[Handwritten] 220,699 Two hundred twenty thousand six hundred ninety-nine [initials]

TO THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE OF SUCUMBÍOS:

I, Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, in my capacity as joint counsel for María Aguinda et. al., in connection with proceeding No. 002-2003 filed against Chevron Corporation (formerly Texaco) for environmental damage, respectfully appear before you in order to (1) ask the Court to order enforcement measures (attachment) on the defendant’s property located in Ecuador, and (2) ask the Court to order preventive measures on the defendant’s property located in Colombia and Argentina, in the terms stated below.

I - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST

It should be recalled that Texaco agreed to SUBMIT to the jurisdiction of Ecuadorian courts and to SATISFY any judgment rendered against it.

Recently, faced with Chevron’s attempt to back out of those obligations, the U.S. court had to “remind” it that Texaco’s promise to the court DID bind it1. The same conclusion had already been reached by the

1 In the decision rendered on March 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second District in New York stated that “Here, Texaco had been trying to convince the district court that Ecuador would serve as an adequate alternative forum for resolution of its dispute with Plaintiffs. As part of those efforts, Texaco assured the district court that it would recognize the binding nature of any judgment issued in Ecuador. Doing so displayed Texaco’s well-founded belief that such a promise would make the district court more likely to grant its motion to dismiss. Had Texaco taken a different approach and agreed to participate in the Ecuadorian litigation,

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 415 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK) Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 1 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,700 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred [initials] 2 judge that previously presided over this proceeding and by the Sole Division of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos when affirming the judgment against Chevron.

Thus, Chevron’s failure to abide by the promises Texaco made (about ten years ago) requires the plaintiffs to file this request with the enforcement judge, a request that serves two purposes: OBTAIN THE ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT MEASURES IN ECUADOR and the ORDER FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES IN ARGENTINA AND COLOMBIA on the company’s assets.

Being already in the judgment enforcement proceeding, we were forced to make this twofold request because, although the measures requested herein are very similar, a clear distinction must be made regarding their nature. First, having filed the enforcement proceeding for the Lago Agrio judgment, the plaintiffs are entitled to use attachments (as enforcement measures) for the purpose of enforcing the rights the judgment affords us. This is not a problem in the case of Ecuador because the law on this matter provides us with a very simple proceeding to attach and auction the judgment debtor’s assets. However, as we will see below, Chevron does not have nearly enough assets in Ecuador to cover its debt, so we are forced to turn to foreign countries— such as Argentina and

but announced an intention to disregard any judgment the Ecuadorian courts might issue, dismissal would have been (to say the least) less likely. We therefore conclude that the district court adopted Texaco’s promise to satisfy any judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, subject to its rights under New York’s Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Act, in awarding Texaco the relief it sought in its motion to dismiss. As a result, that promise, along with Texaco’s more general promises to submit to Ecuadorian jurisdiction, is enforceable against Chevron in this action and any future proceedings between the parties, including enforcement actions, [] proceedings, and attempts to confirm arbitration awards.”

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 2 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,701 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred one [initials] 3 Colombia—where Chevron’s operations are more extensive, in order to help meet its liability. Nevertheless, before being able to collect in those jurisdictions, we must get the Ecuadorian judgment recognized, a proceeding that requires valuable time that the defendant would foreseeably misuse since it has already announced its refusal to meet the obligations arising from the judgment. We need, then, to find a method that prevents the debtor from using this time to its advantage, allowing it to find new ways to oppose and deny plaintiffs’ rights while the recognition proceedings are underway. The institution of preventive measures exists precisely to avoid this kind of potential abuse, so this Court should use them as soon as possible.

This request for preventive measures is even more reasonable if one considers that, almost parallel to Chevron’s breach of the promise made to U.S. judges, Chevron made a new promise: that it would never comply with the judgment rendered in this proceeding. It did so by resorting to tasteless hyperbole, such as the assertion that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs would have to litigate “until hell freezes over, and then skate it out on the ice.”

It is important to highlight Chevron’s dilatory and obstructionist behavior throughout the proceeding. The trial court’s and court of appeals’ judgments themselves show, beyond doubt, that this has been the case.

So the measures requested herein are justified because there is not only an enforceable judgment that is res judicata—which is reason enough to grant them—but there is also an

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 3 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,702 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred two [initials] 4 immediate need to order them because of the undeniable bad faith that has guided Chevron’s conduct throughout the proceeding. We cannot allow Chevron to do as it pleases while the recognition and enforcement proceedings are heard in these foreign countries because it will undoubtedly use that time to continue setting traps to prevent the collection of the legitimate award this Court ordered.

It must be remembered, in this regard, that [the trial judge], Nicolás Zambrano, repeatedly reproached Chevron in the judgment because of its constant attempts to sabotage the course of the proceeding2, and the Sole Division of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos did likewise [on appeal].3

2 Judge Zambrano mentioned—among many other things—the following factors that show this bad faith: “failing to appear for the ordered presentation of documents or present an excuse on the date indicated; trying to take advantage of the merger between Chevron Corp. and Texaco Inc. as a mechanism to evade responsibilities; abusing the rights granted by the procedural Law, such as the right to submit the appeals that the Law provides for, such as the vertical right of appeal, repeated motions on resolved issues, and incidental pleadings that by mandate of the Law there is no place for within summary verbal proceedings, and that have each warranted admonishments and fines against the professionals that have defended the defendant from the different Judges who have held the presidency of this Court; delays provoked through conduct legitimate in principle but whose use has unfair consequences for the proceedings themselves, such as refusing and blocking the payment of instated experts, thus preventing them from being able to commence their work, or drawing checks for the payment of experts in the name of the Court of Justice, or the well documented case of the videos that were illegally recorded by persons close to the defendant.” 3 “Persistently the defendant, Chevron Corporation, has been the instigator of incidents that have resulted in obstruction of the judicial process ...”; he also stated that the defendant’s submissions were “filed with clear abuse of process and clear intent to obstruct the administration of justice”; that Chevron used those improper submissions to “almost uselessly inflating” the case; even this Court did not hesitate to label Chevron’s submission on appeal as “insolent motions.” Then the Court said that “The record shows that Chevron has exercised a vigorous defense of its procedural interest; as stated above, it has been even overwhelming and offensive, filing, literally and markedly, thousands of motions with diverse petitions, some with a legal basis, but others, many times others, containing contradictory, repetitive, and even illegal petitions”; it immediately referred to “multiple attempts to abuse legal institutions for purposes unrelated to their fair exercise, such as appeals filed untimely in the middle of the first- instance trial in a summary verbal proceeding…or of petitions filed by the Defendant in order to open spaces and block them with challenges…or motions to revoke, and its persistence on them after they were denied, signed different professionals of the law for the obvious purpose of avoiding sanctions; or even the very fact of having sought recusals, literally of most of the judges conducting the proceedings.” This Court’s reference to the defendant’s conduct in the case is especially eloquent when it writes “...rarely seen in the annals of history of the administration of justice in Ecuador”; as well as the fact that this Court affirmed the punitive damages and the trial judge’s reason for awarding them, “showing what should not occur in a trial.”

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 4 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,703 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred three [initials] 5 Second, there is no reason to believe—regretfully—that this dilatory and obstructionist behavior will decrease, much less stop, at the foreign recognition and enforcement stage. In fact, Chevron already made clear its refusal to abide by the judgment, yet again, when it failed to publicly apologize to the victims of the disasters caused in the Amazon within the 15-day deadline and when it unfairly delayed the proceedings.

In this context, we must resort to the preventive measures in the terms requested herein regarding Chevron Corp.’s assets in Colombia and Argentina while the enforcement measures— also requested in this motion—take effect.

II- LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REQUEST FOR PREVENTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES

After the Court determined the final amount of the award and expenses, it ordered the defendant to pay that amount or surrender property of equal value within 24 hours, under Article 438 of the CPC [Code of Civil Procedure].

Since the debtor refused to pay or give up property to satisfy the award then, without further proceedings, the Court must attach the assets indicated by the creditor, as established in Article 439 of the CPC.4

4 This article states: “If the debtor does not indicate the property to be attached, if the surrender is malicious, if the property is located outside the country or is insufficient to cover the claim, then the creditor may ask the court to proceed with the attachment of the property indicated by the creditor, with preference for money, property subject to a security interest or mortgaged property, or the property that was subject

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 5 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,704 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred four [initials] 6 Under the enforcement system established in the CPC, which the plaintiffs have meticulously followed, respecting each and every step, this is the stage to now go into detail.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the assets Chevron has in Ecuador today, as we will see below when listing them, are completely insufficient and their auction or liquidation will not even cover a minimal part of the award, so it is necessary— indispensable, actually—to go after the multinational’s assets in other countries.5 However, in order for the attachment, as an enforcement measure, to apply abroad, we must first get the Ecuadorian judgment recognized, and during that proceeding Chevron may seek to get rid of its assets or in any other way avoid paying its debt, among other things. To avoid this, it is important that the Court order a series of sequestrations, withholdings, and prohibitions against disposal (preventive or precautionary measures, under Ecuadorian law), precisely to protect the plaintiffs’ rights.

This request for sequestration, withholding, and prohibition against disposal concerns assets located abroad so, along with the regular provisions of the CPC, the “Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures” applies, which was signed within the framework of the II International Conference on Private International Law—CIDIP II— held in 1979 in

to prohibition against disposal, sequestration or withholding. If the surrender by the debtor or the indication of property by the creditor involves real property, then it will not be accepted unless accompanied by a certificate from the property registrar and a real estate appraisal.” 5 It is important to make clear starting now that the identification of foreign countries where plaintiffs will begin to adopt the measures established here (Argentina and Colombia) in no way suggests that the plaintiffs waive the right to seek to adopt the same or other measures in the near future in other countries.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 6 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,705 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred five [initials] 7 Montevideo, and ratified by Ecuador, as well as Argentina and Colombia.6

At that Conference, the “Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Judgments” and the “Inter-American Convention on the Execution of Preventive Measures” were signed.

The purpose of the Conventions is to speed up International Cooperation proceedings that traditionally, when conducted in accordance with each country’s ordinary domestic laws, have proved to be so slow as to be incompatible with their importance. They provide faster mechanisms that generally shorten timeframes and avoid bureaucratic red tape, thereby neutralizing the risk that international cooperation will occur too late. A specific example of this facilitation is found in the Convention on Preventive Measures, which authorizes the interested party to personally assume responsibility for sending the letters rogatory from one country to another, instead of following the regular diplomatic procedure, which—as experience has shown—usually takes much longer than appropriate for this type of inherently urgent procedure.7

As doctrine in this field states, “This issue is especially important if we consider that ensuring the extraterritorial validity of preventive measures is as important as the extraterritorial validity of the judgment itself. . . The Convention responds to the new trend in International Law of trying to broaden the framework of international judicial cooperation

6 Countries often enter treaties or conventions on the subject, especially at the regional level. Merely by way of example, the European Union has the “Brussels Convention”; and Mercosur has the “Las Leñas Protocol”. The same thing applies at the Organization of American States (OAS), of which the Republic of Ecuador is a member, with the instruments created at CIDIP II. 7 We will revisit this important issue in Section VI (V.ii).

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 7 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,706 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred six [initials] 8 so the judges of any country can apply preventive or precautionary measures ordered by judges of a different country in proceedings filed in that country.”8

We can clearly see the close connection between both Conventions of CIDIP II, which complement one another in regulating the different stages a party must pass through in order for International Cooperation to be successful: while the Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments provides the mechanisms that allow a judgment issued in a foreign country to be treated for all purposes as a local judgment, the Convention on Preventive Measures serves the purpose of preventing the time required by the above- mentioned adversarial proceeding from affecting the judgment creditor’s rights by allowing that party to request seizures, withholdings, prohibitions against disposal, and attachments9 on the defendant’s assets.

This short review of the context in which the two Conventions were enacted, of their spirit and purpose, reveals how suitable they are to this case: if judges did not have instruments available in cases such as this one—where Chevron openly states that it will not abide by the judgment and has also taken steps to leave behind in Ecuador

8 Tatiana B. de Maekett, Second Inter-American Specialized Conference on International Private Law (CIDIP II). The entire work of this legal scholar may be found at http://www.juridicas.unam..mx/publica/librev/rev/jurid/cont/14/pr/pt26.pdf. Werner Goldschmidt, an internationally renowned authority in Private International Law, stated that “The draft conventions were prepared by what today is the Legal Subsecretariat of the OAS, headed by Dr. Tatiana B. de Maekelt and the Inter- American Legal Committee, presided by Haroldo Valladlao. Both of them making invaluable contributions to the success of CIDIP I and II” (“Private International Law,” Buenos Aires, Abeledo Perrot, 2009, page 41). 9 Here we are referring to the institution of attachment as known in countries such as Argentina and Colombia, where the measure has a preventive nature, not strictly an enforcement nature, as in Ecuador.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 8 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,707 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred seven [initials] 9 merely residual assets the value of which does not even cover a minimal part of the award—then these rules would make no practical sense at all, as if they did not even exist, because it would be difficult to find another case in which the need to use them, to achieve justice, is so clear.

Then, in Chapter V of this motion, we will explain the scope of the application of these international rules that tie Ecuador to Argentina and Colombia.

III-

INCLUSION OF ASSETS CHEVRON CORP. POSSESSES

THROUGH ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

III.1. Chevron Corp. owns the subsidiaries and their assets, even if they are formally held by corporate entities or other kinds of entities with a different name.

Regarding this issue, the trial court wrote, in part:

“It is true that as a general rule a company can have subsidiaries with completely distinct legal status. However, when the subsidiaries share the same informal name, the same personnel, and are directly linked to the parent company in an uninterrupted chain of operational decision-making, the separation between entities and patrimonies is significantly clouded, or even comes to disappear.”

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 9 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,708 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred eight [initials] 10

In turn, when it had to decide Chevron’s complaints on this matter (which it unhesitatingly called a “key point of controversy”), the Court of Appeals stated, in its decision dated January 3, 2012, that “The trial judge makes a complete and reasoned analysis in this regard in the amplifying part of the judgment, which this Division affirms.”

In other words, the fact that the assets whose sequestration, withholding, or prohibition against disposal is being requested are formally held by companies other than Chevron Corp.— but that Chevron Corp. wholly owns—poses absolutely no legal or procedural obstacle. It is merely an instrumental aspect consistent with a company that operates in over 100 countries around the world and organizes its business through a system of holding companies and subsidiaries.10

Also, in the above scenario, when its subsidiaries possess the assets against which the judgment may be enforced, limiting enforcement strictly to Chevron Corp. (only in the U.S.) would entail a manifestly excessive adherence to procedure that would result in limiting without a legal basis the alternatives for enforcing the judgment.

Chevron Corp. has decided to promote a view under which it is only present and it only holds assets in the United States, so that any attempt by plaintiffs to go after its subsidiaries or affiliates would become an allegedly illegal scheme between attorneys, advisors, and the plaintiffs themselves. But we will see below in more detail (section III.2.) that, according to information Chevron Corp. itself provided to its shareholders and to the general public in its

10 Considering only the countries where Chevron says it has more extensive activity, the list includes the following: Angola, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Holland, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam. (See http://www.chevron.com/countries/).

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 10 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,709 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred nine [initials] 11

Annual Report, this view is fallacious and is inconsistent with reality, because the parent company touts the economic success of its subsidiaries around the world as its own—with no distinctions.

Along the same lines, the judgment highlighted the notion of “unity of assets” that ultimately underlies the companies of this corporate group regardless of whether they have different legal personalities on paper, which should not be separated by impassable barriers, at least not if the highest value is that justice prevail.

For example, it would have been unfair and contrary to legitimate rights if Texaco Inc. had not been held liable for the illicit acts TexPet committed when operating the Consortium, and if that liability had not then been “passed up” to Chevron Corp. as head of an uninterrupted chain, in the same way it would be unfair and violate rights now if the plaintiffs were not allowed to enforce the judgment using assets that Chevron Corp. undoubtedly owns but that are registered under the name of its subsidiary or affiliate companies around the world (under Chevron Corp.’s control, of course).

Seeking to avoid liability for the damage inflicted, the defendant cannot rely on triangulations, mergers or corporate structures to defend against third-party victims such as the plaintiffs in this case.11

As the trial court noted, when dealing with chains of subsidiaries, the assets of the different companies may

11 The expansion of the trial court’s judgment, dated March 4, 2011, addressed this concept when highlighting that if the appearance and externalization of Chevron’s commercial activities indicated that it was Texaco’s successor, then Chevron could not deny that fact—to the plaintiffs’ detriment—by using obscure corporate maneuvers that would lead to a different result. The same may be said now regarding the relationship between Chevron Corp. and its subsidiaries: if they present themselves as a unit around the world, then they cannot say now, in the face of liability, that they are different legal entities.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 11 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,710 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred ten [initials] 12

be intermingled, in practice, even to the point of completely blurring any dividing line. And the reason why it is not necessary here to dismiss corporate personality is that the assets registered in the name of Chevron Corp.’s subsidiaries are owned by the latter, which is always at the head of the organizational chain so Chevron must meet the obligations it owes its creditors out of the entirety of its assets.12

Therefore, in this case, it is NOT necessary to resort to the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil or rejection of legal personality in order to justify the proposed solution, which is to go after assets held in the name of Chevron Corp.’s subsidiaries.

III .2. The treatment requested here—i.e., considering Chevron Corp. and its subsidiaries to be a single unit—is the same treatment that the defendant applies to itself in numerous situations, even with U.S. regulatory authorities.

Chevron Corp.’s very conduct in matters of public knowledge support the plaintiffs’ request that the award be enforced on assets that Chevron Corp. owns through its subsidiaries. In fact, the defendant itself, through its statements and actions in different matters of public knowledge, has shown that

12 Corporate law scholars have addressed this issue. Professor Manóvil, for example, has carried out an exhaustive analysis on all aspects related to the operation of corporate groups in the modern economy (“Groups of Corporations in International Law,” Abeledo Perrot, 1998, Buenos Aires, Argentina). On pages 1012 et seq. Manóvil makes a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the case in which [a creditor] seeks to extend liability for company obligations to the shareholder or controlling company (the “from the bottom up” phenomenon), and on the other hand, the case when a creditor of the shareholder or controlling company seeks to collect from company assets liability attributable to them (which the author calls “from the top down”). The latter is—clearly—the situation in our case.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 12 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,711 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred eleven [initials] 13

it is the real owner of assets and legal relationships that, on paper, appeared under the name of some subsidiary or affiliate.

This is why our request cannot be considered detrimental to Chevron Corp. since ultimately we seek to treat it, in this regard, the same way it treats itself.

(i) This happens, for example, in the case of the arbitration proceeding Chevron pursued against the Republic of Ecuador under the Bilateral Investment Treaty.13 In that proceeding, Chevron Corp. claimed “delay of justice” regarding seven commercial claims pending before Ecuadorian courts—which are in no way related to the Lago Agrio Case—and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague agreed, awarding a total of $95 million. What is revealing, though, is that the legal relationships being litigated were held by Texaco Inc. (through its subsidiary TexPet). But despite that, Chevron Corp. also pursued the claim along with its subsidiary before the arbitration tribunal, and Chevron is currently trying to collect the award directly for itself.14

(ii) It should also be mentioned that the defendant company’s own website (www.chevron.com) shows the vast geographical network in which its businesses operate.15

13 Acronym: BIT. 14 Styled l:12-cv-01247-JEB at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the case CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PRELEUM COMPANY v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR 15 It is worth mentioning that in his decision dated February 14, 2011, the trial judge attributed full legal and evidentiary value to the defendant’s statements taken from these kinds of institutional websites (a method later approved by the court of appeals).

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 13 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,712 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twelve [initials] 14

There the company states—as an introduction or header for that section—that “. . . We conduct business all around the globe. Detailed information is provided below for countries where Chevron’s work is more extensive.”16

In its 2011 Annual Report, where it provides a detailed account of the status of its activities—with the respective results for the fiscal year in question—Chevron provides the following legal notice, which is conclusive for the purposes sought here, that is, directly attributing to the parent company assets it indirectly holds through its subsidiaries, by which it operates around the world. The notice states that: “As used in this Report, the terms ‘Chevron’ and ‘the company’ may refer to Chevron Corporation, one or more of its consolidated subsidiaries, or to all of them taken as a whole...”17

Chevron’s statements illustrate the double standard the company uses when, first, it displays its results to its investors and to the general public resorting to the method of confusing the parent company with its consolidated subsidiaries—going so far as to assimilate them in the highly representative terms of “Chevron” or “the company”—which allows Chevron Corp. to show spectacular financial results. But then, when it comes to facing liabilities, it does just the opposite

16 “We conduct business all around the globe. Detailed information is provided below for countries where Chevron’s work is more extensive.” Immediately after this statement, the company lists the countries that appear in footnote 9. As the text states, the countries mentioned there (those in Latin America include: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela) are not all the countries where Chevron operates, but only the most representative ones, or those where, as it puts it, “work is more extensive.” 17 “As used in this report, the therms [sic] ‘Chevron’ and ‘the company’ may refer to Chevron Corporation, one or more of its consolidated subsidiaries, or to all of them taken as a whole...” http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93410/000095012312002976/f60351e10vk.htm

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 14 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,713 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirteen [initials] 15

and hides behind the abusive autonomy of any subsidiary, controlled or affiliated company.

