Energy Transfer, the US-based pipeline company, has been accused by Greenpeace International of attempting to muzzle its voice through a high-stakes lawsuit in North Dakota.
On Wednesday, a Dutch court granted permission to Greenpeace International to pursue an unconventional counterclaim against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands.
Related ↗Soldier under investigation for fatal shooting by Israeli military police.A Dutch court has given the green light to an environmental group's lawsuit against an American company, which allegedly employed intimidation tactics in a long-standing North Dakota dispute.
Based in Amsterdam, Greenpeace International was among three Greenpeace organizations targeted by Energy Transfer in North Dakota following the tumultuous Dakota Access Pipeline protests that erupted nearly ten years ago. Two additional Greenpeace entities have their headquarters in the United States.
Read next ↗President Trump vows to urge restraint from Israel in response to Iranian retaliation.A US-based energy firm, Energy Transfer, initially took Greenpeace entities to federal court on racketeering charges but the case was dropped. The company subsequently filed in North Dakota state court, securing a significant victory last year with a verdict totaling $345 million after a three-week trial.
Greenpeace International maintains that its participation in the protests was limited to issuing a letter to investors expressing concerns about the project. As a result, it has been held accountable for approximately $64 million in damages related to conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference allegations. The two other Greenpeace groups acknowledged playing a supporting role in peaceful demonstrations, but were found liable for a greater share of claims linked to physical actions during the protests.
A countersuit was lodged by Greenpeace International in the Netherlands prior to the trial in North Dakota. This move was prompted by Dutch legislation that bars Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, a tactic often employed by powerful entities to silence critics through expensive litigation. Many US states have enacted laws to curb such practices, but North Dakota is not among them.
A Dutch court has given the go-ahead to a Greenpeace lawsuit, rejecting Energy Transfer's claim that the court lacks jurisdiction over the case. This decision was handed down by a three-judge panel on Wednesday.
Dutch judges rejected the request for a stay of proceedings, citing an unacceptable delay if they waited for the North Dakota appeals process to conclude its full cycle.
A new defense brief is now required from Energy Transfer before July 15th.
Energy Transfer's bid for an international injunction has met with limited success. The company submitted this request to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which recently directed a lower court to issue such an injunction. However the state Supreme Court specified that the injunction should be narrowly focused on preventing Greenpeace International from contesting the trial's legitimacy or arguing it was fundamentally flawed.
The Dutch court's decision effectively leaves the case intact for now.
Greenpeace International has announced plans to revise its lawsuit in light of the court's ruling, which will enable the organization to pursue claims that Energy Transfer's dual lawsuits and extrajudicial statements were harassing.
Greenpeace defendants in the North Dakota case are seeking a retrial with their request pending before the local trial judge. They have vowed to escalate their appeal if this request is rejected outright.
Greenpeace International's senior legal counsel for strategic defense, Daniel Simons, declared: "Energy Transfer has been thwarted once again in its bid to shut down our lawsuit. Having already faced rejection from two North Dakota courts and the Amsterdam District Court, Energy Transfer will now have to answer for its actions, which include numerous baseless lawsuits and scurrilous accusations."
A Dutch court has ruled in favor of Energy Transfer, but not entirely, as it disagreed with Greenpeace International's reliance on a European Union directive regarding SLAPP suits, which actually advised governments to enhance their anti-harassment legislation.
The court's decision rendered the 2024 directive inapplicable due to its post-filing issuance and lack of retroactivity. Consequently, Greenpeace International will proceed with its case relying exclusively on current Dutch legislation against SLAPP lawsuits.
Energy Transfer's corporate communications VP, Vicki Granado, hailed the ruling as a significant triumph.
Energy Transfer asserts it's immune from Dutch court jurisdiction due to lack of ties to the Netherlands. The company maintains its stance despite a European court potentially challenging this claim.
