Posted on 04/28/2007 5:03:55 PM PDT by fella
Interesting. Conoco could end up owning all the Citgo stations?
I think some posters here lack an adequate understanding of how their proposed litigation would actually work. It would be a bit more complex than a slip and fall case. It touches upon jurisdictional issues, issue of comity, and also issues related to “piercing the corporate veil,” i.e., a corporation is a legal person distinct from it’s investors, thus a plaintiff cannot go after corporate assets to cover the debt of its investors. There are exceptions to that rule, which would then have to be litigated.
Now maybe Congress can pass a law under the Commerce Clause to take money or assets from a corporation controlled by the Chavez gang...but then there might be Bill of Attainder and other constitutional issues implicated, which would cause the law to be challenged, possibly up to the Supreme Court.
Plus any theoretical recovery would still be several years into the future.
Thus, I still maintain the most restrained, prudent and rational response to this gang of thugs would be to blow the wells up in a manner such that they cannot easily be restored, but we’d need the advice of an engineer as to the details of getting that task right.
That is not to say that overseas corporations and their assets have not been seized in the U.S.
During WW I, for example, General Anilin & Film was seized by the government, along with the Bayer and Aspirin trademark. These were assets of privately owned companies -- which happened to be headquartered in Germany.
If I'm not mistaken, until sometime in the fifties, the sole shareholder of GAF was the U.S. government.
The relationship between Citgo, PdVSA and the Venezuelan government is much closer than in the case of the German chemical companies. Wouldn't the legal ground be more favorable thereby?
I think you make a good case. I’m operating on a very generalized level of knowledge, and not pretending otherwise. This is a specialized case: When can you pierce the veil when the primary if not exclusive investor in the target corporation is not a natural person but another “entity” AND that entity is a foreign government, such that the target corporation may be said to be a creature or mere extension of that foreign government?
I don’t know the answer, but it seems to be a better case than the typical attempt to pierce the corporate veil, and the historical precedents you mention from World War II are pretty interesting. Part of this is a choice-of-law question, and may turn of which state(s), within the USA, the Venesualian company is incorporated in.
But now I’m getting beyond my knowledge, and into speculation.
I do know that, when it comes to international conflict, litigation is not always more effective, and not always ethically preferable, to blowing things up.
All I am saying is: Give violence a chance.
I applaud their stand, but they’re going to lose...
To post #21— then I would buy Citgo gas again.
I was thinking the same thing. If Hugo wants to seize Conoco's infrastructure and violate the agreements already in place, set charges and blow the place.
I've absolutely no objection to pursuing satisfaction on two fronts.
Destroying the Orinoco properties while, at the same time, seizing Citgo and its refineries would be a perfectly equitable solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.