Also, this is one of those situations in which the company arrogates to itself substantial rights and prerogatives that, technically, belong to a different entity from the economic group.

In line with this, it should be mentioned that, both in its 2011 Annual Report and in the Form 10-K the company is required by law to file with the SEC,18 Chevron Corporation states that it manages the investments in affiliate and subsidiary companies, to which it provides administrative, financial, managerial, and technological support. But even more importantly, it states that the term “Chevron” refers to one or more of its consolidated subsidiaries, or to all of them together, because it recognizes that all the subsidiaries listed are wholly owned—directly or indirectly—by Chevron Corporation (see Form 10-K and Exhibit 22.1 in Exhibit 5).

It handles the management through a structure of “segment managers” who report, from subsidiaries and affiliates, to the company’s so-called Executive Committee, which, in turn, reports directly to the board of directors of Chevron Corp.19

Chevron Corp.’s own statements to its investors and to U.S. authorities make clear that the subsidiaries and affiliates over which it exerts control do not have an autonomous or independent board of directors. And it also cannot be said that the affiliates and subsidiaries are autonomous even from an operational perspective,

18 Securities Exchange Commission, the U.S. governmental agency that regulates business entities in that country. 19 See http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/annualreport/Chevron2011AnnualReport_full.pdf

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 15 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,714 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fourteen [initials] 16

as shown by the fact that Chevron Corp. offers a parent-company guarantee for the debts they incur while engaging in their activities.

The vast majority of the profits Chevron Corp. reports, and that it presents to shareholders and investors as its “own,” come from the activities carried out by its subsidiary, controlled, or affiliate companies in the different countries where they are located. It is illustrative to note an aggregate fact: in 2010, worldwide production averaged 2763 million barrels per day, around 26% of which came from activity in the United States, while all the rest derived from the businesses Chevron operates through its affiliates and/or subsidiaries in the rest of the world.20

One may also read the data the company publishes regarding its production in 2011: out of the total 2673 million barrels per day, nearly 75% came from over 20 different countries outside the United States.21

But Chevron Corp. is always the company that assimilates and consolidates those results on its balance sheet and financial statements.

One notices, then, that using no parameter other than convenient circumstances, Chevron alternates between, on the one hand, openly presenting itself as the head of its broad worldwide network of affiliate and/or subsidiary companies giving its international investors a balance sheet that consolidates its operations and earnings worldwide, to thereby facilitate the collection of money (whether by issuing stocks on world capital markets or to take loans from the international financial system, and even to maintain the price of its stock, which trades on U.S. stock markets); and, on the other hand,

20 http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/chevron2010annualreportsupplement.pdf 21 http://www.chevron.corn/documents/pdfichevron2011annualreportsupplement.pdf

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 16 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,715 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifteen [initials] 17

simultaneously arguing for the dogmatic application of the separation of corporate personalities and the dissociation of Chevron Corp. from its subsidiaries when it comes to fulfilling its obligations.

(iii) In the January 3, 2012 judgment, the Sucumbíos Court rejected Chevron Corp.’s claim that it had nothing to do with the facts of this case, stating that the company’s claim was contrary to “... the well-known participation in the case of the defendant that has defended itself in trial as is rational for the owners of the lawsuit to do.” To support its reasoning, the Court cited precedent from the highest court in the country,22 a decision that noted the glaring contradiction of the posture of a party who, on the one hand, argues that the action should not be filed against it, and on the other hand—and simultaneously—assumes the position in the proceeding that one would expect the owner to assume.

In other words, the Sucumbíos Court established that when weighing information, the fact that a party, procedurally, at trial, behaves as the “owner” of some property or the “holder” of a certain legal relationship is not neutral behavior; to the contrary, it is a fact that shows that that status (owner or holder) really exists.

Now, this standard for weighing information—based not on empty assertions but on objective in-court behavior—is very useful for showing, once again, the link of full unity of assets that exists between Chevron Corp. and the subsidiaries with which it operates.

22 Official Gazette No. 103, July 8, 1997 (taken from the work “Defenses and Exceptions in Civil Proceedings,” by attorney Manuel Tama, page 585).

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 17 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,716 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred sixteen [initials] 18

Indeed: How does one explain Chevron’s ever-urgent interest in preventing in any way possible enforcement against its affiliate or subsidiary companies if not by the fact that it owns those subsidiaries and their assets? It is clear that, with respect to those companies, Chevron acted—to put it in the words of the decision cited by the Sucumbíos Court— “... with the constancy, intensity, zeal and energy with which usually the owners of a piece of property do, in similar cases...”

Particularly eloquent in this regard are the events that took place at the hearing held before the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York, on September 16, 2011. What was said there directly led, three days later, on September 19, to the Court’s full reversal of an injunction Judge Lewis Kaplan had ordered prohibiting enforcement of the judgment issued in Ecuador.

Referring to the plaintiffs, at one point Judge Lynch said that

“... It’s clear under the law that the judgment is not enforceable” (it should be remembered that the appeal was still pending).

And Chevron’s attorney, Randy Mastro, responded as follows:

“Yes, it is, under the treaty with Latin American countries like Colombia, Argentina, and Venezuela, right now plaintiffs could go to those countries and seize substantial assets of Chevron in those countries. There is a real and immediate danger right now, and they have never stipulated [they will not enforce the judgment].”

And soon after Mastro (Chevron) once again emphasized, regarding the same issue, that:

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 18 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,717 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred seventeen [initials] 19

“... Judge Kaplan credited that there’s a Latin American treaty that gives plaintiffs the right to ex parte freeze assets right now in those countries. It’s a real and immediate danger right now.”

As we can see, Chevron Corp. clearly and before its own judges, acknowledged that at the time of the hearing (September 2011) the procedural situation was such that plaintiffs were already entitled to go after the assets of its affiliates and subsidiaries in Latin America on the basis of a treaty in force in Ecuador. And if plaintiffs were entitled under the Convention to go after its assets in Latin American at that time—as Chevron Corp. said—how much more are they entitled to do so now, after the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, making it enforceable and fully res judicata.

Furthermore—and completely consistent with the above—it should be mentioned that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York concluded, in its January 26, 2010 decision, that “The LAPs hold a judgment from an Ecuadorian court. They may seek to enforce that judgment in any country in the world where Chevron has assets.”23

IV-

ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY IN ECUADOR

AS A JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT MEASURE

23 The original reads as follows: “The LAPs hold a judgment from an Ecuadorian court. They may seek to enforce that judgment in any country in the world where Chevron has assets” (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 11-1150-cv(L), Chevron v. Naranjo, Document 644-1, page 27).

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 19 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,718 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred eighteen [initials] 20

As mentioned above, Article 439 of the CPC makes abundantly clear that if the debtor fails to pay the award or surrender the equivalent amount of property by the deadline—which in this case was Tuesday, August 7, at 12 a.m.—then the creditor is entitled to indicate property belonging to the debtor and request that it be seized and subsequently auctioned. These are precisely the circumstances in which we find ourselves now, so in exercise of the mentioned legal authority, below we will indicate the property located in Ecuadorian jurisdiction that the Court should attach.

Even if Chevron abandoned many of its activities in the country, the truth is that it still owns some residual property, tangible and intangible, in Ecuador that must be protected and executed, in order to satisfy (if only in very small part, because it is worth so little compared to the size of the award) the plaintiffs’ rights.

The property in Ecuador that the plaintiffs seek to attach here, so it can later be auctioned, is described below.

IV.l. Intellectual Property of Chevron and its subsidiaries

This section describes the two kinds of property involving the intellectual property of Chevron or its subsidiaries that the Court should attach. First we point out the marks owned by Chevron or its subsidiaries, together with a valuation of them, followed by a discussion of the royalties Chevron receives—based on license agreements signed by third parties who use those marks in Ecuador—streams that must also be attached.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 20 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,719 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred nineteen [initials] 21

IV.1.1. Marks and Distinctive Signs

Chevron Corp. owns several marks and distinctive signs registered with the Ecuadorian Institute of Intellectual Property (IEPI). A search of the institute’s system shows that there are at least 50 marks registered in the name of Chevron, Texaco or its subsidiaries. Of these marks, four have more prestige, recognition, and sales volume—and, therefore, more economic value—in the Ecuadorian market: Chevron, Texaco, Ursa, and Havoline, together with their distinctive signs and variations.24 The value of these marks is mainly associated with the automobile lubricant market.

In preparation for enforcement of the judgment rendered on January 3, 2012, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment issued February 14, 2011, plaintiffs hired Provicapital Partners25 to determine the market value of these four marks, since they are an “umbrella” that covers the vast majority of marks used by the defendant and its subsidiaries in the Ecuadorian market. Although the complete Valuation Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, below we will explain the main points regarding its methodology so the enforcement judge may better understand it. Then we will discuss the conclusions of the Valuation Report.

24 Exhibit 1 to this document includes and systematizes the official documents from IEPI that attest to the ownership of the marks and distinctive signs referred to throughout this section. 25 Provicapital Partners is an Ecuadorian company that has offices in five different countries, and has vast experience in investment banking and consulting on corporate transactions, areas in which it has developed a series of sophisticated methods for valuing assets. Its founder and manager is Ricardo Calderón. More detailed information about its operations, experience, and human capital may be found at www.provicapital.com.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 21 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,720 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty [initials] 22

IV.1.1.1 Methodology and Results of the Valuation Report

Normally requests for valuation of marks and other assets are made by their owner, who has all the relevant information at its disposal to facilitate the appraiser’s work. This is not the case here because the party opposing Chevron, the winners of a court case, requested the valuation of the marks. Thus, even though the information available is somewhat limited, because we lack access to Chevron’s internal figures, Provicapital based its analysis on public news, financial information from similar companies, and its experience in valuing companies. Luckily, Provicapital has the experience required to select the relevant estimates and to make the necessary comparisons with other companies in the lubricant business to make up for the lack of information.

Taking this into account, it is important to mention that the valuation was performed based on the total value attributable to Chevron’s share of the local lubricant market because it was impossible to perform a mark-by-mark analysis. Nevertheless, we repeat that the four most important marks in Ecuador are Havoline, Ursa, Chevron, and Texaco, so the report focuses on them. In the case of the marks “Chevron” and “Texaco,” they are “umbrella” marks, which are used individually or together with other marks of the company, so they will actually include the vast majority of the catalogue of products associated with Chevron. Despite this, the request for attachment includes other marks that, although they may seem to be less important, are included in order to build a more effective sphere to meet the plaintiffs’ needs

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 22 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,721 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-one [initials] 23 and requirements. The importance and explanation behind the request for attachment of these additional marks will be discussed further in section IV.1.2., but we take this opportunity to state that these marks are Doro, Geotex, Meropa, Motex, Multigear, Regal, Taro, Texatherm, Thuban. The marks were valued using two different methods.

IV.1.1.1.1 Valuation by DCF (discounted cash flow). Basically, this method provides an informed market assumption, using three variables: (i) the volume of Chevron’s lubricants in 2006, applying the growth rate of the auto fleet; (i) Chevron’s market share (27%, according to newspaper articles); and (ii) the company’s working capital accounts, based on a comparison with similar companies in the lubricant business.

Under this method, by February 2012 Chevron’s marks in Ecuador were worth between $222.4 and $274.1 million.26 In addition, the Report shows two informative scenarios that account for possible fluctuations (5% downward and upward) in Chevron’s share of the Ecuadorian lubricant market, or inaccuracies in the data published by the company. One informative scenario is below the normal value stated above (between $181.2 and $223.3 million) and one is above it (between $263.6 and $324.9 million).

IV.1.1.1.2. Multiples of comparable international companies. This method consists of evaluating a sample of international companies that have a share of the lubricant markets that

26 Valuation Report, page 22.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 23 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,722 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-two [initials] 24

have similar characteristics to Chevron’s to the extent it markets these kinds of products. This valuation method gives two ranges, which differ from each other, depending on how companies publish their valuation on the U.S. stock exchange. These two methods are: based on a multiple of EBITDA and based on a multiple of income. It is important to mention that both ranges are also related to the lubricant market-share percentage Chevron itself reported, which is 27%.

IV.1.1.1.2.1. Using a multiple of EBITDA.27 Under this method, results show that by February 2012 Chevron’s marks were worth, collectively, between $191.3 and $271.7 million.28 The report also includes two informative scenarios that consider possible variations or inaccuracies in the market share figures published by Chevron. The lower range of the informative scenario is between $155.9 and $221.4 million. The upper range is between $226.8 and $322.1 million.

IV.1.1.1.2.2. Using a multiple of Income. Under this method, results show that by February 2012 Chevron’s marks were worth, collectively, between $130.8 and $265.3 million.29 The report includes, once again, two informative scenarios, which account for possible variations or

27 EBITDA is a financial indicator that means: Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization. 28 Valuation Report, page 23. 29 Valuation Report, page 24.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 24 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,723 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-three [initials] 25 inaccuracies in the market share figures published by Chevron. The lower range of the informative scenario is between $106.6 and $216.2 million. The upper range is between $155.0 and $314.4 million.

IV.1.1.2. Conclusions and Notes on the Valuation Report.

Attachment Request

The Valuation Report makes clear that, in the best case, and assuming no depreciation30 the marks may have suffered from the date the document was prepared (February 2012), the marks owned by Chevron and its subsidiaries are worth not more than $274.1 million, but they could in fact have a market value as low as $130.8 million.

Since it would be relatively easy for the defendant—a hostile opponent that disregards all court orders—to try to transfer those marks to a third party (a front company or good faith [buyer]) to avoid complying with its obligation to pay, the plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to order the attachment of the following marks and distinctive signs registered in the name of Texaco, Chevron, or their subsidiaries:

REGISTRATION NAME TYPE [No.] 1 Havoline label design 15220 PM 2 Havoline label design (energy) 15219 PM 3 Havoline and design ii 15218 PM 4 Havoline formula 3 and design 1490 PM 5 Havoline 220 PM 6 Texaco, a world of energy 7010 PM 7 Texaco, a world of energy 2080 SM

30 The Report rightly points out that “the results presented ... show the value of Chevron’s marks as of today, which assumes a given production, sale and specific situation, but this value could decline due to decisions Chevron makes that could change their valuation.” Page 24.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 25 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,724 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-four [initials] 26

8 T-texaco star design 2655 PM 9 T-texaco star design 2626 PM 10 Texaco 1915 PM 11 Texaco and design of hexagonal border with a star 140 PM 12 Texacoat 513 PM 13 Red star green-texaco t 457 PM 14 Texaco 44 PM 15 Texaco 662 SM 16 Texaco super outboard 1552 PM 17 Texaco outboard 1553 PM 18 Texaco vanguard 1554 PM 19 Chevron 15133 PM 20 Chevron 1334 PM 21 Chevron design in blue, white and red 421 PM 22 Chevron design in black and white 420 PM 23 Chevron design in blue, white and red, surrounded by a pentagon-shaped white strip 419 PM 24 Chevron 500 PM 25 Chevron 38 PM 26 Chevron and design (color) 996 PM 27 Chevron and design (color) 1032 PM 28 Chevron and design (color) 422 PM 29 Chevron and design (black and white) 997 PM 30 Chevron and design (black and white) 998 PM 31 Chevron and design (black and white) 423 SM 32 Chevron and design (black) 2191 PM 33 Chevron and design (black) 2192 SM 34 Chevron and design (black) 817 PM 35 Chevron and design (color) 2193 PM 36 Chevron and design (color) 2194 PM 37 Chevron and design (color) 818 SM 38 Chevron supreme 196 PM 39 Ursa super plus 265 PM 40 Ursa 204 PM 41 Ursa ofrece confianza 1220 SM 42 Ursa delivers confidence 1221 SM 43 Doro 500 PM 44 Geotex 1324-10 PM 45 Meropa 223 PM 46 Motex 514 PM 47 Multigear 1536-10 PM 48 Rando 202 PM 49 Regal 205 PM

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 26 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,725 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-five [initials] 27

50 Taro 495 PM 51 TDH 1551-10 PM 52 Texatherm 1325-10 PM 53 Thurban 203 PM 54 Universal 1550-10 PM

For this purpose, an official letter should be sent to the president of the Ecuadorian Institute of Intellectual Property, Ycaza Mantilla Andrés, at Av. República 396 and Diego de Almagro, building Forum 300.

IV.1.2. Royalties resulting from Chevron’s marks

Neither Chevron nor its subsidiaries market the products that carry their marks. On the contrary, the distribution and marketing—and perhaps even the production—are run by a company owned by third parties called Swissoil del Ecuador S.A, which does so under a non- exclusive use license agreement between it and a direct subsidiary of Chevron, “Chevron Intellectual Property LLC.” Exhibit 1 to this motion includes a certified copy of the agreement, which was duly registered with IEPI by the directly interested parties.

It is logical, then, that Chevron receives through the above-mentioned subsidiary a series of royalties from that license agreement. We make this statement based on general knowledge of how this type of license agreement works, since the ageement to which we had access omits this and other details, which, consistent with the defendant’s style, surely are found in some obscure private agreement between the parties. The marks in that agreement and license are: Havoline, Ursa, Doro, Geotex, Meropa, Motex, Multigear, Regal, Taro, Texatherm, Thuban. Above we asked the Court to

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 27 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,726 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-six [initials] 28

order attachment of these marks. However, since the royalties the use and marketing of these marks generates is effectively income received by the defendant and its direct subsidiaries, we hereby request that the Court issue an attachment order on the ROYALTIES OR ANY OTHER KIND OF INCOME generated by the use, sale, distribution, or in general, any other destination given to products with the marks URSA, HAVOLINE, DORO, GEOTEX, MEROPA, MOTEX, MULTIGEAR, REGAL, TARO, TEXATHERM, THUBAN, as well as any commercial or non-commercial transaction related to them, by Swissoil del Ecuador S.A. To this end, Swissoil del Ecuador must be notified, in the person of its general manager and legal representative, Mr. Santiago José Díaz Cobos, or its chief executive officer and legal representative, Mr. René Roberto Konanz Serrano, whose offices are located at Avenida Juan Tanca Marengo km 1.8 and Av. José Santiago Castillo, 5th floor, City of Guayaquil,

Additionally, plaintiffs reserve the right to proceed according to law in connection with the auction and/or royalties or any additional income from these or other intellectual property defendant owns, but we take this opportunity to ask the Court to order an attachment of any fund transfer, from any institution in the Ecuadorian banking system, to Chevron Corp., Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Company, Texpet, or any of their subsidiaries abroad, to prevent Chevron from quickly taking these monies with the intent of evading

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 28 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,727 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-seven [initials] 29

its obligation. To this end, we ask you to send an official letter in this regard to the Superintendency of Banks, all banking institutions of the Ecuadorian financial system, and the Central Bank of Ecuador. At the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance Companies, the official letter should be addressed to Pedro Solines Chacón, Superintendent of Banks and Insurance Companies, hand delivered to his office located at Av. 12 de Octubre N24-185, Quito, and [the Superintendency] will inform the other banks of the Ecuadorian financial system of the attachment.

IV.2. Bank Accounts in the Name of Chevron or Its Subsidiaries

As far as the plaintiffs have been able to discover, the only bank account in the name of Chevron, Texaco, or its subsidiaries, is a checking account at Banco Pichincha C.A. in the name of Texaco Petroleum Co. We obtained the information about this account from the record, which contains several checks, drawn on the available funds of its subsidiary Texaco, that Chevron Corp. used to pay the fees of several experts during the trial.

Page 168616 of the trial court record contains Check No. 008673, dated March 24, 2010, drawn on checking account No. 30452125-04 at Banco Pichincha, in the name of Texaco Petroleum Co., which the defendant used to pay the fees of expert Jorge Herrera Cabezas in the case against Chevron Corp.

Page 168661 of the record contains check No. 008675, dated March 24, 2010, from the same checking account No. 30452125-04 drawn on

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 29 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,728 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-eight [initials] 30

Banco Pichincha, for the same purpose of paying an expert, in this case, Mr. Arturo Eduardo Orquera Cárdenas.

Certified copies of both checks are included as Exhibit 3.

