As I understand it, the big problem was that the "oil spilled by a chevron sub" wasn't, at least not according to the evidence that had been discovered through the usual legal process... it was probably spilled by a company owned by the Ecuadorian state long after Chevron and their subsidiaries ceased to have any involvement. Then some really shady business happened where, as far as anyone can tell, the Ecuadorian judge threw out the existing independent expert reports and replaced them with an "independent" report that was secretly ghost-written by him and his team for no justifiable reason in order to find Chevron liable anyway. He also left a considerable paper trail when doing this which the US courts got their hands on, hence all the hand-wringing in the article about "sensitive client information". (The confession from the judge probably didn't help, even if some of it was later retracted, but even without that he'd be in huge legal hot water.)
Somehow, I suspect this quote from the article is at least as much about that development as it is about the lawyer in question somehow being persecuted by Big Oil: "It is this strange multi-front battle with one extraordinary explosive development after another. It has had this magical quality to enrage everyone involved in it."
At least some of this is mentioned in the US court judgement linked to in the article: https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-28 (under the heading "Donziger Causes a Change to Less Probative Tests When the LAPs' Experts Find Pollution that Likely Was Not Caused by Texaco" and in subsequent and preceding sections). I think there may have been news coverage that went into further details, can't remember where though.
Thank you for that. I view the case a little more skeptically now. The stakes were high on both sides, and ergo the motivation to distort the process just as high. However, the motivation for Chevron to mitigate environmental impacts in the 70s/80s/90s were negligible, until lawsuits and stories like this provided the PR incentive. So I'm inclined to believe they are responsible for much - but perhaps not all - of the destruction. I think it's a little naive to think otherwise.
As I'm reading it no one is claiming they mitigated damage in the 70s/80s or that they didn't cause damage. They did however pay $40 million to fix some damage in 1995 and were granted indemnity by the Ecuador government in return. Some arguing on how good of a job they did but seems to have been at least somewhat decent. Other environmental damage was found but it likely happened after Chevron was no longer involved in the project. Together that means they're off the hook legally which is all that a lawsuit is about (rather than morals or ethics). Chevron covered its backside legally very well it seems to the point where the other side resorted to less than legal behavior.
The lawsuit was a class action by indigenous peoples against Chevron, and was separate to the agreement between Chevron and the government. There was plenty of financial incentive for both Chevron and the government to look away from the plight of the indigenous people.
US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere.
It was Chevron who wanted the case heard in Ecuador. It was originally filed in NY (Chevron's HQ at the time). US courts agreed Ecuador had jurisdiction and exacted a promise from Chevron to abide by the Ecuadorian court's ruling, which Chevron promptly ignored.
I think it comes from the pattern of people seeking it out.
A relevant example is Argentina's issuance of bonds in the past and subsequent travails. They didn't have to make themselves subject to US courts in the way they did.
For some reason, despite all the disadvantages (potential and actual in hindsight) of borrowing in US dollars and being subject to New York law, they did it anyway.
