XML 58 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Litigation | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
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 eight 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 a civil lawsuit initiated in the Superior Court of Nueva Loja in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, in May 2003 by plaintiffs who claim to be representatives of certain residents of an area where an oil production consortium formerly had operations. The lawsuit alleges damage to the environment from the oil exploration and production operations and seeks unspecified damages to fund environmental remediation and restoration of the alleged environmental harm, plus a health monitoring program. Until 1992, Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet), a subsidiary of Texaco Inc., was a minority member of this consortium with Petroecuador, the Ecuadorian state-owned oil company, as the majority partner; since 1990, the operations have been conducted solely by Petroecuador. At the conclusion of the consortium and following an independent third-party environmental audit of the concession area, Texpet entered into a formal agreement with the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador for Texpet to remediate specific sites assigned by the government in proportion to Texpet’s ownership share of the consortium. Pursuant to that agreement, Texpet conducted a three-year remediation program at a cost of $40. After certifying that the sites were properly remediated, the government granted Texpet and all related corporate entities a full release from any and all environmental liability arising from the consortium operations. Based on the history described above, Chevron believes that this lawsuit lacks legal or factual merit. As to matters of law, the company believes first, that the court lacks jurisdiction over Chevron; second, that the law under which plaintiffs bring the action, enacted in 1999, cannot be applied retroactively; third, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations in Ecuador; and, fourth, that the lawsuit is also barred by the releases from liability previously given to Texpet by the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador and by the pertinent provincial and municipal governments. With regard to the facts, the company believes that the evidence confirms that Texpet’s remediation was properly conducted and that the remaining environmental damage reflects Petroecuador’s failure to timely fulfill its legal obligations and Petroecuador’s further conduct since assuming full control over the operations. Lago Agrio Judgment In 2008, a mining engineer appointed by the court to identify and determine the cause of environmental damage, and to specify steps needed to remediate it, issued a report recommending that the court assess $18,900, which would, according to the engineer, provide financial compensation for purported damages, including wrongful death claims, and pay for, among other items, environmental remediation, health care systems and additional infrastructure for Petroecuador. The engineer’s report also asserted that an additional $8,400 could be assessed against Chevron for unjust enrichment. In 2009, following the disclosure by Chevron of evidence that the judge participated in meetings in which businesspeople and individuals holding themselves out as government officials discussed the case and its likely outcome, the judge presiding over the case was recused. In 2010, Chevron moved to strike the mining engineer’s report and to dismiss the case based on evidence obtained through discovery in the United States indicating that the report was prepared by consultants for the plaintiffs before being presented as the mining engineer’s independent and impartial work and showing further evidence of misconduct. In August 2010, the judge issued an order stating that he was not bound by the mining engineer’s report and requiring the parties to provide their positions on damages within 45 days. Chevron subsequently petitioned for recusal of the judge, claiming that he had disregarded evidence of fraud and misconduct and that he had failed to rule on a number of motions within the statutory time requirement. In September 2010, Chevron submitted its position on damages, asserting that no amount should be assessed against it. The plaintiffs’ submission, which relied in part on the mining engineer’s report, took the position that damages are between approximately $16,000 and $76,000 and that unjust enrichment should be assessed in an amount between approximately $5,000 and $38,000. The next day, the judge issued an order closing the evidentiary phase of the case and notifying the parties that he had requested the case file so that he could prepare a judgment. Chevron petitioned to have that order declared a nullity in light of Chevron’s prior recusal petition, and because procedural and evidentiary matters remained unresolved. In October 2010, Chevron’s motion to recuse the judge was granted. A new judge took charge of the case and revoked the prior judge’s order closing the evidentiary phase of the case. On December 17, 2010, the judge issued an order closing the evidentiary phase of the case and notifying the parties that he had requested the case file so that he could prepare a judgment. On February 14, 2011, the provincial court in Lago Agrio rendered an adverse judgment in the case. The court rejected Chevron’s defenses to the extent the court addressed them in its opinion. The judgment assessed approximately $8,600 in damages and approximately $900 as an award for the plaintiffs’ representatives. It also assessed an additional amount of approximately $8,600 in punitive damages unless the company issued a public apology within 15 days of the judgment, which Chevron did not do. On February 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the judgment, seeking increased damages, and on March 11, 2011, Chevron appealed the judgment seeking to have the judgment nullified. On January 3, 2012, an appellate panel in the provincial court affirmed the February 14, 2011 decision and ordered that Chevron pay additional attorneys’ fees in the amount of “0.10% of the values that are derived from the decisional act of this judgment.” The plaintiffs filed a petition to clarify and amplify the appellate decision on January 6, 2012, and the court issued a ruling in response on January 13, 2012, purporting to clarify and amplify its January 3, 2012 ruling, which included clarification that the deadline for the company to issue a public apology to avoid the additional amount of approximately $8,600 in punitive damages was within 15 days of the clarification ruling, or February 3, 