Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Chevron and TexPet v. Ecuador (II), Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award, July 17, 2026

17 Jul 2026
Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. Ecuador (II), PCA Case No. 2009-23
Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Memorandum of Law submitted by Petitioners Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The filing supports a petition to recognize and enforce the Track III Award rendered against the Republic of Ecuador in a Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) proceeding (Case No. 2009-23) under the United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

Key Legal Issues and Positions

Petitioners argue that the U.S. District Court possesses jurisdiction to recognize the arbitral award because Ecuador is not entitled to sovereign immunity. Specifically, Petitioners assert that the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applies, and that Ecuador implicitly waived its immunity by becoming a signatory to the New York Convention and agreeing to arbitrate in the Netherlands, another Contracting State.

Furthermore, Petitioners contend that the New York Convention mandates the summary recognition of the Track III Award. They maintain that the underlying arbitration agreement is valid, that Ecuador received proper notice and fully participated in the seventeen-year arbitral proceedings, and that the resulting award is final and binding. Petitioners also argue that enforcement of the award is entirely consistent with the emphatic United States public policy favoring international arbitration.

Requested Relief

Anticipating Ecuador's reliance on a pending set-aside application before the District Court of The Hague, Petitioners argue that such foreign proceedings do not constitute a valid basis to defer or stay recognition in the United States. Consequently, Petitioners request that the Court recognize the compensatory obligations of the Track III Award, enter judgment against Ecuador for the principal amount plus accrued post-award interest, and award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the enforcement proceedings.