Examples like these abound, and it is not important to repeat all of them here, since in addition to proving the existence and ownership of that bank account, we can highlight that between the dates of the two checks presented as examples, little more than one month has passed, and yet we can see that in such a short period over one hundred checks (129 checks!) were written from that account. That is a huge number of transactions, so it may be predicted that a large amount of money is or may have been in this account.

But regardless of the amount currently available in that checking account, in order to safeguard it and prevent it from being withdrawn, paid or transferred to a third person, or from [the defendant] illegally attempting to hide it, we respectfully ask Your Honor to order the attachment of the funds deposited and existing in checking account No. 30452125-04 at Banco Pichincha, for which purpose an official letter must be immediately sent to the bank and to the Superintendency of Banks.

Please send the official letter intended for the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance to Pedro Solines Chacon, Superintendent of Banks and Insurance, hand delivered to Av. 12 de Octubre N24-185 and Madrid.

For Banco Pichincha CA, to Mr. Fernando Pozo, General Manager of Banco Pichincha, at the headquarters of Banco Pichincha, located at Avenida Amazonas 4560 and Pereira, in this city of Quito. We ask that this attachment order be extended to other accounts that the defendant Chevron, Texaco, or their subsidiaries may have

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 30 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,729 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred twenty-nine [initials] 31

in the Republic of Ecuador, so an official letter including this attachment order on all of the defendant’s accounts should be sent to the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance, so that this agency can in turn inform all banking institutions of the Ecuadorian financial system to also attach any other checking or savings account, certificate of deposit, accrued interest or any type of income or asset in the name of defendant Chevron Corp., Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Company, Texpet,, or any of their subsidiaries.

We also request that any fund transfer from any domestic account addressed in the name of Chevron Corp., Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Company, Texpet, or any of its subsidiaries also be attached, for which purpose we ask you to send an official letter to the Superintendency of Banks so this agency can inform all banking institutions of the Ecuadorian financial system to perform the attachment. Since any funds transfers from abroad must be processed by the Central Bank of Ecuador, we respectfully request that you also send an official letter to the Central Bank of Ecuador, addressed to its General Manager, Ms. Ruth Arregui Solano, at Av. 10 de Agosto N11-409 and Briceño, so she can issue the necessary instructions.

IV.3. Claims or Income of Chevron or its Subsidiaries inside Ecuador The plaintiffs have searched all claims owed Chevron Corp. in Ecuador, but we believe that due to the hiding or secrecy the defendant engages in when conducting

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 31 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,730 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty [initials] 32

its activities in our country, there could be numerous claims that we have been unable to discover. Without prejudice to some other claim income in Ecuador in favor of the judgment debtor we may have omitted, since the claim or income is hidden or difficult to identify, we are aware of at least one debt owed to Chevron Corp. that could eventually be useful for partially paying the obligation.

This claim results from an international arbitration Chevron Corp. brought against the Government of the Republic of Ecuador for denial of justice that ended with a decision ordering the Government of the Republic of Ecuador to pay more than $96 million in damages and interest, as we will explain below.

IV.3.1. ATTACHABLE CLAIM FOR $96,355,396.17 MILLION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF ECUADOR

As background it is necessary to know that Chevron Corp. initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Government of the Republic of Ecuador in 2006—notice was served on December 12, 2006—for denial of justice in seven commercial cases brought by its subsidiary Texpet in the courts of Ecuador. Documents associated with the proceeding are available at the official website of the Attorney General’s Office.31

Although this arbitration proceeding is public knowledge,32 and every news agency has made multiple references

31 http://www.pge.gob.ec/es/rotativo/1708-caso-chevron-ii-defensa-del-estado-logra-reducir-el-monto-demandado-contra-el- ecuador-en-mas-de-600-millones-de-dolares.html 32 Judiciary Act, Article 27, PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL TRUTH. Judges shall decide cases based solely on the evidence provided by the parties. Evidence of publicly known facts is not required, but the judge must inform the parties when taking those facts into account as a basis for the decision. (Emphasis added.)

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 32 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,731 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-one [initials] 33 to it,33 to be certain we have demonstrated the existence of Chevron’s claim, we also note that a copy of the arbitration award in English (the only one available), may be found at the Investment Treaty Arbitration website.34

The arbitration tribunal found that Ecuador breached its obligations arising from a Bilateral Investment Protection Treaty between Ecuador and the United States because of unreasonable delay in deciding seven commercial cases in which Texpet (a subsidiary of Texaco Inc.) was a party.

According to a publicly distributed document prepared by the Attorney General’s Office entitled “Chevron II Case,” Information expanded through August 31, 2011, which contains a “Historical Summary of the Case,”35 “The items that make up the $96,355,369 can be seen, as well as the amount requested by Chevron and given in the partial arbitration award dated March 2010,”36 and the following table has been copied directly from the mentioned document for your convenience:

33 EL UNIVERSO: http://www.eluniverso.com/2011/08/31/1/1356/ecuador-debera-pagar-96-millones-dolares- chevron-segun-corte-internacional.html; EL COMERCIO: http://wwl.elcomercio.com/negocios/Chevron-ganado- compensacion-arbitraje-Ecuador 0_545945507.html; EL MERCURIO: http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/332434- ecuadorevalua-apelar-fallo-arbitration-por-usd-96-millones-a-favor-de-chevron.html; REVISTA VISTAZO: http://www.vistazo.corn/websites/pais/imprimir.php?id=16971; RADIO SUCRE: http://radiosucre.com.ec/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1745ecuador-debecancelar-96-millones- de-dolares-a-chevron-&catid=1:politica&Itemid=73; ECUAVISA:http:// ecuavisa.com/noticias/noticias- actualidad/40031-ecuador-debera-pagar-usd-96-millones-a-chevron-segun-corte-internacional.html 34 http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0154.pdf 35 Available at http://www.pge.gob.ec/es/reglamentos-internos/doc_download/250-informacion-ampliada-1.html 36 Ibid. page 7.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 33 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,732 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-two [initials] 34

ECUADOR vs.CHEVRON PGE Chevron II Damage calculation: August 31, 2011 Chevron’s Claim Partial Award Final award Damage $364,831.022 $354,558,145 [illegible] Simple Interest + $1,240,389,772* $344,063,759 [illegible] From the filing of the complainst in Ecuador until Dec. 21, 2006 Subtotal $1,605,220,794 $698,621,904 $77,739,696 Compound Interest + [illegible] From Dec. 22, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2011 Total $96,355,369 * Ecuador interest $763,788,094+ International interest $476,001,794. NAVIGANT Report Apr. 1, 2008

Even though the Government of the Republic of Ecuador has announced and filed several legal actions to annul this decision, Chevron Corp. could try to enforce it (and in fact we have been informed that Chevron has filed a legal action with the purpose of collecting that claim),37 so it must be urgently attached to secure it before initiating the appropriate enforcement proceeding. Beyond application of the principle of procedural truth, the documents backing our statements, including the partial award and the final award, issued by the arbitration tribunal mentioned above, are included in Exhibit 4.

In light of the above, again with all due respect, we ask the Court to order the attachment of the claim held by the Republic of Ecuador against Chevron Corp. and Texaco Inc. in the amount of $96,355,369 (ninety-six million three hundred fifty-five thousand

37 Styled 1:12-cv-01247-JEB in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the case CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR. In section 30 of its complaint, Chevron states that the arbitration award is “binding and definitive.” See Exhibit 4.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 34 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,733 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-three [initials] 35

three hundred sixty-nine U.S. dollars) as a consequence of the arbitration award rendered. For that purpose, please send official letters to the Attorney General’s Office, addressed to Attorney General Diego García, hand delivered to Robles 731 and Av. Amazonas, Quito; to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, addressed to the Minister of Economy and Finance, Mr. Patricio René Rivera Yáñez, hand delivered to Avenida 10 de Agosto 1661 and Bolivia; and to Coordinating Ministry of Economic Policy, addressed to Ms. Jeannette Sánchez Zurita, hand delivered to Av. 10 de Agosto N11-539 and Briceño, Edif. Banco Central, 9th floor, to see that they take the necessary measures to attach this claim of $96,355,369 owed to our debtor Chevron Corp.

V. - SEQUESTRATIONS, WITHHOLDINGS, AND PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DISPOSAL TO BE ORDERED BY APPLYING THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON PREVENTIVE MEASURES

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 35 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,734 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-four [initials] 36

The mere list of the assets existing in Ecuador, with their corresponding valuation indicated by this party, shows they are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, and therefore the need to go after Chevron’s assets in other countries. However, as we have already said, this attack is subject to a recognition proceeding in each of those countries that could last for months and even years, so it is essential to order measures to preserve the value and the ownership of the assets on which the enforcement of the Lago Agrio judgment depends.

In this context, the “Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures” (see chapter II, on “Applicable Legal Framework,” above) fully applies.

As a general principle, it must be pointed out that Article 3 of the Convention on Preventive Measures clearly establishes the principle that “The grounds for a preventive measure shall be decided in accordance with the laws and by the judges of the place of the proceedings.”38

This is the specific rule assigning jurisdiction to decide this request to the judge of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos in charge of the enforcement as the “judge of the place of the proceeding,” under Article 3 of the Convention.

V.1. Chevron in Argentina. Assets Subject to Preventive Measures.

38 However, the judge of the place where enforcement is sought is responsible for enforcement and counterpreventive measures.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 36 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,735 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-five [initials] 37

It is crucial at this stage to consider Chevron’s own statements, made through its press releases or the information disclosed on its own website, as well as through its regular filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These instruments—and others that will be mentioned below—will show Chevron Corp.’s complete ownership (100%) of the subsidiary through which it operates in Argentina, Chevron Argentina S.R.L., as well as any assets the latter company has registered under its name.

Chevron’s official website (www.chevron.com) indicates that the company operates in Argentina through its subsidiary Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and expressly mentions that it is a wholly owned subsidiary.39

Likewise, in the Form 10-K it filed in December 2011, Chevron included as Exhibit 21.1 a list of its significant subsidiaries around the world, expressly clarifying that “ALL SUBSIDIARIES LISTED ARE WHOLLY OWNED BY CHEVRON, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY”40 (the clarification also added that “Certain subsidiaries are not listed since, considered in the aggregate as a simple subsidiary, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary at December 31, 2011”).

39 http://www.chevron.com/countries/argentina/businessportfolio/ 40 Emphasis added. This is the original version: “All of the subsidiaries in the above list are wholly owned, either directly or indirectly, by Chevron Corporation. Certain subsidiaries are not listed since, considerete in the aggregate as a simple subsidiary, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary at December 31., 2011.”

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 37 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,736 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-six [initials] 38

For the purposes of this chapter, it is important to highlight that Chevron Argentina S.R.L. is fourth on the list in that exhibit, and the final piece of information is that—as indicated by the name—the company is domiciled in Argentina.41

So Chevron Corp. itself has declared to U.S. regulatory authorities—and stated on its own website—that Chevron Argentina S.R.L. is a wholly owned subsidiary.42 While the defendant’s own statement removes any doubt that could arise on the issue—since it is tantamount to a confession to the country’s highest authority on the matter—it is true that there are countless other records that support the very same conclusion. It is important to review them so that Your Honor may fully understand that Chevron Corp. wholly owns Chevron Argentina S.R.L.

Chevron entered the Argentinean oil business in 1999 by acquiring Petrolera Argentina San Jorge, which, after several changes, adopted its current name of Chevron Argentina S.R.L. At that time, the company issued a press release—which can still be read on its website—stating: “Chevron Corp. announced the acquisition of 100% of Petrolera Argentina San Jorge, the biggest oil and gas exploration and production company in Argentina. The recent increase in San Jorge’s production has turned the company into one of the largest producers in the country, with a production of nearly

41 The list of subsidiaries mentioned here is available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edaar/data/93410/0000950123110 I 7688/f56670exv21wl.htm 42 The reports Chevron Corp. filed with the SEC as of December 31, 2008, as of December 31, 2009, and as of December 31, 2010, say the same thing: Chevron Argentina S.R.L. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Corp.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 38 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,737 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-seven [initials] 39

78,000 barrels of oil and 40 million cubic feet of gas, which is equivalent to 8% of the oil produced in Argentina.”43

It is also revealing of the close relationship of total ownership that Chevron Corp. has with respect to its Argentinean subsidiary that Chevron Corp.’s website automatically redirects to Chevron Argentina S.R.L.’s fact sheet when a job applicant at the multinational chooses Argentina as the work location.44

It is also worth mentioning what Chevron Corp. told the SEC45 in Form 10-K. There it identifies the activities the company conducts in Argentina through its subsidiary: “Chevron has participation interests in four concessions in Neuquén Basin. The participation interests range from 18.8% to 100%. In 2011, total production averaged 27,000 barrels per day. . . In 2011, the company reached an agreement to extend the El Trapial concession for an additional 10-year term, until 2032.”

(iii) Just as Chevron Corp. made formal statements to the U.S. regulatory authority that leave absolutely no room for doubt that, from a (“top down”) perspective, it wholly owns (100%) Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and that the subsidiary’s income and interest are the income and interest of the parent company, the subsidiary itself—or the companies that directly control it, always owned by Chevron Corp.—likewise made formal statements to the Argentinean Corporation Regulatory Authority (IGJ), the authority

43 http://www.chevron.comichevronffiressreleases/article/09271999_chevronacquirespetroleraargentinasanjorge.news Also, in several annual reports (for 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008) Chevron Corp. referred to this purchase as an important operation establishing the company in Latin America. 44 http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/argentinafactsheetpdf 45 Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. governmental agency that regulates companies in that country.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 39 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,738 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-eight [initials] 40

in charge of controlling corporate matters in Argentina, that indicate from its own perspective (“bottom up”) that notion of completely belonging to and complete intermingling with the parent company.

This information, plus that given by the parent company (and summarized in the preceding section), allows us to fill in the organizational diagram that will illustrate for Your Honor, accurately and from a practical point of view, the connection between Chevron Corp. and Chevron Argentina S.R.L., which is “directly” owned by CDC ApS (50%) and Norberto Priú (50%).

CDC ApS reported to the IGJ that (a) it is a company organized under the laws of Denmark and has an interest in Chevron Argentina S.R.L. (50%) and in Norberto Priú S.R.L. (90%); (b) it is wholly controlled by Chevron Global Energy Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware in the United States.

Included with this motion is a copy of the filing made to the Argentina’s Corporate Regulatory Authority (agency that oversees corporations in Argentina) containing the information discussed here.

In turn, CDHC ApS reported to IGJ that (a) it is a company organized under the laws of Denmark and that it owns an interest in Norberto Priú S.R.L. (10%); (b) it is wholly controlled by Chevron Global Energy Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware in the United States.

Also included is the filing CDHC ApS made to the Corporate Regulatory Authority.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 40 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,739 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred thirty-nine [initials] 41

Under these circumstances, public business records in Argentina are convincing evidence that Chevron Argentina S.R.L.—the operating company in whose name the assets in Argentina are registered—either directly or indirectly (through Norberto Priú S.R.L.) belongs to the two Danish companies CDC ApS and CDHC ApS.

Those records are also accurate with respect to another piece of essential information, emphasized to the Corporate Regulatory Authority by the Danish controlling companies:46 Chevron Global Energy Inc. Wholly owns both of them.

And, finally, in its 2011 Annual Report the parent corporation Chevron Corp. itself identifies Chevron Global Energy Inc. as an operative company, expressly adding that it owns 100% of the company.47

The following diagram shows this information:

46 This report on the Danish companies was filed with the Corporate Regulatory Authority under section 123 of the Commercial Companies Act of Argentina, which requires that articles of incorporation, amendments and any other corporate authorization documents of the foreign company be publicly recorded. Moreover, both reports fall under the rules the IGJ issued in Resolution No. 7/2003, which require foreign companies, among other things, to report “The ownership of corporate shares, their net worth and the percentage of capital they own in the controlled company....” 47 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93410/000095012311017688/f56670exv21w1.htm

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 41 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,740 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty [initials] 42

(iv) Considering this diagram, we ask the Court to issue the order of sequestration and/or withholding and/or prohibition against disposal (attachment, in Argentina) on the following assets Chevron Corp. owns in Argentina through its controlled and subsidiary companies:

a) Corporate shares in the name of CDC ApS and Norberto Priú S.R.L. in Chevron Argentina S.R.L. b) Corporate shares in the name of CDC ApS and CDHC ApS in Norberto Priú S.R.L.

In both (a) and (b) the sequestration entails—and we request that the Court expressly order—all financial rights associated with

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 42 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,741 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-one [initials] 43 the shares, as well as their withholding, which includes:

— Corporate shares that CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS are entitled to receive and that were issued as a result of the swap, capital subscription, exercise of rights of first refusal and/or to proportional increase, supplementary shares to be issued under the terms of Article 151 of Law No. 19,550 (consolidated 1984), capitalization of irrevocable contributions, statutory or voluntary reserves, revaluations, distribution of dividends in shares or by merger or spin-off of CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS, due to a new issuance of shares to replace current shares of CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS, and due to any other mechanism that in any other way involves corporate restructuring or a transformation of CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS, in which case the sequestration will include the stocks or any other instrument that replaces the corporate shares, and/or due to any other cause or circumstance. This list is for illustration purposes and is not intended to be considered complete;

— Any amount payable and/or delivered to CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS by virtue of any reduction and/or repayment of corporate capital, of irrevocable contributions, of premiums and of any financial account, retirement, amortization and/or full or partial reimbursement of corporate shares, or as distribution of remaining property of

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 43 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,742 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-two [initials] 44

any type due to the liquidation of CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS.

— Any amount payable and/or delivered to CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS by virtue of any dividend payment in cash made by CDC ApS, Norberto Priú S.R.L. and/or CDHC ApS with respect to corporate shares.

c) Share participation of Chevron Argentina S.R.L. in Oleoductos del Valle S.A.48

d) Accounts held by Chevron Argentina S.R.L. in financial entities in Argentina, for which we ask the Court to send an official letter to the Central Bank of Argentina, asking it to inform financial institutions that they must withhold any account, deposit, credit, investment, and/or any current or future sum of money, in pesos or in dollars, received for any reason and/or available in favor of Chevron Argentina S.R.L., and they must deposit withheld/sequestered amounts at the judicial deposit bank, under orders from the local judge. If the property subject to preventive measures is insufficient to completely satisfy the measure ordered, we clarify that

48 The 2011 Supplement to the Annual Report states that, as part of its activities in Argentina, “Chevron also holds a 14 percent interest in Oleoductos del Valle S.A., which owns and operates a crude oil pipeline from the Neuquen producing area to the Atlantic coast.” See http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdUchevron2011annualreportsupplement.pdf

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 44 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,743 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-three [initials] 45

the measure must remain in place until the total amount in question is satisfied.

e) Amounts receivable by Chevron Argentina S.R.L. as a result of its oil sales operations, already performed or to be performed, from the following companies (their addresses for serving notice of the measure are listed below):

— YPF S.A.: Macacha Güemes 515, Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina.

— Shell Cía. Argentina de Petróleo S.A.: Av. Presidente R.S. Peña 788 2nd floor, Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina.

— Esso Petrolera Argentina S.R.L.: Carlos María della Paolera 265, floor 19, Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina.

— Petrobras Argentina S.A.: Maipú 1, Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina.

f) Funds receivable by Chevron Argentina S.R.L. in the proceeding styled “Chevron Argentina S.R.L. v. Shell Argentina de Petróleo S.A. on ordinary proceedings,” pending before Commercial Trial Court No. 17, Clerk’s Office 34 (No. 073644, filed on May 22, 2012).

V.2. Chevron in Colombia. Assets that will be Subject to Preventive Measures.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 45 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,744 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-four [initials] 46

Since December 9, 1926, under a corporate structure similar to the one describe above, Chevron Corp. has been present in Colombia to operate its business in the country, through a subsidiary of the foreign company Chevron Petroleum Company, which according to Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] records is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Corp. domiciled in Newark, New Jersey, United States.

