• North Dakota judge finalizes $345 million judgment against Greenpeace
• Lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer over pipeline protests
• Jury previously awarded about $667 million in damages
• Greenpeace plans new trial motion and possible appeal
On Friday, a judge in North Dakota completed a 345m judgment against Greenpeace. The suit was filed by Energy transfer LP, a pipeline company, against objections that were connected to the Dakota access pipeline.
The decision was made by Judge James Gion who ruled after a decision in October reduced an initial jury prize of approximately 667million dollars to approximately half. In March, the jury had ruled that Greenpeace was liable to defamation, trespass and conspiracy.
The suit is based on the demonstrations against the Dakota Access Pipeline which started in 2016 and is situated on the Standing Rock reservation. In 2017 the pipeline was completed and a huge number of environmental and tribal organizations opposed it claiming that it posed a threat to water and aided in climate change.
Greenpeace declared that it would continue to struggle in court. A group of them requested a retrial and, should the necessity arise, a request to the North Dakota Supreme Court, claiming it a blatant attack on free speech.
Marco Simons, who is the temporary attorney of Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund remarked, that one should not have to be treated as criminals because of speaking out against anti-environmental companies.
Energy Transfer was pleased with the decision. In a declaration which they referred to the decision as a significant move in ensuring that Greenpeace is answerable to what they alleged to be unlawful and harmful activities in the course of the pipeline construction. According to them, they were considering next steps in order to ensure that Greenpeace is held to the fullest.
Origins of the Dispute
The Dakota Access Pipeline is the transmission of oil crude oil drilled in the Bakken area of North Dakota to the Midwest and Gulf Coast refineries. The protest camps around Standing Rock became a national discussion in 2016 when issued by thousands of people, including activists and Native American organizations.
In the year 2017, Energy Transfer initially filed a case in the federal court in North Dakota alleging that the Greenpeace was making fake information on the project and contributing funds aimed at stopping the construction of it. The case was then proceeded to state court.
According to the records of the court, the jury indicated in March that the activities of Greenpeace caused the company losses. The damages were compensation towards reputation injury and project losses.
In October, 1998 Judge Gion reduced the damages by approximately 667 million dollars to 345 million dollars. That sum was legalized by the decision of Friday, and can be appealed to after trial, and subsequently.
Parallel Litigation and Appeals
Greenpeace claims that its intervention in the demonstrations was legitimate advocacy and it had no plans to engage in criminal activities. In the State of North Dakota, the group will attempt to reverse the ruling at the appellate courts.
In February, Greenpeace was the plaintiff in a countersuit in the Netherlands under the rules of the European Union to halt strategic lawsuits against public involvement, also known as SLAPP suits. That case is still going on.
Law analysts believe that the North Dakota case may have implications in future struggles between businesses and activist organizations particularly those in cases where protest actions are accompanied by allegations of defamation/economic damages.
North Dakota still relies on the Dakota Access Pipeline to produce approximately 40 Percent of Bakken oil. Despite this, the challenge of environmental and regulation cases persists in the federal courts even though it is still running.
Such a large step in a case that has taken nearly a decade is the clear verdict, yet the case is likely to proceed in courts of appeal.
