal and equitable relief to address alleged impacts of climate change. Chevron entities are or were among the codefendants in 24 separate lawsuits brought by 18 U.S. cities and counties, three U.S. states, the District of Columbia, a group of municipalities in Puerto Rico and a trade group. One of the city lawsuits was dismissed on the merits, and one of the county lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The lawsuits assert various causes of action, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, design defect, product defect, trespass, negligence, impairment of public trust, violations of consumer protection statutes, violations of a federal antitrust statute, and violations of federal and state RICO statutes, based upon, among other things, the company’s production of oil and gas products and alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to climate change risks associated with those products. Further such proceedings are likely to be filed by other parties. As of April 2023, the Supreme Court has denied petitions for writ of certiorari on jurisdictional questions in many of these cases, and those cases have been or will be remanded to state court. The unprecedented legal theories set forth in these proceedings entail the possibility of damages liability (both compensatory and punitive), injunctive and other forms of equitable relief, including without limitation abatement and disgorgement of profits, civil penalties and liability for fees and costs of suits, that, while we believe remote, could have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations and financial condition. Management believes that these proceedings are legally and factually meritless and detract from constructive efforts to address the important policy issues presented by climate change, and will vigorously defend against such proceedings.

Louisiana

Seven coastal parishes and the State of Louisiana have filed lawsuits in Louisiana against numerous oil and gas companies seeking damages for coastal erosion in or near oil fields located within Louisiana’s coastal zone under Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA). Chevron entities are defendants in 39 of these cases. The lawsuits allege that the defendants’ historical operations were conducted without necessary permits or failed to comply with permits obtained and seek damages and other relief, including the costs of restoring coastal wetlands allegedly impacted by oil field operations. In the first quarter 2023, the Supreme Court has denied petition for writ of certiorari on jurisdictional questions impacting certain of these cases, and those cases have been or will be remanded to Louisiana state court. These cases are progressing to trial in state court, with the first trial scheduled to begin in November 2023. Jurisdictional questions are still being decided for other cases that remain in Federal court at this time. Plaintiffs’ SLCRMA theories are unprecedented; thus, there remains significant uncertainty about the scope of the claims and alleged damages and any potential effects on the company’s results of operations and financial condition. Management believes that the claims lack legal and factual merit and will continue to vigorously defend against such proceedings.