District Court in Chevron Case Exonerates Prelminary Injuction Bond


The District Court in the long-running international litigation involving Chevron exonerated (meaning vacated it) the preliminary injunction bond filed in connection with the preliminary injunction entered by the District Court but then reversed by the Second Circuit.  We have posted on this litigation many times (e.g., here).

The decision addresses several issues of interest to international litigators or other practitioners.

First, the District Court stated:  The purpose of a preliminary injunction bond ‘is to guarantee payment of costs and damages sustained by a party who is wrongfully enjoined or restrained”.   

Second, however, the Court ruled that “the proceeds from such a bond may not be applied to compensate for attorney’s fees”.  Counsel for the defendants had not submitted any claim for damages against the bond.  Nor could they have done so, finds the Court.  The preliminary injunction entered by the Court barred the defendants from enforcing or attempting to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment.  But that Judgment was not enforceable in any event throughout the entire period that the injunction was in effect.  Said the Court:  “The preliminary injunction therefore could not have delayed any enforcement actions or caused any injury to the defendants for which they are able to recover”.

Third, the Court followed the Ninth Circuit in stating that “if a bond is posted, liability is limited by the terms of the bond or the order of the court that required the posting”.   There was no basis for submitting claims for attorneys’ fees under the bond in the circumstances here, and the District Court therfore extinquished the bond.

Finally, as part of the Court’s consideration of the motion, the Court observed that the defendants’ lawyers had “patently” engaged in forum shopping by coming to the District Court in the Second Circuit, which has “held that even proven damages may be disallowed for a good reason such as, but not limited to, unreasonableness for the failure to mitigate damages”.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.