Greenpeace turns to European court to avoid paying verdict imposed by U.S. jury

Greenpeace International, under threat of bankruptcy, is testing a new European law that protects public protesters from lawsuits in an effort to avoid some of the hefty penalties imposed by a U.S. jury for blocking the construction of an American pipeline.

In May, Energy Transfer, based in Dallas, won a $667 million verdict against Greenpeace over its yearlong protests and other actions aimed at blocking its construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The staggering sum, which has not been finalized by a judge and is under appeal, threatens to shutter the environmental activism organization, which has been operating since 1971.

The organization’s governing body, Greenpeace International, is seeking relief in a Dutch court.

“Recognition of Dutch judgments is relatively straightforward in the EU and also possible in other jurisdictions,” said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace International.

In February, the organization filed a lawsuit in Amsterdam, where it is based, seeking to recover fees and penalties it incurred from the Dakota Access Pipeline lawsuit and an earlier lawsuit Energy Transfer pursued against the organization that was thrown out.

Greenpeace International’s lawsuit against Energy Transfer will test an EU rule that protects activists from “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

The EU Commission says the 2024 rule combats “unfounded and abusive legal actions that aim to silence those working in the public interest on matters such as fundamental rights, the environment, and public access to information.”

The rule lets claimants seek to have such designated lawsuits thrown out and makes companies filing the lawsuits liable for the cost of the proceedings, penalties and other measures, the EU Commission says.

Greenpeace International seeks to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in its lawsuit against the infrastructure company.

A jury in Morton County, North Dakota, found Greenpeace liable for a litany of actions that harmed Energy Transfer, including trespassing and defamation. Protests slowed the pipeline’s construction.

The Dakota Access Pipeline can transport 750,000 barrels of oil per day from the shale oil fields of North Dakota to an oil terminal in southern Illinois. It was completed in April 2017 after more than a year of protests by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other American Indian groups, as well as environmental and civil rights activists.

In its lawsuit, Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of instigating and funding the protests to block the project.

During the three-week trial, Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox said Greenpeace’s actions to incite protests and pressure banks to defund the project cost the company $265 million to $340 million.

Mr. Cox told the jury that those costs included physical damage to the pipeline and equipment, increased security and public relations services.

He argued that the protesters on the ground in North Dakota were funded, coordinated, trained and deployed by Greenpeace.

Greenpeace, Mr. Cox said, also made “malicious statements” about Energy Transfer that were meant to harm the company’s standing in the international finance community.

Greenpeace representatives said they did not fund or coordinate any violent protesters or illegal protest activity that blocked or damaged the project and that the demonstrations against the pipeline were led mostly by local Indigenous tribes.

The jury sided with Energy Transfer and divided the $667 million judgment among U.S.-based Greenpeace, Greenpeace International and a third entity, Greenpeace Fund.

The jury verdict found U.S.-based Greenpeace Inc. liable for $404 million in damages. Greenpeace senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha said that if the verdict is upheld, Greenpeace could be forced to shutter its American operations.

Greenpeace International’s share of the Dakota Access Pipeline penalty is nearly $132 million. The organization’s Amsterdam lawsuit seeks reimbursement for that penalty and the legal fees associated with both Energy Transfer lawsuits.

Greenpeace International says the EU’s rule on strategic lawsuits against public participation will save it from having to shell out its share of the penalty and allow it to recoup legal fees. However, American lawyers questioned whether an Amsterdam judgment against Energy Transfer could be enforced in the United States.

Brady Pelton, vice president and general counsel for the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said U.S. companies operating within U.S. borders are not subject to EU directives or foreign court rulings.

“Whatever the outcome in the Netherlands, it cannot overturn the North Dakota judgment,” Mr. Pelton wrote in the National Law Review Journal.

Mr. Simons, the Greenpeace International attorney, said the organization can recoup money from the company if it prevails.

If Greenpeace International wins the Dutch lawsuit, he said, it can seek recognition and enforcement of a judgment against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands and in other jurisdictions where the company’s assets are located.

Mr. Simons said those assets “would be subject to seizure.”

Enforcement in the U.S. would not be as likely to succeed, Mr. Simon said, if the North Dakota verdict and $667 million judgment survive ongoing posttrial motions and a pending appeal.

Energy Transfer’s assets are based primarily in the U.S. An affiliate, Sunoco LP, owns liquid fuel terminals in Europe, including in Amsterdam.