Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4603, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 2004 WL 602774 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent corporation may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its subsidiary under an agency theory if the plaintiff provides sufficient evidence that the parent exercised a degree of control and involvement beyond typical oversight, establishing a relationship where the subsidiary acts on the parent's behalf.
Facts:
- ChevronTexaco Corporation (CVX), a U.S. company, and its U.S. subsidiary, ChevronTexaco Overseas Petroleum (CTOP), were parent companies to Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL), which operated an oil joint venture in Nigeria.
- On May 28, 1998, Nigerian protestors occupied CNL's Parabe offshore oil platform to protest environmental damage.
- CNL allegedly recruited and transported Nigerian military and police to the platform, who then fired on the protestors, killing two.
- Following the shootings, CNL management and security forces were allegedly involved in the detention and torture of Bola Oyinbo, a protest leader.
- On January 4, 1999, a helicopter allegedly operated by Chevron pilots and carrying Nigerian military personnel flew over the villages of Opia and Ikenyan, opening fire and killing several villagers.
- Shortly thereafter, CNL sea trucks transported CNL personnel and Nigerian soldiers to Opia, where they again opened fire, killing more people and setting fire to buildings and livestock.
Procedural Posture:
- Five Nigerian plaintiffs filed suit against ChevronTexaco Corporation (CVX) and ChevronTexaco Overseas Petroleum, Inc. (CTOP) in a U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The parties stipulated to a bifurcated discovery schedule, with Phase I focused exclusively on the potential liability of the U.S. parent companies for the events in Nigeria.
- At the conclusion of Phase I discovery, defendants CVX and CTOP filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule as a matter of law that they could not be held liable for the actions of their Nigerian subsidiary.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent corporation's deep operational involvement with its subsidiary, including setting security policy, constant communication during critical incidents, and shared management, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subsidiary was acting as the parent's agent, thereby precluding summary judgment for the parent on claims arising from the subsidiary's alleged torts?
Opinions:
Majority - Illston, District Judge
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the subsidiary (CNL) was acting as an agent for its parent corporations (CVX and CTOP), which is sufficient to deny the parents' motion for summary judgment. While plaintiffs' alter-ego theory fails because there is no evidence that respecting the corporate form would lead to injustice, they have presented substantial evidence supporting an agency relationship. Key factors indicating agency include: (1) the extraordinary volume of communication between the parent and subsidiary, especially during the attacks; (2) the parent's role in setting security policy for the subsidiary; (3) the 'revolving door' of high-level managers between the parent and subsidiary; and (4) the parent's public portrayal of the subsidiary as an integral part of its worldwide operations and its reliance on the subsidiary for a significant portion of its earnings. This evidence, combined with facts suggesting the subsidiary's actions to protect oil production were within the scope of this agency, allows the case to proceed to a jury. Furthermore, the parent company's conflicting public statements after the incidents could constitute ratification of the subsidiary's actions, creating an independent basis for potential liability.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that U.S. parent corporations can be held accountable for human rights abuses committed by their foreign subsidiaries under a standard agency theory, which is less stringent than piercing the corporate veil. It distinguishes the high bar of the 'alter ego' doctrine from the fact-intensive 'agency' inquiry, focusing on the parent's operational control and integration rather than mere corporate formalities. The ruling provides a viable legal pathway for plaintiffs in transnational tort cases, signaling that courts may look past corporate structures to examine the practical realities of control in multinational enterprises. This precedent encourages deeper scrutiny of parent-subsidiary relationships in future cases involving overseas corporate conduct.