Additionally, Chevron Corp.’s operations are widely acknowledged on its official website,49 where it is easy to see that the businesses that this multinational proudly leads are exactly the same projects in which Chevron Petroleum Company – Colombia operates as a legal entity that owns those contractual positions and possesses legal title to all of Chevron Corp.’s assets in Colombia. This is how it is described on the company’s website: “As Colombia’s largest producer of natural gas, Chevron plays an integral role in meeting the country’s energy needs, producing enough natural gas to supply approximately 65 percent of the nation’s demand. Our production activities are focused on three natural gas fields—one offshore and two onshore. Chevron also is among Colombia’s leading suppliers of fuel and lubricants. We operate a network of Texaco® service stations and hold interests in major aviation product terminals countrywide...”50

49 At http://www.chevron.com/countries/colombia/ 50 At http://www.chevron.com/countries/colombia “As Colombia’s largest producer of natural gas, Chevron plays an integral role in meeting the country’s energy needs, producing enough natural gas to supply approximately 65 percent of the nation’s demand. Our production activities are focused on three natural gas fields—one offshore and

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 46 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,745 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-five [initials] 47

Just to give an example of this, gas exploration and production agreements (known as Association Contracts) in the Guajira region (two onshore and one offshore fields) were signed in 1974 by Ecopetrol S.A., a state-owned company, and by what at the time was Texas Petroleum Company—Texpet—now Chevron Petroleum Company.51

And to further show that Chevron Corp.’s own public acts—when it needs to [act publicly], when that suits the company’s interests—that demonstrate its full and exclusive ownership of the foreign company Chevron Petroleum Company and its branch duly established in Colombia, we point out to Your Honor what the multinational reported on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC, identifying the activities the company conducts in Colombia: “The company operates the offshore Chuchupa and the onshore Ballena and Riohacha natural gas fields as part of the Guajira Association contract. In exchange, Chevron receives 43 percent of the production for the remaining life of each field and a variable production volume from a fixed-fee, Build- Operate-Maintain-Transfer agreement based on prior Chuchupa capital contributions. During 2010, the company conducted a seismic survey of the offshore, near-shore and

two onshore. Chevron also is among Colombia’s leading suppliers of fuel and lubricants. We operate a network of Texaco® service stations and hold interests in major aviation product terminals countrywide. As an active member of the community, we also support education, culture, health, sustainable business development and environmental projects in Colombia.” 51 In this regard, it is important to highlight that the certificate of existence and legal representation of Chevron Petroleum Company, issued by the Bogota Chamber of Commerce, the authority responsible for keeping public business records of companies in Bogota, clearly shows the company’s name changes, as well as the record of different transactions (mergers and acquisitions) that Chevron Corp. has performed over the years through its subsidiaries.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 47 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,746 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-six [initials] 48 onshore development areas. Daily net production averaged 249 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2010.”52

Chevron Corp. also states on that form that “Chevron is a global energy company with substantial commercial activities in the following countries: ... Colombia ...”53 So these two clear positions of Chevron Corp. as master of the operations of Chevron Petroleum Company and its branch in Colombia make it simply impossible to deny the defendant company’s clear ownership, control, supervision, and management of each and every one of the operations—and, therefore, of the assets—in Colombia.

Consequently, the following diagram describes its organization in Colombia:

52 Report Chevron Corp. filed with the SEC on December 31, 2010. “The company operates the offshore Chuchupa and the onshore Ballena and Riohacha natural gas fields as part of the Guajira Association contract. In exchange, Chevron receives 43 percent of the production for the remaining life of each field and a variable production volume from a fixed-fee, Build-Operate-Maintain-Transfer agreement based on prior Chuchupa capital contributions. During 2010, the company conducted a seismic survey of the offshore, near-shore and onshore development areas. Daily net production averaged 249 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2010.” 53 Report Chevron Corp. filed with the SEC on December 31, 2010. “Chevron is a global energy company with substantial commercial activities in the following countries: ... Colombia....”

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 48 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,747 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-seven [initials] 49

Considering this diagram, I request the following assets as assets of Chevron Corp. in Colombia, through its controlled and subsidiary companies, and I respectfully ask the Court to issue an order of withholding and prohibition against disposal, all of which is to be done in accordance with Colombian law, which, under Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures, signed in Montevideo on May 8, 1979, is the law that governs implementation of the measure.

V.2.1. Withholding Measure (attachment) on Claims Owned by the Debtor.

We ask the Court to order the withholding (i.e., attachment under Colombian law) of all claims, current and future, held by Chevron Corp.—through its subsidiary, Chevron Petroleum Company, whose Colombian branch has tax ID number 860.005.223-9—and owed by any of the companies listed below:

• Ecopetrol S.A.: Carrera 13 No. 36-26, Bogota • PDVSA Gas S.A. Sucursal Colombia: Carrera 14 No. 81 – 19, office 605, Bogota • Abonos Colombianos S.A.: Avenida Carrera 15 No. 100-43 / Office 201, Bogota • Cerro Matoso S.A.: Calle 113 No. 7 – 21 Tower A, Office 509, Bogota • Dinagas S.A. E.S.P.: Calle 109 No. 18C – 17, Office 302, Bogota

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 49 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,748 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-eight [initials] 50

• E2 Energía Eficiente S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 59 No. 59 – 166, Barranquilla, Atlántico. • Edalgas S.A. ESP: Calle 53 No. 6 – 25, Puerto Berrío, Antioquia. • Empresas públicas de Medellín S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 58 No. 42-125, Floor M, South Tower, Medellín, Antioquia. • Gas Comprimido de Colombia S.A. E.S.P.: Calle 79 No. 18-45, Industrial Sector, La Romelia, Pereira, Risaralda. • Gacelca S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 55 No. 72 – 109, Floor 9, Barranquilla, Atlántico. • Isagen S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 43 No. 11 – 80, Medellín Antioquia. • Termoflores S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 43A, No. 1 South-143, Medellín, Antioquia. • Cementos Argos S.A.: Vía 40 Las Flores, Barranquilla, Atlántico. • Cabot Colombiana S.A.: Zona Industrial Mamonal km 12, Cartagena, Bolívar. • Termocandelaria Power Colombia S.A.S. In Liquidation: Carrera 7 No. 71-52 Tower B, floor 9, Bogota • Proelectrica & Cia. S.C.A. – E.S.P.: Zona Industrial Mamonal km 5, Cartagena, Bolívar. • Malteria Tropical S.A.: Calle 94 No. 7A-47, Bogota • Mexichem Resinas Colombia S.A.: Autopista Sur No. 71-75, Bogota • Efigas Gas Natural S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 12, No. 3-23, Casa Vallejo, Pereira, Risaralda. • Alcanos de Colombia S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 9, No. 7-25, Neiva, Huila.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 50 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,749 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred forty-nine [initials] 51

• Gases de Occidente S.A. E.S.P.: Centro Comercial Chipichape, Store 2, Floor 3, Cali, Valle del Cauca. • Gecelca S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 55 No. 72-109 Floor 9, Edificio Centro Ejecutivo II, Barranquilla, Atlántico. • GasOriente S.A. E.S.P.: Diagonal 13 No. 60-54, Bucaramanga, Santander.

V.2.2. Business Establishments

Likewise, we respectfully ask the Court to order a prohibition against disposal on all business establishments registered in the name of Chevron Petroleum Company - Colombia. To determine the number and identify each of those establishments, the Colombian judge who receives the application for extraterritorial effects of the preventive measures requested here will have to send an official letter to the following chambers of commerce in different Colombian cities:

Chamber of Commerce Address for Legal Notice Bogota Chamber of Commerce Avenida Eldorado No 68D-35 Bogotá

Facatativá Chamber of Commerce Carrera 3 No 4-60 Facatativá, Cundinamarca.

Chamber of Commerce of San Andrés, Avenida Francisco Newball No. 4-20, Providencia and Santa Catalina second floor, San Andrés. Cartagena Chamber of Commerce Calle Santa Teresa No. 32-41, Cartagena de Indias. Medellín Chamber of Commerce Calle 53 No. 45-77, Medellín, Antioquia. Palmira Chamber of Commerce Calle 28 No. 30-15 Palmira, Valle del

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 51 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,750 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty [initials] 52

Cauca. Amazonas Chamber of Commerce Carrera 11 No. 11-09 Leticia, Amazonas. Tolima Chamber of Commerce Carrera 8 No. 8-35 El espinal, Tolima. Palmira Chamber of Commerce Carrera 47 No. 64 A 263, via Belén, Kilometer 2, Palmira, Valle del Cauca. Cartago Chamber of Commerce Carrera 4 No. 12-101, Floor 1, Cartago, Valle del Cauca. Cali Chamber of Commerce Calle 8 No. 3-14, Cali, Valle del Cauca. La Guajira Chamber of Commerce Carrera 6 No. 11-03 Riohacha, La Guajira. La Cúcuta Chamber of Commerce Calle 10 No. 4-38, First Floor, Tower B, Cúcuta, North of Santander. Bucaramanga Chamber of Commerce Carrera 19, No. 36-20, Floor 2, Bucaramanga, Santander.

VI.

COST EXEMPTION AND DELIVERY OF THE LETTERS ROGATORY

UNDER THE CONVENTION ON PREVENTIVE MEASURES

(i) Cost Exemption

This matter is of fundamental practical importance, since the [financial] condition of the affected people and the amount in dispute make it impossible for the plaintiffs to cover the costs related in any way to the litigation. And it is important that the Court expressly so declare starting in this initial enforcement stage because, otherwise, there is a risk that, due to multi- million dollar expenses for fees, bonds,

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 52 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,751 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-one [initials] 53 costs or any other item, which the affected people are clearly in NO condition to cover under any circumstance, the plaintiffs might have difficulty carrying out the cross-border actions that must be performed since Chevron refused to pay.

It is indisputable that here, in Ecuador, the plaintiffs enjoy this exemption, both because of their particular circumstances and because proceedings are generally free to all which, under the Constitution itself, is essential to the local judicial system. In Ecuador, “Every person is entitled to free access to the court system and to due process” (Article 75 of the Constitution), a concept that the Constitution reinforces later, indicating that—as a guiding principle of the judiciary—“Access to the courts will be free” (Article 168, paragraph 4).

In turn, the Judiciary Act reiterates this latter rule almost literally (Article 12) and it also contains other guidelines along the same vein (for example, Article 22).

This said, it is important to note that Article 5 of the Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Judgments states, in pertinent part, that “A declaration in forma pauperis recognized in the State of origin of the judgment shall be recognized in the State of destination.” In turn, Article 16, final sentence, of the Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures reads almost identically: “A declaration in forma pauperis recognized in the State of origin shall be recognized in the State of destination.” Both Conventions, as explained above, were adopted within the framework of CIDIP II (Montevideo, 1979), which explains why the provision is the same in both instruments.

The purpose of this provision is to try to ensure that litigants who lack financial resources are unable to protect their rights if they must enforce a court decision in foreign countries that are parties to the Convention.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 53 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,752 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-two [initials] 54

If in the country of origin the plaintiffs are in a situation such that they cannot be required to post bonds or pay court fees or costs of any nature, then—in the same measure—the exemption must be recognized in the receiving State where the plaintiffs seek to enforce a judgment or a preventive measure, as the case may be.

However, in order for a plaintiff to avail itself of the exemption in the other member countries of the Inter-American Conventions, it must demonstrate to the judges of those States that it proceeded in forma pauperis in the country of origin. And that is why we ask the Court to declare that the plaintiffs have litigated this lawsuit without having to pay costs, court fees and/or bonds of any kind, a situation that continues in the enforcement stage. This declaration is important so it can be included in the letters rogatory to be sent to the countries to which Ecuador is connected through the Convention on Preventive Measures, or so it can be directly attached—duly certified and apostilled—to the requests for recognition and enforcement to be presented in the different countries (in this last case, either countries that are members of the respective Convention or countries that have not signed it and/or ratified it but whose domestic laws include mechanisms for these proceedings).

(ii) Delivery of the Letters Rogatory by the Party.

In this section we will discuss another procedural matter that is very important to avoid dilatory collateral issues. We ask the Court to expressly authorize the plaintiffs (through their representatives and/or counsel in the lawsuit, or those they expressly

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 54 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,753 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-three [initials] 55 designate) to personally deliver to the appropriate State body the letters rogatory issued under the Inter-American Convention on Preventive Measures.

Article 13 of the Convention on Preventive Measures is particularly germane since it expressly states that “...letters rogatory may be transmitted to the body addressed by the interested parties themselves.”

It is important to mention that this mechanism does not involve taking this task out of the hands of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—to the extent it must be involved under the law.

In fact, since Ecuador is a party to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization (1961), an instrument connecting Ecuador with, among other countries, Argentina and Colombia, the Ministry is responsible for providing the apostille, which certifies and ensures the “authenticity of the signature, the capacity in which the person signing the document has acted and … the identity of the seal or stamp which it bears.”54

This means that the fact that the material delivery of the documents is made by the interested party (in the case of the plaintiffs), in no way implies preventing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (which is the authority designated by the State for the purposes of extending the apostille or authentication, as applicable) from exercising its certifying function with respect to all those essential data to ensure the full authenticity of the documents sent to the foreign State.

54 Article 3 of The Hague Convention; the instrument was adopted by Ecuador in Official Gazette 410 on August 31, 2004, and took effect in national territory on April 2, 2005.

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 55 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,754 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-four [initials] 56

We must also consider that our domestic legal system has several rules establishing promptness as a guiding principle in the administration of justice (Articles 75 and 169 of the Constitution, Articles 100, paragraph 2, and 130, paragraph 9, of the Judiciary Act), so domestic law also supports the solution proposed here—which is expressly based on the Conventions analyzed—for delivery of the necessary letters rogatory to member countries.

As explained above, this request seeks to avoid delays that could arise if the letters rogatory were sent through diplomatic channels, considering that the law itself provides the parties a much quicker and direct mechanism, which is for them to personally deliver the documents to the foreign court.

VII.

DOCUMENTS INCLUDED REGARDING THE ASSETS REQUESTED FOR ATTACHMENT

Included as Exhibits to this request for attachment are the following documents, which seek to prove that Chevron or its subsidiaries owns the assets it has in Ecuador, and we comply by indicating these assets for attachment as a judgment enforcement measure:

1. Miscellaneous documents from IEPI. (EXHIBIT 1)

2. Valuation Report of the Chevron, Texaco, Ursa and Havoline marks, prepared by the consulting firm Provicapital Partners. (EXHIBIT 2)

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 56 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,755 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-five [initials] 57

3. Copies of the trial court record containing checks No. 7418 and No. 7547, both drawn on checking account and No. 30452125-04, in the name of Texaco Petroleum Co. and used by Chevron to pay experts’ fees. (Exhibit 3)

4. Copy of the arbitration award ordering the State of Ecuador to pay Chevron $96,355,369 and other documents concerning the complaint Chevron filed to collect the award. (Exhibit 4)

5. Copy and authenticated translation of Form 10-K and its Exhibit 22.1 (Exhibit 5)

Regarding the assets in Argentina, even though the defendant’s own statements to the SEC and in its Annual Reports convincingly demonstrate the relationship between Chevron Corp. and Chevron Argentina S.R.L., to supplement that information we have attached copies of declarations CDC ApS and CDHC ApS have filed with the Corporation Regulatory Authority of Argentina that show that (i) both are wholly owned by Chevron Global Energy Inc.; and (ii) both own (directly or through Norberto Priú S.R.L.) the corporate shares of Chevron Argentina S.R.L.

VII. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST

Specifically, and to summarize, this motion:

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 57 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,756 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-six [initials] 58

1. REQUESTS ATTACHMENT ORDERS AS EXECUTION MEASURES for the judgment dated January 3, 2012, on the assets located in the Republic of Ecuador listed in section IV.1, IV.2 and IV.3 of this motion, with the scope identified there, for which an official letter must be sent to these government and banking entities:

a. Ecuadorian Institute of Intellectual Property. The official letter should be addressed to its President, Ycaza Mantilla Andrés, at Av. República 396 and Diego de Almagro. Edif. Forum 300.

b. Superintendency of Banks and Insurance. The official letter should be addressed to Pedro Solines Chacón, Superintendent of Banks and Insurance, hand delivered at Av. 12 de Octubre N24-185 and Madrid.

c. Central Bank of Ecuador. Also to the Central Bank of Ecuador, addressed to its General Manager, Ruth Arregui Solano, at Av. 10 de Agosto N11-409 and Briceño.

d. Attorney General’s Office. To the Attorney General’s Office, addressed to the Attorney General, Diego García, hand delivered at Robles 731 and Av. Amazonas, Quito.

e. Ministry for the Coordination of Economic Policy. To the Ministry for the Coordination of Economic Policy, addressed to Ms. Jeannette Sánchez Zurita,

[trans. – text incomplete]

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 58 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,757 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-seven [initials] 60 [Translator’s note: Page 59 is missing in the source document.]

To order the withholding and/or sequestration and/or prohibition against disposal (or attachment, in Argentina) on all assets indicated in paragraphs a, b, c, d, e and f of section (iv) of Chapter V.1.—with the scope explained there—for which purpose LETTERS ROGATORY must be sent, under the terms of the “Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures,” TO THE JUDGE WITH JURISDICTION IN THE CITY OF BUENOS AIRES (the jurisdiction where the Argentinean subsidiary of Chevron Corp. is legally domiciled), authorizing the interested party to PERSONALLY DELIVER THE LETTERS ROGATORY—as permitted by Article 13 of the Convention—and expressly indicating in the letters rogatory that the plaintiffs are litigating IN FORMA PAUPERIS in Ecuador, so they are exempt from paying fees, expenses, costs and/or bonds of any kind—as established in Article 16 of the Convention.

(ii) ASSETS IN COLOMBIA:

To order the withholding, sequestration or prohibition against disposal (as the case may be) on all of the assets indicated in sections V.2.1 and V.2.2 of Chapter V.2—with the scope explained there—for which purpose LETTERS ROGATORY must be sent, under the terms of the “Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures,” TO THE JUDGE WITH JURISDICTION IN THE CITY OF BUENOS AIRES (the jurisdiction where the Argentinean subsidiary of Chevron Corp. is legally domiciled), authorizing the interested party to PERSONALLY DELIVER THE LETTERS ROGATORY—as permitted by Article 13 of the Convention—and expressly indicating in the letters rogatory that the plaintiffs are litigating IN FORMA PAUPERIS in

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 59 of 123 [Handwritten] 220,758 Two hundred twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-eight [initials] 61 Ecuador, so they are exempt from paying fees, expenses, costs and/or bonds of any kind— as established in Article 16 of the Convention.

We once again reiterate that we reserve the right to file petitions for any additional preventive and execution measures, as our research continues to shed light on the obscure corporate management of the assets owned by the defendant oil company and its subsidiaries.

Please continue to send any notices in this proceeding to the same judicial mailbox.

For the plaintiffs, duly authorized,

[signature] [signature] Atty. Pablo Fajardo Mendoza Atty. Julio Prieto Méndez Prof. License 21-2004-01 Prof. License 17-2005-58

[signature] Atty. Juan Pablo Sáenz M. Prof. License 17-2008-162

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBÍOS [seal] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLERK [initials] CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 60 of 123

No. 21100-2003-0002 Filed in Nueva Loja today, Wednesday, September 26, 2012, at 8:39 a.m., with no attachments. I attest. [Handwritten] 697 pages attached. I attest.

[signature] DR. ROMULO SARITAMA NAULA RECORDING CLERK (A)

CERT. MERRILL VER: JD

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 61 of 123 MERRILL CORPORATION Merrill Communications LLC 225 Varick Street New York, NY 10014 • (212) 620-5600

State ofNew York ) Estado de Nueva York ) ss: ) a saber: County ofNew York ) Condado de Nueva York

Certificate of Accuracy Certificado de Exactitud

This is to certify that the attached translation is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, a true and accurate translation from Spanish into English of the attached document. Por el presente certifico que la traducci6n adjunta es, segun mi lea! saber y entender, tradncci6n fie! y completa de! idioma espafiol al idioma ingles de! documento adjunto.

Dated: November 12, 2012 Pecha: 12 de noviembre de 2012 ..~-- Violeta Lejtman Team Lead - Legal Translations Merrill Brink International/Merrill Corporation [finnado] Violeta Lejtman Lider de! equipo - Traducciones Legales Merrill Brink International/Merrill Corporation

Sworn to and signed before Jurado y finnado ante 1 Me, this 12 h day of 12 dias de! --~=------'-'-'"-'-"~-"'----~ 2012

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 62 of 123 I ( I

SENOR PRESIDENTE SUBROGANTE DE LA CORTE PROVINCIAL DE SUCUMBIOS:

Ab. Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, en mi calidad cle Procurador comtin de Mari~ Aguinda y otros, en vinculaci6n con el juicio N° 002-2003 que por danos ambientales seguimos en contra de la compaiiia Chevron Corporation (antes Texaco), respetuosamente comparezco ante usted a fin de ID solicitar el dictado de medidas de ejecuci6n (embargo) sobre bienes de la demandada ubicados en el Ecuador. y (2) solicitar el dictado de medidas cautelares sobre bienes de la demandada ubicados en las republicas de Colombia y Argentina. en los teminos que se indicar:i en este escrito.