2012. Chevron did not issue an apology because doing so might be mischaracterized as an admission of liability and would be contrary to facts and evidence submitted at trial. On January 20, 2012, Chevron appealed (called a petition for cassation) the appellate panel’s decision to Ecuador’s National Court of Justice. As part of the appeal, Chevron requested the suspension of any requirement that Chevron post a bond to prevent enforcement under Ecuadorian law of the judgment during the cassation appeal. On February 17, 2012, the appellate panel of the provincial court admitted Chevron’s cassation appeal in a procedural step necessary for the National Court of Justice to hear the appeal. The provincial court appellate panel denied Chevron’s request for suspension of the requirement that Chevron post a bond and stated that it would not comply with the First and Second Interim Awards of the international arbitration tribunal discussed below. On March 29, 2012, the matter was transferred from the provincial court to the National Court of Justice, and on November 22, 2012, the National Court agreed to hear Chevron's cassation appeal. On August 3, 2012, the provincial court in Lago Agrio approved a court-appointed liquidator’s report on damages that calculated the total judgment in the case to be $19,100. On November 13, 2013, the National Court ratified the judgment but nullified the $8,600 punitive damage assessment, resulting in a judgment of $9,500. On December 23, 2013, Chevron appealed the decision to the Ecuador Constitutional Court, Ecuador's highest court. The reporting justice of the Constitutional Court heard oral arguments on the appeal on July 16, 2015. Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' Enforcement Actions Chevron has no assets in Ecuador and the Lago Agrio plaintiffs' lawyers have stated in press releases and through other media that they will seek to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment in various countries and otherwise disrupt Chevron's operations. On May 30, 2012, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs filed an action against Chevron Corporation, Chevron Canada Limited, and Chevron Canada Finance Limited in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada, seeking to recognize and enforce the Ecuadorian judgment. On May 1, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the Court has jurisdiction over Chevron and Chevron Canada Limited for purposes of the action, but stayed the action due to the absence of evidence that Chevron Corporation has assets in Ontario. The Lago Agrio plaintiffs appealed that decision and on December 17, 2013, the Court of Appeals for Ontario affirmed the lower court’s decision on jurisdiction and set aside the stay, allowing the recognition and enforcement action to be heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Chevron appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and, on September 4, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction over Chevron and Chevron Canada Limited for purposes of the action. The recognition and enforcement proceeding and related preliminary motions are proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On January 20, 2017, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted Chevron Canada Limited’s and Chevron Corporation’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that the two companies are separate legal entities with separate rights and obligations. As a result, the Superior Court dismissed the recognition and enforcement claim against Chevron Canada Limited. Chevron Corporation still remains as a defendant in the action. On February 3, 2017, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court's January 20, 2017 decision. On June 27, 2012, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs filed a complaint against Chevron Corporation in the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia, Brazil, seeking to recognize and enforce the Ecuadorian judgment. Chevron has answered the complaint. In accordance with Brazilian procedure, the matter was referred to the public prosecutor for a nonbinding opinion of the issues raised in the complaint. On May 13, 2015, the public prosecutor issued its nonbinding opinion and recommended that the Superior Court of Justice reject the plaintiffs' recognition and enforcement request, finding, among other things, that the Lago Agrio judgment was procured through fraud and corruption and cannot be recognized in Brazil because it violates Brazilian and international public order. On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court of Justice issued a decision dismissing the Lago Agrio plaintiffs’ recognition and enforcement proceeding based on jurisdictional grounds. On October 15, 2012, the provincial court in Lago Agrio issued an ex parte embargo order that purports to order the seizure of assets belonging to separate Chevron subsidiaries in Ecuador, Argentina and Colombia. On November 6, 2012, at the request of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs, a court in Argentina issued a Freeze Order against Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and another Chevron subsidiary, Ingeniero Norberto Priu, requiring shares of both companies to be "embargoed," requiring third parties to withhold 40 percent of any payments due to Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and ordering banks to withhold 40 percent of the funds in Chevron Argentina S.R.L. bank accounts. On December 14, 2012, the Argentinean court rejected a motion to revoke the Freeze Order but modified it by ordering that third parties are not required to withhold funds but must report their payments. The court also clarified that the Freeze Order relating to bank accounts excludes taxes. On January 30, 2013, an appellate court upheld the Freeze Order, but on June 4, 2013 the Supreme Court of Argentina revoked the Freeze Order in its entirety. On December 12, 2013, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs served Chevron with notice of their filing of an enforcement proceeding in the National Court, First Instance, of Argentina. Chevron filed its answer on February 27, 2014, to which the Lago Agrio plaintiffs responded on December 29, 2015. On April 19, 2016, the public prosecutor in Argentina issued a non-binding opinion recommending to the National Court, First Instance, of Argentina that it reject the Lago Agrio plaintiffs' request to recognize the Ecuadorian judgment in Argentina. On February 24, 2017, the public prosecutor in Argentina issued a supplemental opinion reaffirming its previous recommendations. On November 1, 2017, the National Court, First Instance, of Argentina issued a decision dismissing the Lago Agrio plaintiffs' recognition