More than a decade ago my colleague Jean M. McCarroll and I described what then seemed like the end of a series of environmental claims against Texaco Inc. by indigenous communities from Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest, whose health, property and culture had been severely damaged by a Texaco subsidiary’s oil exploration and waste disposal practices that had polluted rivers, lakes, groundwater and forests and allegedly caused widespread skin lesions and cancers affecting 30,000 people in Ecuador and nearby parts of Peru (“The Second Circuit ‘Texaco’ Decision,” NYLJ, Oct. 23, 1998).
After first attempting to sue Texaco in Texas, where its principal facilities were located, and finding their claims dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens by Judge Norman Black in Sequihua v. Texaco,1 the plaintiffs brought two class actions (one on behalf of Ecuadorian victims and another on behalf of Peruvians) in the Southern District of New York, where Texaco had its headquarters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