I-PRELIMINARY OBJETO DE LA PETICI6N.-

Cabe recordar que Texaco se comprometi6 a SOMETERSE a la jurisdicci6n de los tribunales de! Ecuador y a SATISFACER el Callo que eventualmente se dictara en su contra. Recientemente, ante un intento de Chevron por desyntenderse de aquellas obligaciones, fue la rnisma Corte de los Estados Unidos quien debi6 "recordarle" que los comprornisos asumidos judicialmente por

1 Texaco Si la vinculaban • A esta misma conclusion ya habian arribado el

1 En su resoluci6o dictada el dia 17 de marzo de 2011 la Corte de Apelaciones para el Segundo Circuito de Nueva York sostuvo que "Aqw; Texaco babia tratado de con.veneer a la Corte de Distrito de que el Ecuador serviria como una altemativa de jwisdicci6n adecuada para la resoluciOn de esta disputa con los demandantes. Co.mo parte de esos intentos, Texaco asegur6 ante la Corte de di'strito que reconocerla la .aaturaleza vinculante de cualquier faUo emi'tido en el Ecuador. Al actu.ar de ese modo quedO expuesta la hien fuadada creencia de Texaco de que ta/ promesa . rementaria las chances de que la Corte aceptau su planteo de desestimaciOn. Si Texaco /'!fa bi'era adoptado una postura diferente y consent:ido su partidpaci6n en el juicio ecuatoriano, ,>!:~""'""""""" ~.'f-""~.'r.' "•" - -~~:;:·_ J/,Y~,;·,~· - I -'?':i· .,);":,-;··- ~~' l~;., .:·1~~···x._): .. ::~v' l~"''' ·~. ·.· . '''i' 1t;·: 'Fi; iJ:i·,\; >if ,. ,, ~, .. , ·~ u"£'; ! ~ ' ... .,,_" ~~~ ~ 'Ii.~ : ·~;;.-;:~_~;,-

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 63 of 123 T '

anterior Juez a cargo de este proceso y la Sala Unica de la Corte Provincial de Sucumbios en ocasi6n de ratificar su pronunciamiento de condena contra Chevron. Asi, es el incumplimiento de Chevron a las promesas formuladas por Texaco (hace aproximadamente diez aiios) lo que determina la necesidad para los actores de formular ante el seiior Juez encargado de la ejecuci6n del fallo este pedido que tiene la doble finalidad de OBTENER EL DICTAMEN DE MEDIDAS DE EJECUCION EN EL ECUADOR y de MEDIDAS CAUTELARES EN LA ARGENTINA Y COLOMBIA sabre los activas de propiedad de la compaiiia condenada. Estando. ya en el proceso de ejecuci6n de la sentencia nos hemos vista en la necesidad de realizar este doble pedido, puesto que si bien las medidas aqui solicitadas son bastante similares, es necesario hacer una clara diferenciaci6n en cuanto a su naturaleza. Por una parte, al haber iniciado el proceso de ejecuci6n de la sentencia de Lago Agrio, tenemos los demandantes el derecho de utilizar embargos (en calidad de medidas de ejecuci6n), con el fin de hacer respetar los derechos que la sentencia nos ha reconocido. Esto no es un problema en el caso del Ecuador, ya que la ley en este punto nos franquea un proceso bastante simple para embargar y rematar los bienes de la condenada. Sin embargo, coma veremos mas adelante, los bienes que Chevron mantiene en el Ecuador no son ni remotamente suficientes coma para saldar su deuda, por lo que nos hemos vista obligados a recurrir a paises extranjeros -coma Argentina y

pero anunciado su intenci6n de no considerar ni.agUn faOo que pudiera emitir la Corte ecuaton"ana, el rechazo hubiera resultado (ea el mejor de Jos ca sos) menos probable. Concluimos por lo tanto que la Corte de distrito adopt6 la promesa de Texaco de respetar cualquier faOo emitido por las Cortes ecuaton'anas, suj'eto a sus derechos baj'o la Ley de Reconocimieo.to de FaUos lfx{knferos de Nueva YorA; al otorgar a Texaco la protecci6n que busc6 en su planteo deses atorio. Como resultado, esa promesa, junto con las m.tis genera/es promesas de Texaco de a eterse a la jurisdi'cci6n ecuatociana, es ejecutable contra Chevron en esta acciOn y en cjl. uier procedimiento futuro eo.tre las partes, incluyendo acciones de ejecuciOn, procesos de/ :Cl; .. ~~ inteDtos de coDfirmar laudos arbitralei' (traducci6n libre). >!'?,"!!;:· • •:l'.fi'~.~ ~r,'/{""'' ..~:,,,-,_, ~rf ~ :fl; . Cf .... ~·"' .'!\\ I ::1r11:.,/, ., ~~~ ·'Zl,1;lf'l" ~~ . ]~· , ,. /;J,F 1.:1 ~ 41 ' ~ "', t' ~ I ~ ' ·~,. ~ <0: '! 1.,: '·~>'..~~:::~~''

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 64 of 123 Colombia- donde las operac1ones de Chevron son mas cuantiosas, para ayudar a hacerle frente a su responsabilidad. No obstante, antes de poder cobrar en estas jurisdicciones, debe preceder un proceso de reconocimiento de la sentencia Ecuatoriana, proceso que requiere de precioso tiempo que seria previsiblemente mal utilizado por la demandada, que ya ha anunciado su rebeldia a cumplir con las obligaciones que emanan de la sentencia. La necesidad, entonces, es encontrar un mecanismo que impida que este tiempo obre en beneficio de la parte condenada, permitiendole encontrar nuevas formas de oponerse y desconocer los derechos de los demandantes, rnientras los procesos de reconocirniento de sentencia son ventilados. La instituci6n de las. medidas cautelares existe precisamente para evitar este tipo de potenciales abusos, por lo cual debe ser utilizada por esta Corte cuanto antes. Tanto m:is se justifica esta petici6n de medidas cautelares si se toma en cuenta que, casi paralelamente al incumplirniento de aquella promesa formulada ante los jueces de su pais, Chevron formul6 otra promesa: la de que nunca cumplira el fallo dictado en este juicio. Lo hizo acudiendo adem:is a hiperb6licas afirmaciones de pesimo gusto, como aquella de que los demandantes del juico de Lago Agrio habrian de litigar "hasta que el infierno se congele,y luego continuar la pelea sobre sobre el hielo". Es importante destacar la conducta en todo momento dilatoria y obstruccionista que adopt6 Chevron a lo largo del juicio. Las propias sentencias dictadas en primera y en segunda instancia dan cuenta, sin margen para la duda, de que ello fue asi. De este modo, las medidas que se solicitar:in aqui no solamente se justifican en el hecho de que exista sentencia ejecutoriada y pasada en ~u4ad de cosa juzgada -motivo que por si solo avalaria su total "dencia-, sino que tambien estan ratificadas, en cuanto a la ,:;;''!~rt~/~., Aff'{ .~,,,: ~~~ / ~1: ·:~ ;~/~ -~~.'-\;. '' ~ •_;".'t'. \ ,~/: -ii.~.····· ::·~;;~};./;;;,!/

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 65 of 123 T !

impostergable necesidad de disponerias, por esa conducta procesal a todas luces de mala fe que Chevron ha adoptado a lo largo de este litigio. No podemos permitir que Chevron este a sus anchas mientras el proceso de reconocimiento y ejecuci6n de sentencia en estos paises extranjeros es tramitado, ya que indudablemente usara este tiempo para continuar tejiendo trampas que impidan el cobra de la legitima indemnizaci6n ordenada por esta Corte. Cabe recordar, en ta! sentido, que elJuez Nicolas Zambrano formul6 en su sentencia numerosas consideraciones de reproche a Chevron por sus intentos constantes de sabotear el curso del proceso2.; y lo mismo hizo la Sala Unica de la Corte Provincial de Sucumbios.3

2 El Juez Zambrano hizo menci6n -entre muchos otros- de los siguientes factores que resultan indicati.vos de esa ma/a ft procesal: "el no prerentarse a la exhibidtin tk doe11mentos ordenados ni pnsentar excusa en la ficha seiialada; el haber pretendido abmar tk la fa!iOn entre Chevron Cotp. y Texaco Inc. (Omo mecanismo para evadir responsabilidatks; ab11sar de los derechos que k con.ftere la Ley Proasal tales romo el dmcho tk presentar los recursos que la Lry franquea, coma lo es el ca.ro tkl reamo vertical th apelaaiin, petiaOnes reiteradas sabre asuntos resueltos, e incidentes que por manda!IJ tk la Lry no tienen cabida tkntro tk un prouso verbal mmario,y que han mereddo sen(/Qs !lamados tk atendOn y multas (()n/ra los proftn"onaks que han defendido a la parte tkmandada por parte tk los distinJos magistrados que htmos oCllj>ado la pmidenda tk esta Corte; retardor provocador mediante condHctaI en printipio kgitimas pero crrya utiliz.aciOn tiene consecuencias tksleaks para '1Jn el proaso mi.Imo, '1Jmo lo es el negar y obstaadiz.ar el pago a los peritos posesionatks, impidiindoler adpoder iniciar m trahajo, o girar cheques para el pago tk ptritoI a nombre tk la CJ rte tk Justicia, o el bien dommntado caso de /or videor que faeron ikgalmente grabador por allegador a la parte demandadd'.

3 "Persistente.mente la de.mandada, Chevron Corporation, ha protagonizado incidentes que vinieron obstando al tnimite dd jwCio .. ."; expres6 tambien que los planteos de la demandada fueron "interpuestos con evidente abuso dd derecho y clara intenci6n de entorpecer la admiru"saaci&n de justiciti'; que con esos planteos improcedentes contribuy6 Chevron a un "abultamiento cuasi inoficiosd' de la causa; incluso esta Sala Unica no dud6 en calificar de ccinsolentes escn·toS' a las presentaciones mediante las cuales Chevron se dirigia a esa instancia. Luego, dijo la Sala que "Consta de} expediente que Chevron ha ejercido una vigorosa defensa de su interCs procesal; como se dij'o antes, ha sido hasta arroDadora y ofeasiva, presentando, literal y marcadamente, miDares de escritos con peticiones diversas, algunas con sustento en derecho, y otras, muchas veces otras, con peticlones conttadicton'as, repeti.'ti!vas y hasta ilegaleS"; de seguido se hace referencia a "mUJtiples intentos por abusar de instituc.iones juridicas con Jines aj'enos a su ejercicio cabal, como cecursos de apelaci6n inoportunamente interpuestos en plena tramitaci6n de primera instanc1'a de un juicio verbal sumario. .• o de pet.iciones de la accioaada para abrir espacios y trabar}os con incidentes... o revocatorias, y su persistencia en el/as cuando se las negaba, amparadas en firmas de distintos profesionales de/ derecho con el obvio propOsito de evitar sanc.iones; o hasta el mismo hecho de haber enjuiciado con recusaciones literalmente a la mayor/a de los jueces que estuvieron al frente de! procesd'. Mas que elocuente es la referenda que hac~·la a la conducta p.rocesal de la demandada, cuando la califica como " .. . pocas veces vista en los an e la funci6n de admimStrar fusticia en d Ecuado.t'; asi como tambiCn cl hecho de que la Sala rati los daiios punitivos y su fundamentaci6n dada por el Juez de primer grado, "como enseiia de lo nodebeocurrirenjwCid'. / ~U"''-i.4r. • >;~..,~._ ~~' .... _!.~ ( J'j . ' ~''''tt·•~_····f'."".-:r.~, .·. rt. 4<·: .· ···~1~·~tf1 • "~:;~ ({'; .. •· i '·~ "~ ~;~~·l -,~: ~;~. •:iii l\~: ····' ,.,~,crj. ~),::-' -~~\:·:~ ...~~'.:·'.i~:;.;).i ~.;1 :_-::~-,:~.t·

' ..~~,<~· .. ·, ",.(1 '.'~''."*?l· '-'~-·" • \<> ""-'' , , -~~~--'.'°~

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 66 of 123 T

II Por otro lado, nada hace pensar -lamentablemente- que ese I temperamento dilatorio y obstruccionista vaya a disminuir, ni mucho menos a desaparecer, en la etapa de ejecuci6n del fallo ru en su reconocimiento en el extranjero. De hecho, la nula voluntad de Chevron por acatar el fallo qued6 ya evidenciada, una vez mas, con el agotamiento de los quince dias de plazo sin que la corporaci6n demandada brindara sus excusas publicas para con las victimas de los estragos causados en la Amazonia y los letargos injustamente causados en el juicio. En este contexto resulta necesario recurrir al respaldo de las medidas cautelares en los terminos en que seran solicitadas aqui, respecto de activos que Chevron .Corp. posee en Colombia y Argentina, mientras las medidas de ejecuci6n, solicitadas asimismo a traves del presente escrito, surten efectos.

II- MARCO LEGAL DE LA PETICI6N DE MEDIDAS CAUTELARES Y DE EJECUCI6N

Luego de liquidadas la condena y las costas, la demandada fue intimada para que dentro de las veinticuatro horas pagara o dimitiera bienes en los terminos del art. 438 del CPC. Al rehusar el pago o la puesta a disposici6n de bienes para el cobro de la condena, corresponde sin mas tramite proceder al embargo de los bienes que el propio acreedor sefiale, tal como lo estipula el

4 siguiente art. 439 del CPC •

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 67 of 123 Esta es la instancia a la que corresponde adentrarse ahora seglin el esquema de ejecuci6n reglado por el CPC y que esta parte ha seguido meticulosamente respetando todos y cada uno de los distintos pasos. Cabe de todos modos sei'ialar que los bienes que Chevron tiene actualmente en el Ecuador, como se vera luego al detallarlos, resultan totalmente insuficientes y su remate o liquidaci6n no cubrirla siquiera una parte minima de la condena, por lo que se toma necesario -indispensable, en rigor- agredir activos que la multinacional 5 demandada posee en otros paises • No obstante, para que el embargo coma medida de ejecud6n sea aplicable en el extranjero, es necesario antes pasar por un· proceso de reconocimiento de la sentencia ecuatoriana, durante el cual Chevron puede buscar deshacerse de sus bienes, u otras formas de evadir el pago de su obligad6n, entro otras cosas. Para evitar esto, es menester ordenar una serie de secuestros, retenciones, y prohibiciones de enajenar (medidas preventivas o cautelares, seglin la legislaci6n ecuatoriana), precisamente para defender los derechos de los demandantes. Esta petid6n de secuestro, retenci6n y prohibici6n de enaienar sobre activos situados en el extranjero deterrnina la aplicabilidad al caso, junto con las disposiciones comunes del CPC, de la "Convenci6n ! Interamericana Sohre Cumplimiento de Medidas Cautelares', suscrita en el marco de la II Conferencia Internacional de Derecho Internacional Privado -CIDIP II- celebrada en el ai'io 1979 en la ciudad

prolHbiCi'dn, secuestro o retenci6n. Si la dimisiOn becha por el deudor o el sefialamiento de/ acreedor versa sabre bienes raices, no seri aceptada si no acompaiia el certificado dd regi'strador de la propiedady el def ava/lio catastral'.

5 Ya desde4ra es importante dejar establecido que la identificaci6n queen este escrito se hace de los pafse~ex"jeros en los cuales se comenzaci a adop~ medidas. {Argentina y Colombia), de ningUn modo d cartar otros paises para adoptar esas nusmas medidas u otras en un futuro mis 0 menos 6.44:..i- . ,r~ .. , ~... ~~.t'-' -~~.lip,~ ;,., :..,,.. ,:;l·;- •.!<>' .:>ilf Ct: ..(rl :~,, J7 ~ " ,,,. ·T ·1 · ,I "t. 1>; if} 1 1\0'.c~ .. -r.. ~ .. , ·-~;1··~ J ~ :,, 4t-'• ''lf~"f!i~Jt:' ~f'. ~~ ;..~,... ,~~.'.!,~~ )' --'/,~ ':/·:··::.;:~::~,·.: ..... ,; \;2:\~~~~<'(' ·:·.-s\~~~-~"l

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 68 of 123 . .':2 LC> .10~, ~,c.:2'--"-''G_.°::' v '-~~ \. ~'> 1.(_J::...'L.~ 'U<.._..l.._\..C _ '-'--'S ~!--- ~ 7 Q~-9

de Montevideo, y ratifi.cada tanto por el Ecuador como por la Argentina y Colombia'. En dicha Conferencia se suscribieron la "Convenci6n Interamericana Sohre Eficacia Extraterritorial de Sentenciag' y la

"Convenci6n Interamericana Sohre Cumplimiento de Medida.~ Cautelareg', El prop6sito de las Convenciones es agilizar procedimientos de Coaperacion Internacional que, tradicionalmente, han mostrado una lentitud acaso incompatible con su importancia.cuando se los aplicaba segiJn la legislaci6n comun intema de cada pais. A traves suyo se facilitan mecanismos mas expeditos que tienden a acortar plazos y evitar tramites burocraticos, neutralizando asi el peligro de que la cooperaci6n internacional pudiera llegar tarde. Un ejemplo concreto de este prop6sito /acilitador se da en la Convenci6n Sohre Medidas Cautelares, que autoriza a que sea la propia parte interesada quien asuma la carga de trasladar el exhorto de un pais a otro, en sustituci6n del comun tramite diplomatico que -seglin lo ha mostrado la experiencia- suele requerir un lapso mucho

mayor de! aconsejable para este tipo de diligencias, de por si utgentes7. Como lo sostuvo doctrina especializada en la materia, "El tema ffene especial trascendencia si se considera que asegurar la extraterritorialidad de las medidas cautelares reviste tanta importancia como la extraterritorialidad de la sentenda misma... La Convenci6n responde a la nueva tendencia del Derecho Intemacional de procurar ampliar el marco de cooperaci6n judicial intemacional a

6 Sobre todo a nivel regional, los paises suelen comprometerse entre si mediante la firma de Tratados o Convenciones en la meteria. Asi, a mero titulo de ejemplo, puede citarse la "ConvenciQ0 de Bruselas" en el marco de la Uni.On Europea; o el "Protocolo de Las Leiias" en el :im.bito del Mercosur. Lo propio sucede e marco de la Organizaci6n de Estados Americanos (OEA), que la RepU.blica del Ecuador inte zco los instrwnentos gestados en h CIDIP II. , t'f(~~~ /~ eremos sobre este importante tema en el Capitulo VI (V.ii). f 4·' · :;~ ''¥!. · '··~

~t;. ·; ,•i ! '~~ ;, 0 ·.:..<·· ·:,::-:;; ~--i: - ,;: -~~:.: j; 1 \\iii ' '·i'< i· 'TT.,;,';, ·,;: · ••J ,' ,, }~~;~;:: '.>... , :,..,;· ~\ij ;;.;.~~( - .-:-:~;~;;,~.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 69 of 123 efectos de que el juez de un pals pueda cumplir una medida preventiva o cautelar decretada por el juez de otro pals en un proceso

8 seguido en dicho paii' • Queda a la vista la estrecha vinculaci6n entre ambas Convenciones de la CIDIP II, las cuales se complementan regulando las distintas etapas que es necesario transitar para que la Cooperacirfn Internacional pueda realizarse con exito: mientras que la Convencion Sobre Eficacia Extraterritorial de Sentencias provee los mecanismos para que una sentencia dictada en un pafs extranjero quede asimilada en todos sus efectos a un fallo local. la Convencion Sobre Medidas Cautelares sirve al proposito de que el tiernpo que requiere aquel proceso contradictorio no perjudique los derechos de! beneficiario de la condena, habilitandolo a solicitar. secuestros. retenciones. prohibiciones de enajenar y embargos9 sobre activos de propiedad de la demanda

' Cfr. Tatiana B. de Maekett, Segunda Conferencia Especia/izada Interamericana Sabre Derecho Internacional Privado (CJDIP II). El trabajo complete de la mencionada jurista puede compulsarse en http: I lwww.juridicas.wwn.mx/publica/librev /rev /jurid/cont/14/pr/pr26.pdf. Una autoridad mundialmente reconocida en materia de Derecho Internacional Privado como Werner Goldschmidt sostuvo que "Los proyectos de /os convenlos fueron elaborados por lo que hoy es la Subsecretaria Jurldica de la OEA, dirigida por la doctora Tatiana B. de Maekelt y el Cotnltl Juridico Interamericano, presidido por Haroldo Valladlao. Ambas personas tienen un mirito inapreciable con respecto al lxito de la CIDIP I y II" ("Derecho Internacional Privado", Buenos Aires, Abeledo Perrot, 2009, pagina 4I). 9 erimos aqui a la instituci6n det embargo en su faceta conocida en paises coma Argentina y a, la cual es una medida de naturaleza cautelar, y no Unicamente de ejecuci6n como lo es en or. -~ _. i'~0;:;1;;11-~,~ ,/ -~,;. " -- ;>47">~' ~" -"/ .;;_.'{. ~:.. : .::\\. ·•r;'c ,. ,~ --~It. 4 - '!.. t I•> ,, • ' t ii \}.• ::.:~. ;l ..·,·:: ---~~t~{j~~:.•.;~.. ·.;:///:·

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 70 of 123 residuales que no cubren con su valor siquiera una parte minima de! fallo, entonces estas normas perderian todo su sentido practico y lo mismo seria que no existiesen, ya que dificilmente haya otro caso en el que resulte tan clara la necesidad de valerse de ellas para realizar la Justicia. Luego, en el Capitulo V de este escrito, se explicara el alcance con que se postula la aplicaci6n de esta nonnativa intemacional que vincula a la Republica de! Ecuador con la Argentina y Colombia.