and enforcement proceeding based on jurisdictional grounds. On November 2, 2017, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Federal Civil Court of Appeals. Chevron continues to believe the provincial court’s judgment is illegitimate and unenforceable in Ecuador, the United States and other countries. The company also believes the judgment is the product of fraud, and contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence. Chevron cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome of the appeals process in Ecuador or any enforcement action. Chevron expects to continue a vigorous defense of any imposition of liability in the Ecuadorian courts and to contest and defend any and all enforcement actions. Company's Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration Claims Chevron and Texpet filed an arbitration claim in September 2009 against the Republic of Ecuador before an arbitral tribunal presiding in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The claim alleges violations of the Republic of Ecuador’s obligations under the United States–Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and breaches of the settlement and release agreements between the Republic of Ecuador and Texpet (described above), which are investment agreements protected by the BIT. Through the arbitration, Chevron and Texpet are seeking relief against the Republic of Ecuador, including a declaration that any judgment against Chevron in the Lago Agrio litigation constitutes a violation of Ecuador’s obligations under the BIT. On January 25, 2012, the Tribunal issued its First Interim Measures Award requiring the Republic of Ecuador to take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and without Ecuador of any judgment against Chevron in the Lago Agrio case pending further order of the Tribunal. On February 16, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Second Interim Award mandating that the Republic of Ecuador take all measures necessary (whether by its judicial, legislative or executive branches) to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement and recognition within and without Ecuador of the judgment against Chevron. On February 27, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Third Interim Award confirming its jurisdiction to hear Chevron's arbitration claims. On February 7, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Fourth Interim Award in which it declared that the Republic of Ecuador “has violated the First and Second Interim Awards under the [BIT], the UNCITRAL Rules and international law in regard to the finalization and enforcement subject to execution of the Lago Agrio Judgment within and outside Ecuador, including (but not limited to) Canada, Brazil and Argentina.” The Republic of Ecuador subsequently filed in the District Court of the Hague a request to set aside the Tribunal’s Interim Awards and the First Partial Award (described below), and on January 20, 2016, the District Court denied the Republic's request. On April 13, 2016, the Republic of Ecuador appealed the decision. On July 18, 2017, the Appeals Court of the Hague denied the Republic's appeal. On October 18, 2017, the Republic appealed the decision of the Appeals Court of the Hague to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The Tribunal has divided the merits phase of the proceeding into three phases. On September 17, 2013, the Tribunal issued its First Partial Award from Phase One, finding that the settlement agreements between the Republic of Ecuador and Texpet applied to Texpet and Chevron, released Texpet and Chevron from claims based on "collective" or "diffuse" rights arising from Texpet's operations in the former concession area and precluded third parties from asserting collective/diffuse rights environmental claims relating to Texpet's operations in the former concession area but did not preclude individual claims for personal harm. The Tribunal held a hearing on April 29-30, 2014, to address remaining issues relating to Phase One, and on March 12, 2015, it issued a nonbinding decision that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs' complaint, on its face, includes claims not barred by the settlement agreement between the Republic of Ecuador and Texpet. In the same decision, the Tribunal deferred to Phase Two remaining issues from Phase One, including whether the Republic of Ecuador breached the 1995 settlement agreement and the remedies that are available to Chevron and Texpet as a result of that breach. Phase Two issues were addressed at a hearing held in April and May 2015. The Tribunal has not set a date for Phase Three, the damages phase of the arbitration. Company's RICO Action Through a series of U.S. court proceedings initiated by Chevron to obtain discovery relating to the Lago Agrio litigation and the BIT arbitration, Chevron obtained evidence that it believes shows a pattern of fraud, collusion, corruption, and other misconduct on the part of several lawyers, consultants and others acting for the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. In February 2011, Chevron filed a civil lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Lago Agrio plaintiffs and several of their lawyers, consultants and supporters, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and other state laws. Through the civil lawsuit, Chevron sought relief that included a declaration that any judgment against Chevron in the Lago Agrio litigation is the result of fraud and other unlawful conduct and is therefore unenforceable. The trial commenced on October 15, 2013 and concluded on November 22, 2013. On March 4, 2014, the Federal District Court entered a judgment in favor of Chevron, prohibiting the defendants from seeking to enforce the Lago Agrio judgment in the United States and further prohibiting them from profiting from their illegal acts. The defendants appealed the Federal District Court's decision, and, on April 20, 2015, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments. On August 8, 2016, the Second Circuit issued a unanimous opinion affirming in full the judgment of the Federal District Court in favor of Chevron. On October 27, 2016, the Second Circuit denied the defendants' petitions for en banc rehearing of the opinion on their appeal. On March 27, 2017, two of the defendants filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for a Writ of Certiorari. 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, the 2008 engineer’s report on alleged damages and the September 2010 plaintiffs’ submission on alleged damages, management does not believe these documents have 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).

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration