Shell settles Saro-Wiwa lawsuit

According to the Times (and many other sources) Royal Dutch Shell will pay $15.5 million (£9.6 million) to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of colluding with Nigeria’s former military regime over the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other peaceful anti-oil protesters. (See my earlier post here )

Shell admitted no wrongdoing in reaching the settlement, which will be used to compensate the families of Mr Saro-Wiwa and eight other civilians maimed or hanged by the regime. The money will also be used to set up a development trust for the Ogoni people from the Niger Delta in southern Nigeria.

US law allows overseas nationals to sue companies registered in America for human rights abuses. Shell spent 13 years attempting to get the claims against it and Brian Anderson ( a former managing director of the company’s Nigerian business) thrown out of court but was told in April by a New York judge that the case would go to trial.

The company said that it agreed to a settlement “in recognition of the tragic turn of events in Ogoni land, even though Shell had no part in the violence that took place”.

According to the lawsuit against Shell, the company encouraged Nigeria’s military regime to clamp down on Mr Saro-Wiwa because his activities threatened lucrative oil production in the Niger Delta. The suit also claimed that Shell representatives met Sani Abacha, then Nigeria’s military president, to discuss the tribunal and told associates in advance that Mr Saro-Wiwa would be found guilty. The lawsuit against Mr Anderson alleged that he met Owens Wiwa, Mr Saro-Wiwa’s brother, and offered to secure the Mosop leader’s freedom in a return for a halt to the group’s protests. Dr Wiwa was later forced to flee Nigeria, having also been detained and tortured by the military regime.

Malcolm Brinded, Shell’s executive director for exploration and production, said yesterday: “While we were prepared to go to court to clear our name, we believe the right way forward is to focus on the future for Ogoni people, which is important for peace and stability in the region.”

Judith Chomsky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which helped to bring the case against Shell, said that the settlement showed that “corporations, no matter how powerful, will be held to universal human rights standards”.

WW Follows

The Shetlands are the most northerly part of the United Kingdom and although part of Scotland they are still very Norse – they only became part of Scotland in 1469 when King Christian i of Denmark and Norway pawned the Islands for 8,000 Rhenish Guilders after his daughter Margaret became engaged to James III. Subsequent kings of Norway had the right to redeem the islands for a fixed sum of 210 kg of gold or 2,310 kg of silver and several unsuccessful attempts were made during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Stuart Hill is the defender in a civil action brought against him by a local accountancy firm. However, he intends to persuade Lerwick Sheriff Court that the court and thus Scottish law has no jurisdiction. He believes the Shetlands should be viewed as a debt security and as such only on long-term loan to Scotland. He has therefore reached the "inescapable conclusion" that at no point in Shetland's history did the Crown acquire ownership of the islands.

The case will be heard on 22 April.

Hmm Nice try but I somehow think his chances of winning this case are somewhere between nil and bugger all!

Roy L Pearson to lose his shirt ?

Judge Judith Bartnoff has ruled Monday against Roy L Pearson in his $54 million lawsuit over a missing pair of trousers. The judge ruled that owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

Pearson originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers then tried to give him a pair he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims. Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he had taken in for alterations.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, praised the ruling, which followed a two-day trial earlier this month. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom." he said

See also Roy L Pearson in the Wrong Trousers

UPDATE: the Chungs have sold the shop where the incident was alleged to have taken place. See here

Roy L Pearson in "The Wrong Trousers"

If someone seeks damages of $54m the expectation is that they have been dreadfully wronged, mutilated, slandered or something. $54m in respect of a pair of lost trousers would strike most people as a touch over the top. However, this is the amount claimed by American judge Roy L Pearson from a dry cleaning store that lost a pair of his trousers.

Pearson told a local court in Washington DC that Custom Cleaners should pay the sum because a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign deceived consumers who, like him, were dissatisfied with their experience. "You will search the records of the District of Columbia courts in vain for a case of more egregious or wilful misconduct," Pearson told D.C. Judge Judith Bartnoff.

The lawyer for the Korean immigrants who run the dry cleaner said Pearson was looking for a way to resolve his financial difficulties after a divorce."It's simply a frivolous lawsuit brought by an unhappy customer with a bone to pick," attorney Chris Manning said.

Pearson filed suit after the cleaners lost his trousers in 2005. Defendants Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung said they located the pants a few days later, but Pearson said they were not his.

Pearson, who has rejected several settlement offers, counted 12 separate violations of a consumer-protection law over 1,200 days, multiplied by the three defendants. At $1,500 per day, that is $65 million. He has also sought $15,000 to rent a car to take his clothes to another cleaner for the next 10 years. He subsequently did reduce his claim to $54 million.

The case is expected to conclude today, hopefully with substantial embarrassment for the plaintiff. Okay having a dry cleaners lose your trousers is a pain and compensation is appropriate, but to claim over $50m in such circumstances is utterly stupid. I would have thought this suit should cast doubt over his suitability to continue as a judge

Update. Judge Bartnoff ruled against Pearson today (25 June). Click here for further news

UPDATE: the Chungs have sold the shop where the incident was alleged to have taken place. See here