IIl- INCLUSI6N DE LOS ACTIVOS QUE CHEVRON CORP. POSEE A TRAvES DE SUS COMPANiAs SUBSIDIARIAS.

111.1. Las subsidiarias v sus actiyos son propiedad de Chevron Com.. aunque formalmente la tenenda la ostenten entes sodetarios y de otra naturaleza que teggan una denominad6n distinta.

Respecto de este tema, en uno de los fragmentos de la sentencia de primera instancia se lee: "Es derto que por norma general una empresa puede tener subsidiarias con personalidad juridica completamente distinta. Sin embargo, cuando las subsidiarias comparten el mismo nombre informal, el mismo personal y estan directamente vinculadas con la empresa madre en una cadena ininterrumpida de toma de dedsiones opJfdvas, la separaci6n entre personas y patrimonios se difumina jfastante, o incluso Dega fa] desaparecel'. 1

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 71 of 123 A su turno, cuando la Sala debio resolver en su fallo del 3 de enero de 2012 las quejas de Chevron sobre este aspecto (al que no dudo en referir coma un "crucial punto de controversia"), manifesto que "El juzgador de instancia hace un an:ilisis completo y fundamentado al respecto en la parte de ampliacion def Fallo, que esta Sala ratific:i'. Es decir, el hecho de que los activos cuyo secuestro, retencion o prohibicion de enajenar aqui se solicita se encuentren jormalmente bajo titularidad de compaii.ias distintas de Chevron Corp. -pero que le pertenecen integramente-, de ningiln modo representa un obst:iculo legal o procesal. Se trata nada mas de un aspecto instrumental., propi~ de una compaii.ia que opera en mas de cien paises alrededor del mundo y organiza

10 sus negocios por medio de un esquema de empresas holdingsy subsidiarias • Ademas. en el escenario descrito, cuando son sus subsidiarias quienes poseen los activos contra los cuales la condena puede ejecutarse, la estricta limitaci6n de la ejecuci6n a Chevron Corp. (solo dentro de los EE.UV.) supondrla un "exceso ritual manifiesto" que tendria por efecto lirnitar, sin ninguna base legal, las alteroativas de ejecucion de la condena dictada. Chevron Corp. se ha encargado de promover una vision segiin la cual solamente cuenta cQn presencia y activos en los Estados Unidos, por lo que cualquier intento por parte de los demandantes de atacar a sus subsidiarias o afiliadas vendria a ser a un supuesto entramado ilicito entre abogados, asesores y la propia parte. Sin embargo, veremos luego con mayor detalle (apartado III.2.) que, segiin la informacion proporcionada por la propia Chevron Corp. a sus accionistas y al publico en general en su

10 Solamente entre los paises que Chevron destaca tiene una actividad mas extensa, se cuentan los siguien : Angola, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brasil, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chi lombia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malasia, Holanda, Nueva Zelanda, Nigeria, F~~ Rusia, Arabia Saudita, Singapur, Sudafrica, Corea de! Sur, Tailandia, Trinidad y Tobago, ~ Unido, Estados Unidos, Venezuela y Vietnam. (ver http://www.chevron.com/countriet). -~"'°'~. _,/ ,....:::..0')''~11,ffi:;/)~ ? <·?' .. ~:~,,:: (~ /) ft;: ~!i!C,'·:· • '/, (~ -"' c ;·~-~ ....,,,.. ! ' ':1 lr,1 _,,,,., ' •, ~ '.1 ;~,~ I J ~ " -";"'"~~~(.' "'" •\• ~ ·.;'\~·;:.·: . ·,1;,'( ':tt~:'.;.{ ~.\~.J11J ~1· ~· ~.:.,';~·:--: '-. <~~~'f'

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 72 of 123 Reporte Anua~ tal vision constituye una falacia y no se sostiene en el plano de la realidad, ya que la matriz muestra como propios -sin distinciones- los exitOS economicos de SUS subsidiarias aJrededor del mundo. En igual linea de interpretacion, se des taco en la sentencia el concepto de "unidad de patrimonio" que en Ultima instancia subyace entre sociedades de este grupo empresario mas all:i de que existan diferentes personalidades formales entre ellas, que no deben estar divididas por barreras infranqueables, al menos si de lo que se trata es que prime la justicia como valor m:ixirno. Asi como, por ejemplo, hubiera sido injusto y violatorio de legitimos derechos, que Texaco Inc. no respondiese por los ilicitos cometidos por TexPet en la operacion del Consorcio, y que esa responsabilidad no fuera luego "elevada" hacia Chevron Corp. como cabeza de la cadena

~terrumpida, del mismo modo seria ahora violatorio e injusto que no se habilitara la ejecuci6n sobre activos que son indudablemente de Chevron Corp. pero que se hallan registrados a nombre de sus compaftlas subsidiarias o afiliadas alrededor del mundo (controladas, naturalmente, por Chevron Corp.). No es legitimo, ademas, frente a terceros damnificados como son los aqui demanclahtes, valerse de triangulaciones, fusiones o entramados societarios con el prop6sito de evadirse de responsabilidad por los dafios

11 infligidos • Como qued6 dicho en la sentencia de primer grado, en las cadenas de subsidiarias los patrimonios de las distintas sociedades pueden

11 La ampliaci6n a la sentencia de primer grado, dictada el 4/03/11, abord6 este concepto al destacar que si las apariencias y la exteriorizaci6n de la actividad comercial de Chevron indicaban que ella era la sucesora de Texaco, entonces esa realidad no podia -en perjuicio de los acta'es- ser desmentida por maniobras societarias de las que resultaria otra cosa distinta. Lo mismo, pues, puede pr<; ahora con respecto al t6pico de la relaci6n entre Chevron Corp. y sus subsidiarias: si en / el mundo se presentan como una unidad, no pueden postular ahora, cuando toca afrontar ponsabilidades, que son sujetos distintos.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 73 of 123 -

confundirse al punto de llegar incluso a desaparecer en la practica toda linea divisoria. Y el motivo por el que no es preciso aqui recurrir a la desestimaci6n de la personalidad societaria es porque los activos registrados en cabeza de las subsidiarias de Chevron Corp. son propiedad de esta ultima, qne se encuentra s1empre e11 el extremo superior de la cadena organizacional y debe responder frente a los

12 acreedores con la integralidad de su patrimonio • De alli que, en el caso, NO es necesario recurrir a la doctrina de! levantarniento de! velo societario o. allanarniento de la personalidad juridica para justificar la soluci6n propuesta de atacar los activos que se encuentran en cabeza de las subsidiarias de Chevron Corp.

111.2. El tratamiento que aqui se pide. en el sentido de considerar a Chevron Corp. y sus subsidiarias como una unidad. es el mismo que la demandada se dispensa a sf misma en numerosas situadones. inclusive ante las autoridades de control de su pals.

Conductas concretas seguidas por Chevron en asuntos que son de publico conocimiento avalan la petici6n de la parte actora en el sentido de que la condena se haga valer sobre activos que son propiedad de Chevron Coi;p. mediante sus compafiias subsidiarias. Es asl, que resulta que es la propia demandada, con sus declaraciones y actitudes asumidas en distintos asuntos que son de conocimiento publico, quien ha evidenciado

12 La doctrina juridica societaria se ha ocupado de este asunto. El profesor Man6vil, por caso, ha hecho un estudio exhaustivo sobre todos los aspectos que conciemen al funcionamiento de los grupos de sociedades en Ja economia modema (cfr. "Grupos de Sociedades en el Derecbo Comparado", Abeledo Perrot, 1998, Buenos Aires, Argentina). En pags. 1012 y sgts. efectua Man6vil una clara distinci6 tre, por un lado, el supuesto en el que se persigue extender al socio o controJante Ia lidad por las obligaciones de la sociedad (fen6meno "desde ahajo hacia arriba"); y por otro lad , e upuesto en el que un acreedor de! socio o controlante persigue la imputaci6n a estos de Ios bien de la sociedad para asi poder cobrarse de ellos (enfoque referido por el autor como "desde ,,,,.,..,_., / iba hacia ahajo"). Esta Ultima es-claramente- la situaci6n en nuestro caso. {f'~:;~~~n~~---~~ :' '~e ~~ tf.<1"...,,•,, • f! ~,~-,. d,,_ 'l: __ ,_..,_;_.:;r._,~_· ~v~{ ' :(~:::~.~ht:;~)>"'

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 74 of 123 ser la titular real de activos o relaciones juridicas que, en lo formal, se hallaban en cabeza de algunas de sus subsidiarias o afiliadas. Es por esto que nuestra petici6n no puede agraviar a Chevron Corp.. en la medida en que lo que se pretende en definitiva es

asignarle el mismo trn!:>.Qliento en este ~cto que el que ella misma se dispensa.

(i) Asi ocurre, por ejemplo, en el caso de! proceso arbitral seguido bajo el Tratado Bilateral de Inversiones'3contra la Republica de! Ecuador. Esta acci6n fue promovida por Chevron Corp. con invocaci6n de "retardo de justicia" respecto de siete reclamos comerciales en trimite ante la justicia de! Ecuador -

admitida por la Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya por un total de U$S 96 millones. Lo revelador del caso es que el titular de las relaciones juridicas litigiosas era Texaco Inc. (mediante su subsidiaria TexPet). Pero no obstante ello, tambien Chevron Corp. llev6 adelante junto a su subsidiaria el reclamo ante el Tribunal de Arbitraje y es quien actualmente procura obtener directamente para si el cobro del monto alli reconocido14.

(ii) Cabe destacar tambien que es la propia compafiia demandada quien exhibe en su portal de Internet (www.chevron.com) la vasta red

15 geografica en que opera sus negocios •

13 BIT, por sus siglas en inglCs. 14 Siganada como el Caso 1:12-cv-01247-JEB en la Corte Distrital de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Columbia, se encuentra el caso CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PRELEUM COMP ANY v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR 15 lntere seiialar que el juez sentenciante en primer grado, en su fallo dd 14 de febrero de 2011, M..igrui ... ,. t. I . i e I .

I/

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 75 of 123 Alli rrusmo declara la compaiiia -a modo de introducci6n o encabezamiento de dicha secci6n- que " ... posee negocios en todo el mundo. Aqui se provee informaci6n detallada respecto de aquellos

16 paises en Jos que la actividad de Chevron es m:is extens:i' • En su Reporte Anual correspondiente al ano 2011, en donde efecrua un informe minucioso sabre el estado de sus actividades -con sus respectivos resultados para el ejercicio en cuesti6n- Chevron formula el siguiente Aviso Lega~ que resulta contundente a los fines que aqui se pretenden, esto es, imputar directamente a la matriz los activos que posee de forma indirecta por media de sus compaiiias subsidiarias a traves las cuales opera en todo el mundo. La prevision indicada establece que: "Del modo en que se los emplea en este Reporte, Jos terminos 'Chevron'y 1a compafiia 'pueden es tar referidos a Chevron Corporation, a una o mas de sus subsidiarias consolidadas, o a todas el/as consideradas

11 globalmente... " •

Estas manifestaciones de Chevron sirven coma ejemplo para ilustrar el doble escindar que emplea la corporaci6n demandada cuando, primero, exhibe frente a sus inversionistas y publico en general sus resultados recurriendo al metodo de confundir a la matriz con sus compaiiias subsidiarias consolidadas -al extrema de asirnilarlas en los muy representativos terrninos "Chevron" o "la compaiiia"-, lo que le permite a Chevron Corp. mostrar espectaculares resultados financieros; pero luego, cuando se trata de afrontar responsabilidades, muy por el

16 HWe rondnct business aU around the glohe. Detailed infa17Ration is provided he/.ow for ro1111trUs where Chtvron's work is morr extensivi'. Seguidamente a esta referencia, se enlistan los paises identificados en la Nota N° 9. Como surge del texto, los paises alli identi.ficados (entre los Latinoametlcanos: Argentina, Brasil, Colombia y Venezuela) no son todos los paises en los que Chevron opera, sino nada mis los mis representativos, o aquellos donde lleva a cabo, segUn sus propios dichos, una Hacti.vidad mis extensa". 17 " ed in this report, the therms 'Chevron' and 'the company' may refer to Chevron Corporation, or more of its consolidated subsidiaries, or to all of them taken as a whole ... " · ·-;~ . ://www.sec. ov/Archives/ed ar/dat 934101000095 12312002976/f60351el0vk.htm ;p';p')'i~~.:.·.~:·~·"' y; . ..~•• i /·:' :,"f ;~;',." '"::.. if(,

~~•i>'~F~~!tu~\ ~·~·,-:. ,;'\- ~~~ .. ,., ~' ....'- .. '·Vi.iJV.1 :? ~;\;'.,~~-;·,-••• n •• _''..k<};2\~~~~~~;~,:~/

:~,;:·..':;·.' u 1'-"l ·&:!, \ ~*::::-:~., ~~":~·{'. ·~~'11·'

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 76 of 123 ..

contrario se escuda detras de la abusiva autonomia de toda subsidiaria, controlada o afiliada suya. Tambien aqui se da uno de esos supuestos en donde la propia compafiia se arroga en el piano sustancial derechos o prerrogativas que, en la esfera formal, corresponden no obstante a otra persona de! grupo econ6mico. En ese orden de ideas, importa destacar que, tanto en su Reporte Anua/ correspondiente al aiio 2011 coma asirnismo en el formulario 10-K

8 presentado par deberJegal ante la SEC' , Chevron Corporation declara que es ella quien maneja las inversiones en las comparuas afiliadas y subsidiarias, a las que provee apoyo aclministrativo, financiero, de administraci6n y tecnol6gico; pero mas importante aun, indica que el termino Chevron se refiere a una o mis de sus subsidiarias consolidadas, o a todas ellas en conjunto, puesto que reconoce que todas las subsidiarias enlistadas son de propiedad total, directa o indirectamente, de Chevron Corporation. (ver el formulario 10-K y el Anexo 22.1 enAnexo 5) El manejo de! management lo hace por media de un esquema de administradores o "gestores de segmentos" que reportan, desde las subsidiarias y afiliadas, al denominado Comite Ejecutivo de la compafiia, el

19 cual, a su vez, reporta sin intermediarios al directorio de Chevron. Corp • Lo expuesto por la propia Chevron Corp. frente a sus inversionistas y a las autoridades de los Estados Unidos pone de manifiesto que las subsidiarias y afiliadas sabre las que ella ejerce control, no poseen un directorio aut6nomo o independiente. Y tampoco puede decirse que las afiliadas y subsidiarias tengan autonomia siquiera desde la 6ptica funcionai

n Sec ties Exchange Comission, agencia gubemamental estadounidense que regula a las compafii.~·.~~.:~ff~~~~~ • • y •• " L' :';' o pa1s. h •;/ ',,~i er htto://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/annualreport/Chevron20! !Annua!Report full.~J '«JI_,.\\ .,liv.,,. ~-, . ··i-~. J (, ' i' I'. j,;i 1\-. '_,,,' ~ "'f"~-:-r. t ).~-. "~¥ 1 "._. y;. "''" .... , ,,,- ~ ·t- J ' ;/'"\ { ;,~/."' ~'. '~ ... ""'.,.:!.;/'' - :-?;.-:::;,,/;;:::;""''

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 77 of 123 -

como lo muestra el hecho de que Chevron Corp. ofrece una garantia matriz por las deudas de aquellas en el desenvolvimlento de sus actividades. Las ganancias que exhibe Chevron Corp., y que presenta como "propias" ante accionistas e inversionistas, en su vasta mayoria provienen de la actividad que realizan sus subsidiarias, controladas o aftliadas en Joo respectivos paises en que se hallan radicadas. Resulta ilustrativo atender al siguiente dato global: durante el afio 2010. de la producci6n global que promedi6 2763 millones de barriles diarios, alrededor de un 26% provino. de la actividad en los Estados Unidos. mientras que todo el resto deriv6 de los negocios que Chevron opera por medio de sus

20 afiliadas y/o subsidiarias en el resto de! mundo • En igual sentido se leen los datos publicados por la comparua respecto de su producci6n en el afio 2011: de la totalidad de Ios 2673 millones de barriles diarios, cerca de un 75% de ese volumen se origin6 fuera de los Estados Unidos en mas de 20 paises diferentes21. Pero es siempre Chevron Cotp. quien asimila y consolida esos resultados en sus balances y estados contables. Se advierte, entonces, que sin otro parimetro que el de su circunstancial conveniencia, Chevron alterna entre exhibirse abiertamente como la cabeza de su extensa red mundial de compafiias afiliadas y/o subsidiarias, presentando por un !ado a sus inversionistas internacionales un balance en el que consolida sus operaciones y ganancias a nivel mundial, para facilitar asi la captaci6n de dinero (ya sea a traves de la emisi6n de acciones en los mercados de capitales mundiales o para tomar prestamos del sistema financiero internacional, y aun para sostener el valor de su acci6n que cotiza en las bolsas de los EE.DU); y, muy por el contrario, al

20 • www.chevron.com/docwnents/p

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 78 of 123 mismo tiempo postula a rajatabla la aplicaci6n dogmatica de la separaci6n de personalidades y de la desvinculaci6n de Chevron Corp. respecto de sus subsidiarias cuando se trata de cumplir con sus obligaciones.

(iii) En su sentencia del 3 de enero pasado, la Sala Unica de Sucumbios, para desechar el pedido de Chevron Corp. de que nada tenia que ver con los hechos de este juicio, sostuvo que semejante pedido se contraponia con " ... la connotada participad6n procesal de la acdonada que se ha defrndido en juicio como es racional que lo hagan los dueflos del pleitd'. En apoyo de su razonamiento invoc6 la

22 Sala un precedente de la maxima autoridad judicial del pais , en el cual marcaba la contradicci6n insita en la postura de quien, por un !ado, postula la sinraz6n de ser demandado, pero por otro !ado -y en forma simultanea­ asume en juicio posiciones propias de dueiio. En otras palabras, lo que vino a establecer la Sala como parametro de valoraci6n es que el hecho de que alguien, procesalmente, en juicio, se comporte como "duefio" de un bien, o como "titular" de una relaci6n juridica determinada, no es una conducta neutra, sino que por el contrario constituye un dato que predica acerca de que ese dominio o esa titularidad realmente existen. Pues bien, tal criterio de valoraci6n -fundado no en alegaciones vacuas, sino en conductas objetivas asumidas en juicio- resulta muy util para poner una vez mas en evidencia el vinculo de total unicidad patrimonial que existe entre Chevron Corp. y las subsidiarias con las que opera.

l

I I

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 79 of 123 -

En efecto: c:C6mo explicar el interes siempre urgente manifestado por Chevron en impedir como sea la ejecucion contra sus empresas afiliadas o subsidiarias, si no es por la propiedad que ella misma ejerce sobre esas subsidiarias y sus activos? Es claro que, frente a esas comparuas, Chevron actu6 -por ponerlo en ralahras del fallo citado por la Sala Unica- "... con la constancia, intensidad, celo y energfa con que sue/en hacerlo, en casos similares, Jos duefios ...". Particularmente elocuente en este punto es lo sucedido en el marco de la audiencia celebrada ante la Corte Federal de Apelaciones para el Segundo Circuito de Nueva York, el dia 16 de septlembre de 2011; cuanto alli se dijo fue el antecedente inmediato para que tres dias mas tarde, el 19 de septiembre, la Corte revocara integramente una medida cautelar dispuesta por el Juez Lewis Kaplan que prohibia le ejecuci6n del fallo . dictado en el Ecuador. En un momento dado, refiriendose a los actores, el Juez Lynch sostuvo que "... Es claro segiln la Jey que el fa/lo no es ejecutablt!' (recuerdese que estaba pendiente aun el tratamiento de la apelaci6n). Y el abogado de Chevron Randy Mastro replica en los siguientes rerminos: "Sf que Jo es, bajo el tratado conpaises de Latinoamerica como Colombia, Argentina y Venezuela, ahora mismo los demandantes podrfan dirigirse a esos pafses y secuestrar sustanciales activos de Chevron en dichos pafses. Hay un peligro real e inmediato ahora, y

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 80 of 123 " el ]uez Kaplan tuvo por probado que hay un tratado Latinoamericano que Jes da a los demandantes el derecho a congelar inaudita parte activos ahora mismo en esos pafses. Es un peHgro real e inmediato ahora mismd'. Como se advierte, es Chevron Corp. quien, cle un modo claro y ante los jueces de su propio pais, · admite que la situaci6n procesal entonces vigente al momento de la audiencia (septiembre de 2011), ya autorizaba a los demandantes a atacar activos de sus afiliadas y subsidiarias en Latinoamerica sobre la base de un Tratado vigente en el Ecuador. Y si los demandantes se encontraban -como lo dijo Chevron Corp.­ habilitados en aquel momento por la Convencion para agredir sus activos en paises de Latinoamerica, tanto mas habilitados para ese proceder se encuentran ahorl!, cuando la sentencia de primera instancia, al recibir confirmacion de la Sala Unica, causo ejecutoria y adquiri6 las cualidades de cosa juzgada formal y material. Ademas -y en plena concordancia con lo ya expuesto- cabe seiialar que fue la misma Corte de Apelaciones para el Segundo Circuito de Nueva York quien, en su pronunciarniento del dia 26 de enero de 2012, lleg6 a la conclusion de que "Los actores del Caso Lagro Agrio tienen un Fallo de la ]usticia ecuatoriana. [Y] Pueden procurar la ejecuci6n de ese Fallo en cualquier pals del mundo en el que Chevron tenga activo5m.

IV- EMBARGO SOBRE BIENES EN EL ECUADOR COMO MEDIDA DE EJECUCI6N FORZOSA DE LA SENTENCIA

23 Traducci • libre; en el original se lee: "The LAPs hold a judgment from an Ecuadorian court. They may see t eriforce that judgment in any country in the world where Chevron has assets" (United ·H,;c;i.:,"l~.1,.,.1,4-1 States of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 11-1150-cv(L), Chevron v. Naranjo, Document 641~.;~; ;:· '.~)%..~;- ",ft/:. ~··"'' .:;,.,~<.-)i.

~,,!;,Vf , .'I '~',~\')~ .i 1( • ·~ "\· ,.,,,t i:. ,1.; , ,... -~< • ., •• ;>, • ' ~, ·i:. ' ) ~,~ "~~ ... ~~ ·~ -~--~ .··~'.:L,:_;,!2ii~'°'d-JJ? I ··-::-~n:o-i-~v'f'J' Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 81 of 123 Como se mencion6 lineas arriba, el art. 439 del CPC manda con meridiana claridad que en caso que el deudor no hubiera pagado la condena ni dimitido bienes suficientes en el plazo determinado - el cual en nuestro cas6 feneci6 a las OOhOO del mattes 7 de agosto - recae sobre el litigante victorioso el derecho de senalar bienes de propiedad del deudor, y solicitar su embargo y posterior remate. Son estas precisamente las circunstancias en que nos encontramos en este momento, por lo que en ejercicio de la mentada facultad legal, a continuaci6n senalamos los bienes ubicados bajo · la jurisdicci6n ecuatoriana sobre los cuales se deberi ordenar embargo. Aun cuando Chevron ha abandonado gran parte de sus actividades en el pais, lo cierto es que todavia quedan de su titularidad a nivel local algunos bienes residuales, tangibles e intangibles, que habrin de ser cautelados y ejecutados, en pos de satisfacer (aunque de un modo infimo dado su escaso valor en relaci6n con la condena dispuesta) los derechos de esta parte demandante. El detalle de esos bienes subsistentes en el Ecuador, y cuyo embargo aqui se solicita para proceder luego a su remate, es el siguiente:

IV.1. Propiedad Intelectual de Chevron y sus subsidiarias En esta secci6n se describen los dos tipos de bienes relacionados con la propiedad intelectual de Chevron o sus subsidiarias cuyo embargo debe ser ordenado por usted, senor Juez. En primer lugar senalarnos las marcas de titularidad de Chevron o sus subsidiarias, junto con la valoraci6n que se ha hecho de las mismas, para posteriormente entrar en el tema de las regalias de las cuales Chevron es beneficiaria - en funci6n de contratos de lice~~e uso de sus marcas otorgados a terceros dentro del Ecuador - . os que deberan asirnismo ser embargados. .~.'~.·1'.. .. if"t5 ;;~•/:!\' ~~ •.. /

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 82 of 123 IV.1.1. Marcas y signos distintivos Chevron Corp. es titular de numerosos registros de marcas y signos distintivos en el lnstituto Ecuatoriano de la Propiedad lntelectual (IEPI). Una busqueda en el sistema de la instituci6n demuestra que existen al menos 50 marcas registradas a nombre de Chevron, Texaco, o sus subsidiarias. De entre estas marcas, cuatro son las que tienen mayor prestigio, reconocimiento y volumen de comercializaci6n - y como tal, mayor valor econ6mico - en el mercado ecuatoriano: Chevron, Texaco, Ursa, y Havoline, junto con sus signos distintivos y variaciones.24 El valor de estas marcas esci vinculado principalmente con el mercado de los lubricantes automotrices. En preparaci6n para el proceso de ejecuci6n de la sentencia dictada el 3 de enero del 2012, la cual confirmara la condena establecida por la sentencia de primera instancia del 14 de febrero del 2011, la parte actora contrat6 los servicios de Provicapital Partners25 para que realice un avalilo del valor de mercado de estas cuatro marcas, ya que estas constituyen un "paraguas" que cubre la vasta mayoria de marcas usadas por la demandada y sus subsidiarias en el mercado ecuatoriano. Si bien el Reporte de V aloraci6n se adjunta integramente al presente en calidad de Anexo 2, a continuaci6n explicamos los puntos principales sobre su metodologia, para una mejor comprensi6n por parte del juez ejecutor de la sentencia. Acto seguido, se referiran las conclusiones contenidas en dicho Reporte de Valoraci6n.

24 El Anexo I de! presente documento incluye y sistematiza los documentos oficiales del IEPI que dan fe de la titularidad de las marcas y signos distitnivos referidos a Jo largo de esta secci6n. 25 Provi · Partners es una compafiia ecuatoriana que cuenta con oficinas en 5 paises del mundo, con v ta xperiencia en banca de inversi6n y consultoria en operaciones corporativas, ramas en las cu s podido desarrollar una serie de sofisticados metodos de valoraci6n de activos. Su fundador nte es Ricardo Calderon. Informaci6n detallada sobre sus operaciones, experiencia, y cap~i·•·""'.~~"~.,~••~~,-7'~. · · I ~n-..r-1' "' ..,-.... ~umano, se encuen tra enwww.prov1cap1ta.com. v ' >(;~" " ;:.~~ ,~, ..~"~ J~~' ., .:'' (!!!• ~:· ~. {, ...... ~ ;''\~ ,, 't ' 'ti'~ ~ •1 L· :1.,be;;" -..~· ' ),__. ,, 1 '' 1\ ,,1; Tl··;:~ ,;"··' '/f ··,-;. > " • ''"'°"' > "~>; .· Li ,f ;- ,., ·}~,-: \ ···-•;""'>'tr·\ ..;:_, t,·.-,.,.i.,,.\;.~.~:; .. ,!J' ;:-. _::.''eft''; '·, .~;::::_.~;:;..c:-.! i· ~ Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 83 of 123 IV.1.1.1 La metodologia y resultados de! Reporte de Valoraci6n Lo habitual es que los pedidos de valoraci6n de marcas y otros activos los haga el dueiio de los mismos, quien tiene a su entera disposici6n

toda la informaci6n relevante par~ facilitar el trabajo de quien hace la valoraci6n. En nuestro caso no sucede lo mismo, ya que quienes hemos pedido la valoraci6n de las marcas somos los oponentes de Chevron que hemos salido victoriosos de un proceso judicial. Asi, a pesar de que la informaci6n a nuestra disposici6n es un poco mas limitada por no tener acceso a las cifras intemas de Chevron, Provicapital bas6 su anilisis en noticias en el dominio publico, informaci6n financiera de compaiiias similares en la industria, y su experiencia en valoraci6n de compaiiias. Afortunadamente, Provicapital cuenta con la expenencia requerida para seleccionar las estimaciones relevantes, y hacer las comparaciones necesarias con otras compaiiias en el negocio de los lubricantes, para suplir la falta de informaci6n de parte. Considerando esto, es importante seiialar que la valoraci6n fue realizada sobre el valor total asignable a la proporci6n que Chevron domina en el mercado local de los lubricantes, ya que result6 imposible hacer un analisis "marca por marca". No obstante, se reitera que las cuatro marcas de mayor relevancia en el Ecuador son Havoline, Ursa, Chevron y Texaco, por lo que el reporte se centra en estas. En el caso de las marcas "Chevron" y "Texaco", se trata de marcas "paraguas", que se utilizan individualmente o en conjunto con otras marcas de la compaiiia, por lo que incluicin efectivamente la vasta mayorfa de! catalogo de productos vincularu3lcon Chevron. No obstante lo anterior, el pedido de embargo inc ye ~tras marcas que si bien parecen tener menor relevancia, se incluye ~~,,.~~ ~O\,,,lr.~~ ara construir una esfera de mayor efectividad para las necesi }y" ·;~.'.'· ().~. .• g . ~--·~·-"/ ;'.'n\t ~li' ... "' c-" ..-· .~\;. -·~::'->;.;;.;::~~· .. ,.:· ___ -.. ;.,~,.-- . iJE· 1'1t1t,; J• · •• . · ··v . J'• ~1·:~~~~~:J.:~i

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 84 of 123 requerimientos de la parte demandante. La relevancia y explicaci6n detr:is del pedido de embargo de estas marcas adicionales se amplia en la secci6n IV.1.2., sin embargo desde ya seii.alamos que estas son: Doro, Geotex, Meropa, Motex, Multigear, Regal, Taro, Texatherm, Thuban. La valoraci6n de las marcas se realiz6 bajo dos metodologias distintas:

IV.1.1.1.1 Valoracion por FCD (Flujo de caja descontado).- En esencia, esta metodologia arroja una suposici6n informada de mercado, utilizando 3 variables: (i) el volumen de lubricantes de Chevron en el 2006, aplicada la tasa del crecimiento del parque automotriz; (ii) la participacion de Chevron en el mercado (27%, seg6n notas de prensa), y; (iii) cuentas de capital de trabajo de la compaiiia, en base a una comparaci6n de compaiiias similares en el negocio de las lubricantes. Segun esta metodologfa las marcas de Chevron en el Ecuador tenian en febrero de! 2012 un rango de valor de entre USD $222,4 y USD $274,1 mi11ones de dolares.26 Adicionalmente el Reporte arroja dos escenarios informativos que responden a posibles fluctuaciones (un 5% hacia abajo y hacia arriba) en la participaci6n de Chevron en el mercado ecuatoriano de lubricantes, o imprecisiones en las datos publicitados por la compaiiia. Existe un escenario informativo que est:i por debajo del valor normal arriba reproducido (entre USD $181,2 y USD $223,3 millones) y uno por encima del mismo (entre USD $263,6 y USD $324,9 millones).

IV.1.1.1.2. Multiplos de compafiias comparables

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 85 of 123 presentan caracteristicas similares a las de Chevron en cuanto comercializadora de este tipo de productos. Esta metodologia de valoraci6n arroja a su vez dos tangos que difieren entre si, segiln la forma en que las compaiiias utilizan para publicar su valoraci6n en el mercado bursatil de los EF,T TU. Estas dos formas son: en base a mwtiplo de EBITDA, y en base a mUltiplo de Ingresos. Es importante mencionar que ambos rangos estan vinculados asimismo con el porcentaje de participaci6n en el mercado de lubricantes de Chevron reportado por la misma compaiiia, el cual asciende a 27%.

27 IV.1.1.1.2.1. Utilizando el multiplo EBITDA .- Bajo esta metodologia los resultados muestran que las marcas de Chevron tenian a febrero del 2012, en su conjunto, un rango de valor de entre USD $191,3 .Y USD $271,7 millones de dolares.28 El reporte incluye asimismo dos escenarios informativos, que responden a posibles variaciones o imprecisiones en las cifras de participaci6n de mercado publicitadas por Chevron. El rango de! escenario informativo inferior se encuentra entre los USD $155,9 y USD $221,4 millones. El rango superior esci entre los USD $226,8 y USD $322,1 millones de d6lares.

IV.1.1.1.2.2. Utilizando el multiplo lngreso.- Bajo esta metodologia los resultados muestran que las marcas de Chevron tenian a

febrero del 2012, en su conjunto, un rango de valor de entre USD $130,8 y USD $265,3 millones de dolares.29 El reporte incluye una vez mas dos escenarios informativos, que responden a posibles variaciones o

(Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, andAmonization) es un indicador financi e significa "ganancias antes de intereses, impuestos, depreciaciones y amortizaciones". ~.u..· 28 In rm de Valoraci6n, pag. 23. ef!"'i1••i'~~ 29 fo edeValoraci6n,pag.24. ~.>i,· -. ' ·-~::~f:i~~~;::

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 86 of 123 imprecisiones en las cifras de participaci6n de mercado publicitadas por Chevron. El rango del escenario informativo inferior se encuentra entre los USD $106,6 y USD $216,2 millones. El rango superior esci entre los USD $155,0 y USD $314,4 millones de d6lares.

IV.1.1.2. Conclusiones y notas sobre el Reporte de Valoraci6n. Pedido de embargo. El Reporte de V aloraci6n deja claro que, en el mejor de los casos, y

sin tomar en cuenta la depreciaci6n30 que pueden ha~r sufrido las marcas desde la fecha de preparaci6n de! documento (febrero 2012), las marcas de propiedad de Chevron y sus subsidiarias tendrian un valor no mayor a USD $274,1 millones; teniendo en realidad un valor de mercado que puede ser tan bajo como USD $130,8 millones. Considerando que seria relativamente fiicil que la petrolera demandada, hostil rival procesal y rebelde a todas las disposiciones judiciales, intente transferir dichas marcas a un tercero (testaferro o de buena fe) para evitar cumplir con su obligaci6n de pago, se solicita respetuosamente que se dicte embargo de las siguientes marcas y signos distintivos registrados a nombre de Texaco, Chevron, o sus subsidiarias':

;.;<'c:: ,;::)'{C'i'.~ 0 'DENOMINACJO~•·'"· '· }:.'\/.· ,··•·.'.· I · ~i:61SniC> ·-.-..•. 7. •fipo ;i' :1 Havoline Disei\o de etiqueta 15220 MP 2' Havoline Disefio de etiqueta (energy) 15219 MP Havoline y Disefio ii 15218 MP ; ~"· 4 Havoline formula 3 y Disefio 1490 MP s Havoline 220 MP 6'. Texaco, un mundo de energia 7010 MP 7, Texaco, un mundo de energfa 2080 MS

/ 30 El Repor sefiala con mucha raz6n que "los resultados presentados [ ... ] brindan el valor de las mar~ d Chevron al dia de hoy, lo que supone una producci6n, venta y situaci6n determinada; sin '/'.I)#-~,.~~ .. 1 7 e~ puede existir la posibilidad de que este valor se deteriore por decisiones que tome Chevron ~~:i;~A'.t-ff'..: '. ~..... -.• _;_·~ ·• p6r cOnsiguiente cambien la valoraci6n de las mismas.,' Plig. 24. r.j·..:,· · -- ,·.*~-t;..·-.;,,, ·",,;..-~. · . .j;! ' '.i''.. ·1-'\ :LJk~· '.. , .~\ii - ,' ._, Ji ':"~~,.... ~ I •\~~ t .~ ~-,,;... ;,,"''· ·_ ,,.,.:::._,, ·. ., ·' · fl.;,...... •·.- -;;;r· t: ;.\:•.. ~ ... , ' ' •. ·!· ., 'T"'"W.»~~ :, ... ,,., .. ;~~~~;;;;/

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 87 of 123 8 Oiseiio estrella t-texaco 26SS MP 9 Disei1o estrella t-texaco 2626 MP 10 Texaco 1915 MP 11 Texaco y Diseiio de un borde hexagonal con una estrella 140 MP 12 Texacoat 513 MP 13 Estrella roja t verde-texaco 457 MP 14 Texaco 44 MP ~------15 Texaco 662 MS 16 Texaco super outboard 1552 MP 17 Texaco outboard 1S53 MP 18 Texaco vanguard 1554 MP 19 Chevron 15133 MP 20 Chevron 1334 MP 2i Dlseno Chevron en azul, blanco y rojo . 421 MP 22 Disei\o Chevron en negro y blanco 420 MP Diseiio Chevron en azul, blanco y rojo, rodeado de una faja blanca ~3. 419 MP en forma de pentali!:ono 24 Chevron soo MP is Chevron 38 MP 26 Chevron y Diserio (a color) 996 MP 21. Chevron v Disei"lo (a color) 1032 MP ZS Chevron y Diserio (a color) 422 MS .2~ Chevron v Diseiio (blanco y negro) 997 MP 30 Chevron y Diseiio (blanco y negro) 998 MP '' 31,, Chevron y Diseiio (blanco y negro) 423 MS 32 Chevron y Diserio (negro) 2191 MP 3,3 Chevron y Diselio (negro) 2192 MS 34·· Chevron y Disefio (negro) 817 MP ~5 DiseHo de Chevron (a color) 2193 MP 36 Disefio de Olevron (a color) 2194 MP 37 Disefio de Chevron (a color) 818 MS 33• Chevron supreme 196 MP 39 Ursa super plus 26S MP 4() Ursa 204 MP ,l.1 Ursa ofrece confianza 1220 MS 42. Ursa delivers confidence 1221 MS 43 Doro 500 MP 4~ Geotex 1324-10 MP 4s Meropa 223 MP 46 Motex 514 MP 47. Mul.,{.lar 1536-10 MP 48' Ra·;n1o o 202 MP ..£gal 20S MP ;..~ •4.~. ,,., 1

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 88 of 123 50 Taro 495 MP 51 TOH 1551-10 MP 52 Texatherm 1325-10 MP 53 Thuban 203 MP 54 Universal 1550-10 MP

Para el efecto, deberi librarse atento oficio dirigido al LoL.luto Ecuatoriano de la Propiedad Intelectual, en la persona de su Presidente el Ab. Ycaza Mantilla Andres, en la Av. Republica 396 y Diego de Almagro. Edif. Forum 300.

IV.1.2. Regalias fruto de las marcas de Chevron Ni Chevron ni sus subsidiarias comercializan los productos de las marcas de su propiedad. Por el contrario, la distribuci6n y comercializaci6n - e inclusive quizas la producci6n - estan a cargo de una compaii.ia de propiedad de terceras personas, denominada Swissoil de! Ecuador S.A, que lo hace amparada de un contrato de licencia de uso no exlusivo suscrito entre esta y una subsidiaria directa de Chevron, la "Chevron Intellectual Property LLC". Adjunto al presente se encuentra, coma parte de! Anexo 1, una copia certificada de dicho contrato, el cual fue debidamente registrado en el IEPI por parte de los interesados directos. Lo 16gico es, entonces, que Chevron reciba a traves de la mencionada subsidiaria una serie de regalias provenientes de dicho contrato de licencia. Esta afirmaci6n la hacemos en base al conocimiento general del funcionamiento de este tipo de licencias, ya que el contrato al cual hemos tenido acceso omite este y otros detalles, los cuales estaran seguramente, y muy al estilo de la petrolera condenada, en alglin oscuro acuerdo privado suscri4tre las partes. Las marcas objeto de dicho contrato e licencia son las -~entes: Havoline, Ursa, Doro, Geotex, Meropa, Motex, Multige'.i;F.,.!.''":'!'.:~..:­

~, Taro, Texatherm, Thuban. Llneas arriba hemos solicitado ya· JIU···"~':[~j)it; ..,.··.·. "·;.· ·:~~ . . ii . ". ., ·1~'~"·. if;...... ·~. :-':~., / '.'\ - '-,•r, •l~l j ~~'-'.,,..' :~.;:-,'- · -- ·. 3-n..,x ~ ~ •. < .- -- . . . -·- ...,. ''1} :;,{~'.~; .·;~·;;Li;,i;~ ...

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 89 of 123 decrete embargo sobre estas rnarcas. No obstante, dado que las regalias que el uso y .cornercializaci6n de estas rnarcas generen constituyen efectivarnente rentas a favor de la parte dernandada y sus subsidiarias directas, rnediante el presente solicitarnos consecuenternente que se dicte embargo sobre las REGALiAs 0 CUALOUIER OTRO TIPO DE RENTA generadas por el uso, venta, distribucion, o en general cualquier otro destino que se les de a los productos identificados con las marcas URSA. HAVOLINE. DORO. GEOTEX, MEROPA, MOTEX. MULTIGEAR. REGAL. TARO. TEXATHERM. THUBAN, asi como cualquier transaccion comercial o no comercial con ellas vinculada, por parte de Swissoil de! Ecuador S.A. Con este fin, se deberii notificar a Swissoil del Ecuador en la persona de su Gerente General y Representante Legal, Sr. Santiago Jose Diaz Cobos, o bien de su Presidente Ejecutivo y tarnbien Representante Legal, Sr. Rene Roberto Konanz Serrano, cuyas oficinas est:in ubicadas en la avenida Juan Tanca Marengo Km. 1.8 Y Av. Jose Santiago Castillo, Piso 5, de la ciudad de Guayaquil,

Adicionalrnente, los actores nos reservarnos el derecho de proceder conforrne a derecho en rrelaci6n con el rernate y/ o las regalias o cualquier tipo de rentas adicionales proveniente de estos u otros bienes de propiedad intelectual de la dernandada, pero aprovecharnos desde ya para solicitarle que decrete el embargo sobre cualquier transferencia de fondos desde cualquiera de las instituciones del sistema bancario ecuatoriano, que sea dirigida a Chevron Corp., Chevron Intellectual Property LLC., Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Company, Texpet, o cualquiera de sus s bsidiarias en el extranjero, para evitar que estos recursos sean ...... ~ aidos apresuradarnente por Chevron con la intenci6n de defraudar e,li;;~;-fs:·~-~~ .r{:r;·,. · -<::(l~t:'·,. ·-~1~~~~- 1" ·t1'... :\1\ :J (~ ( . . .t • ' :" :;\;~ ·~}!) .,.-. \.,~-- c:d

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 90 of 123 \

pago de su obligaci6n. Con este fin le solicitamos que ordene el oficio a la Superintendencia de Bancos, a todas las instituciones bancarias del sistema financiero ecuatoriano, y al Banco Central del Ecuador en este sentido. A la Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros se le hara llegar el oficio en la persona del ab. Pedro Solines Chacon, Superintendente de Bancos y Seguros, en su despacho, en la Av. 12 de Octubre N24-185 y Madrid de la ciudad de Quito, y mediante esta se hara saber de este embargo a los demas bancos del sistema financiero ecuatoriano.

IV.2. Cuentas bancarias a nombre de Chevron o sus subsidiarias Basta donde los demandantes hemos podido conocer la Uni.ca cuenta bancaria a nombre de Chevron, Texaco, o sus subsidiarias, es una cuenta corriente en el Banco Pichincha C.A. a nombre de Texaco Petroleum Co. Los datos de esta cuenta los hemos obtenido del mismo expediente procesal, donde constan varios cheques con los que Chevron Corp., utilizando los recursos disponibles en la cuenta de su subsidiaria Texaco, procedi6 a cancelar los honorarios de varios peritos durante el proceso judicial. Como se puede observar en foja 168616 del expediente de primera instancia, consta el cheque No. 008673, con fecha 24 de marzo de 2010, de la cuenta corriente 30452125-04 del Banco Pichincha, a nombre de Texaco Petroleum Co., el mismo que fue utilizado por la parte demandada para pagar los honorarios del perito Jorge Herrera Cabezas en el juicio contra C:hevr y Corp. L $6 tenemos en foja 168661 del expediente, el cheque No. 008675, con / .fecha 24 de marzo de 2010, de la misma cuenta corriente 30452125-04 del i.' ' '

- 'I-~*:;~~rTr~·~;r- I' .• '-.\'·, - .. _. ..,,.. , -- ·I ~ ,,;;~::-~" •. '-·

:,\C' --~:;:. H ::_,, -'~~f''.'. '.'~-' .l; 1 ·,~· . ·~-'(, ; ';,, .l' ~,-'/ - '}:>:•'•l'

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 91 of 123 Banco Pichincha, con el mismo prop6sito de pagar a un perito, en este caso, el senor Arturo Eduardo Orquera Cardenas. Ambos cheques los podemos encontrar en cop!as certificadas, como adjunto en el Anexo 3. Ejemplos como estos abundan, siendo irrelevant!" repetirlos todos aqui, ya que mas all a de probar la exis tencia y titularidad de dicha cu en ta bancaria, lo que podemos resaltar es que entre las fechas de los dos cheques presentados aqui como ejemplos ha transcurrido poco mas de un mes, y sin embargo podemos ver gue en un periodo tan breve desde dicha chequera se giraron mas de cien cheques (i129 cheques!). Esta cantidad de movimientos bancarios es enorme, por lo que es previsible que existan o hayan existido recursos irnportantes en esta cuenta. Sin embargo, independientemente del monto disponible en la actualidad en dicha cuenta corriente, con la finalidad de precautelar su existencia y evitar que sean retirados, pagados o transferidos a una tercera persona, o que se los trate de ocultar ilicitamente, le solicitamos respetuosamente que decrete el embargo de los fondos depositados y existentes en la cuenta corriente No. 30452125-04 de! Banco Pichincha, para lo cual debe oficiarse inmediatamente a la entidad bancaria y a la Superintendencia de Bancos. A la Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros se le hara llegar el oficio en la persona del ab. Pedro Solines Chacon, Superintendente de Bancos y Seguros, en su despacho, en la Av. 12 de Octubre N24-185 y Madrid. Al Banco Pichincha C.A., en la persona del senor Fernando Pozo, Gerente General del Banco Pichincha C.A., en la en la Matriz del Banco Pichincha, ubicad e la Avenida Amazonas 4560 y Pereira de esta ciudad de Quito. -/V'"'-'-'·mos que esta orden de embargo se extienda a otras cuentas ~~:::-.:-::::<-~~- ,1o-· :;...-', •\ j ,~' --., -~ e la demandada Chevron, Texaco, o sus subsidiarias podrla7" · · ·{~ ; K.. ~ "\' ~It< (!)''• '\"·• <'' \~-~: ·i . ; _; '• )~ .\.\(~· -.-~, ~-1 ·~', ~,,. .-- /' r,,

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 92 of 123 en la Republica de Ecuador, para lo cual oficie con esta orden de embargo sabre todas las cuentas de la demandada a la Superintendencia de

Bancos y Seguros, para que esta a SU vez informe a todas las instituciones bancarias del sistema financiero ecuatoriano para que embarguen tambien cualquier otra cuenta corriente o de ahorros, p61izas de acumulaci6n, intereses pendientes o cualquier tipo de renta o activo, que se encuentre a nombre de la demandada Chevron Corp., Chevron Intellectual Property LLC., Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Company, Texpet,, o cualquiera de sus subsidiarias. De modo concordante, tambien le solicitamos que cualquier transferencia de fondos, desde cualquier cuenta local, que sea dirigida a nombre de Chevron Corp., Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Company, Texpet, o cualquiera de sus subsidiarias sea tambien embargada, para lo cual le solicitamos que ordene se libre el oficio correspondiente a la Superintendencia de Bancos, y mediante esta a todas las instituciones bancarias del sistema financiero ecuatoriano para que procedan al embargo; mientras que considerando que todas las transferencias de fondos que se realizan desde el extranjero deben ser tramitadas por el Banco Central de! Ecuador, le solicitamos respetuosamente que oficie tambien al Banco Central de! Ecuador, en la persona de su Gerente General, senora licenciada Ruth Arregui Solano, en la Av. 10 de Agosto N11-409 y Briceno para que disponga cuanto sea pertinente.

IV.3. Creditos o rentas en favor de Chevron o sus subsidiarias dentro de Ecuador.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 93 of 123 sus actividades en nuestro pais, podrian existir varios creditos de los que no hemos sido capaces de enterarnos. Sin perjuicio de haber omitido la existencia de algun otro credito renta en el Ecuador en favor de la deudora, por estar este oculto o ser de dificil identificaci6n, conocemos de la existencia de al menos una deuda en favor de la condenada, Chevron Coi;i., y que resultaria eventualmente util para cumplir con un pago parcial de la obligaci6n. Este credito es el resultado de un proceso de arbitraje internacional, iniciado por la demandada Chevron Coqi., contra el Gobiemo de la Republica del Ecuador por denegaci6n de justicia, y culminado en una decision que ordenaba al Gobierno de la Republico de Ecuador a pagar por daiios e intereses mas de 96 millones de d6lares, como veremos a continuaci6n.

IV.3.1 CREDITO EMBARGABLE POR 96'355,369.17 MILLONES US$ CONTRA EL GOBIERNO DE ECUADOR. Como antecedente es necesario saber que Chevron Corp. inici6 un proceso de arbitraje contra el Gobierno de la Republica de Ecuador en el aiio 2006 - la notificaci6n del arbitraje se cumpli6 el 12 de diciembre de 2006 - por denegaci6n de justicia en 7 casos comerciales que mantenia su subsidiaria Texpet en las Cortes del Ecuador. Documentaci6n referente a este proceso puede ser encontrada en la pagina oficial de la Procuraduria

31 General del Estado •

32 A pesar de que este proceso arbitral es de conocimieni:o publico , y podemos encontrar mUltiples referencias al mismo en todos los medios de

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 94 of 123 33 comunicaci6n , de manera adicional, y para abundar en justificar la existencia del credito en favor de Chevron, una copia del laudo arbitral, en idioma ingles (que es el unico disponible), pueden ser encontradas en la

34 pagina WEB de Investment Treaty Arbitration • El Tribunal Arbitral e.ncontr6 que Ecuador habia ini::umplido sus obligaciones emanantes de un Convenio Bilateral de Protecci6n de Inversiones entre Ecuador y Estados Unidos al demorar injustificadamente la resolucion en siete casos comerciales en las que Texpet (una subsidiaria de Texaco Inc.) era parte procesal. De acuerdo a un documento de difusi6n publica preparado por la PGE, denominado "Caso Chevron II", Informaci6n ampliada al 31 de

35 agosto de 2011, que contiene un "Resumen Historico del Caso" , "Pueden apreciarse los componentes de estos 96'355.369 dolares, asi coma el monto solicitado por Chevron y el otorgado por el laudo parcial de marzo de

36 2010" , y se presenta el siguiente cuadro, que hemos copiado directamente desde el documento mencionado para mayor facilidad:

exigini prueba de Jos hechos pU.bJicos y notorios. debiendo la juez.a o juez declarar)os en el proceso cuando los tome en cuenta para fundarnentar su resoluci6n. (El subrayado es nuestro.) " EL UN!VERSO: http://www.eluniverso.com/201 !/08/31/I/1356/ecuador-debera-pagar-96- millones-dolares-chevron-segun-corte-intemacionalhtml; EL COMERCIO: http://wwl.elcomercio.com/negocios/Chevron-ganado-compensacion-arbitraje- Ecuador_O _545945507 .html; EL MERCURJO: http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/3 32434-ecuador­ evalua-apelar-fallo-arbitral-por-usd-96-millones-a-favor-de-chevron.htrnl; REVISTA VISTAZO: http://www.vistazo.com/webpages/pais/imprimir.php?id=I6971; RADIO SUCRE: http://radiosucre.corn.ec/index.php?option=com_content&vie~article&id=! 7450:ecuador-debe­ cancelar-96-millones-de-dolares-a-chevron-&catid= I :politica<emid=73; ECUA VISA: http:// .ecuavisacom/noticias/noticias-actualidad/4003 !-ecuador-debera-pagar-usd-96-millones- a-che -segun·corte-intemacional.html 34 /italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/itaO 154.pdf 35 "sponible en http://www.pge.gob.ec/es/reglamentos-internos/doc download/250-informacion- &.: , 3' liada-1.html ·."''~<~.(;..i:'•\~c'-""',f..~c.ry-'t:&~·. ')~ Ibidem. Pag. 7 ~~:;t"::"''. t\i:~,:... '/:·.~~':{ ;1> '· . ' .. •' ,~-:..\ 1..··· .,~, ., '·~~~- .,.:~ ~·' ·;\\j, 5.j)" ~ (''.I t- • ,. ,. ,,. !('. .; • ' ':..;: ,,,,,,. "i.... k· .\\q,, ,, '' "' .: ;,\~tff)-';"_~. ,..._.'<)_· •'(''"~~''1'-..«~r1 '\,\ ",,' /[ ,, :,~ ;;;;j,l,~l'

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 95 of 123 . Pretension Chevron Laudo parciaf laudo final

USD 96'355.3,

• 1nteres Eaiadar USO 763788.094 •lnteois 1n111madana1 USD 4761101.79<1. tnloone NA.VIGANT 1 atir_ 2008 Aunque el Gobierno de la Republica de Ecuador ha anunciado y presentado varias medidas legales para intentar anular este fallo, Chevron Corp. podria intentar ejecutarlo (y de hecho hemos recibido noticias de que

7 Chevron ha planteado una acci6n legal tendiente a ejecutar dicho credito)3 , por lo que amerita el embargo urgente de! mismo con el prop6sito de asegurarlo de modo previo a seguir el proceso de ejecuci6n pertinente. Mas alli de la aplicaci6n de! principio de verdad procesal, los documentos que justifican nuestras aseveraciones, incluyendo el laudo parcial y laudo final, dictados por el tribunal arbitral arriba mencionado, se encuentran adjuntos como parte de! Anexo 4. En atenci6n a lo expuesto, nuevamente con el respeto que nos caracteriza, le solicitamos que se sirva ordenar el embargo de! credito que mantiene la Republica de! Ecuador contra Chevron Corp. y Texaco Inc. por 96'355.369 US$ (noventa y seis millones trecientos cincuenta y cinco

37 Siganada como el Caso 1:12-cv-01247-JEB en la Corte Distrital de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Columbia, se encuentra el caso CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO ,~~·"~ T EUM COMPANYv. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR. En el numeral 30 de su demand~Zf'•~r' ~1 ·,)!" !:!.,, 1 C vr afirma que el laudo arbitral es ''vinculante y definitivo". Ver Anexo 4. j/1~' ~~~;, • f!i.~t .. ! r' ' tf• ~ ~,·:;,'/" ~·' 0·' •i' -<\'~r'(\t . )~ ~ I' './7 )r j ·< .. "_ ... r 'i~\i 'II.:"\:::'' ,;i;!> ••• >;>ti~ ' J ·~fr "' 1.;""'~ - '' ,''.I'/ ·~;··:,~::~1}1~~·

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 96 of 123 -

mil trescientos sesenta y nueve d6lares de los EEUU) como consecuencia del laudo arbitral impuesto. Para este efecto se servira enviar atentos oficios a la Procuraduria General del Estado, en la persona del senor Procurador General del Estado, Dr. Diego Garcia, en su despacho, en la calle Robles 731 y Av. Amazonas, en la ciudad de Quito; al Ministerio de Economia y Finanzas, en la persona del senor Ministro de Economia y Finanzas, Econ. Patricio Rene Rivera Yanez, en su despacho, en la Avenida 10 de Agosto 1661 y Bolivia; y al Ministerio Coordinador de Politica Econ6mica, en la persona de la Sra. Jeannette Sanchez Zurita, en su despacho en la calle Av. 10 de Agosto N11-539 y Briceno. Edif. Banco Central, piso 9, de modo que tomen las medidas correspondientes para embargar este credito por 96'355.369 US$ que existe en favor de nuestra deudora Chevron Corp.

V- SECUESTROS, RETENCIONES, Y PROHIBICIONES DE ENAJENAR A ORDENARSE POR APLICACION DE LA CONVENCION INTERAMERICANA SOB RE MEDIDAS CAUTELARES

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 97 of 123 -

El mero listado de los activos existentes en el Ecuador, con su correspondiente valuaci6n indicada por esta parte, predica sabre la insuficiencia para hacer frente a la condena dictada; y la consiguiente necesidad de atacar activos de Chevron en otros paises del mundo. No obstante, coma hemos mencionado ya, este ataque esci supeditado a un proceso de reconocimien to de sentencia en cada uno de esos paises que puede durar meses y hasta afios, por lo cual resulta vital ordenar la imposici6n de medidas que tiendan a conservar el valor y la propiedad de los activos sabre los cuales recaera la ejecuci6n de la sentencia de Lago Agrio. En este contexto es que cobra pleno vigor la ya citada "Convencion Intemmericana Sohre Cumplimiento de Medidas Cautelaref' (ver Cap. II, sabre "Marco Legal Aplicable" a esta petici6n).

Como principio genera~ cabe destacar que el art. 3 de la Convenci6n Sohre Cautelares es claro al sentar el principio de que "La procedenda de la medida cautelar se decretar:i conforme a las /eyes y por los jueces

38 def lugar def procesd' • Esta es la nonna especifica que asigna competencia para resolver esta solicitud al Juez de la Corte Provincial de Sucumbios encargado de llevar adelante la ejecuci6n, en tanto "juez de! lugar del proceso", seglin el citado art. 3 de la Convenci6n.

V.1. Chevron en Argentina. Activos suktos a medidas cautelares.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 98 of 123 Es de vital irnportancia en esta instancia atender a las propias declaraciones de Chevron, tanto por media de sus comunicados de prensa o de la informaci6n vertida en su propia pagina web, coma asi tambien por media de sus presentaciones peri6dicas efectuadas frente a la Securities and Exchange Commission, A traves de estos instrumentos -y de otros a los gue se ira tambien hacienda referenda- quedara esclarecida la propiedad total (en un ciento por ciento) que Chevron Corp. ejerce respecto de la subsidiaria por media de la cual realiza sus operaciones en la Argentina, Chevron Argentina S.R.L., asi como, por aiiadidura, de todos los activos que esta Ultima posee registrados a su nombre. En la pagina web oficial de Chevron (www.chevron.com) se establece que en la Argentina la compaiiia opera por media de su subsidiaria Chevron Argentina S.R.L., con la referenda expresa de que se

39 trata de una subsidiaria totalmente propia • En igual sentido, en el formulario "10 K" presentado en el mes de diciembre de 2011, Chevron acompaii6 coma Anexo 21.1 un listado de sus empresas subsidiarias relevantes alrededor del mundo, con la expresa aclaraci6n de que "TODAS LAS SUBSIDIARIAS ENLISTADAS SON iNTEGRAMENTE PROPIEDAD DE CHEVRON. YA SEA EN FORMA DIRECTA 0 INDIRECTA:'4-0 (tambien se agrega en la aclaraci6n que ''Algunas subsidiarias no aparecen listadas en tanto, consideradas separadamente sobre el total, no constituirian una subsidiaria relevante al 31 de diciembre de 2011").

39 http://www.chevron.com/countries/argentina/businessportfolio/

40 El subra do es propio. En la versi6n original se lee: "All of the subsidiaries in the abave list are wholly d either directly or indirectly, by Chevron Corporation. Certain subsidiaries are not ,.;,A41J.Afu, lisle · ce, considerete in the aggregate as a simple subsidiary, they would not constitu!_$t;O?{t-,' ':'":-,~~ s · ificant subsidiary at December 31~.• 20Jl". ".ff<'/ - :~. )~,~"< il/i· • ' '...\ ..:;1/; ( ~ ·~\',!\

.·i:-.~f.::-;•,.., '··'Ff~~" \··..... Ci'I 5. .;.~,,it •1' '/~• !~""" ""~'~ ., 1 "'"' L ~ r'i\c.t , ·JJ 'f';., '1!/"' ?...\ - :.:..... _t'l:_,,t ·~ '~"'11't· >,;_ .. ,-·, "~~}"''

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 99 of 123 Con los fines de este Capitulo, importa destacar que listada en el cuarto lugar de ese anexo aparece Chevron Argentina S.R.L., complet:indose la informaci6n con que --como lo indica su denominaci6n­

41 esta empresa se halla domiciliada en la Republica Argentina •

Tenemos, pues, que la propia Chevron Coi;p. ha d_e~!arado nada menos que ante la autoridad de control de los Estados Unidos - y en su propio portal de Internet- que Chevron Argentina S.R.L. es una subsidiaria controlada por ella en un ciento por ciento (wholly

42 owned subsidiarj) • Si bien esta declaraci6n de la propia demandada disipa cualquier duda que pudiera suscitarse sabre el particular -toda vez que tiene el valor de una confesi6n brindada ante la maxima autoridad en la materia de su pafs-, lo cierto es que de todos modos existen un sinniimero de otros registros que avalan esa misma conclusion. Cabe resei'iarlos a fin de proveer al senor Juez con la mayor certeza acerca del dominio total que Chevron Corp. ejerce respecto de Chevron Argentina S.R.L. Chevron ingres6 al negocio petrolero argentino mediante la adquisici6n, en el ai'io 1999, de la empresa Petrolera Argentina San Jorge, que luego de sucesivas modificaciones adopt6 su denominaci6n actual de Chevron Argentina S.R.L. En aquella oportunidad, un Informe de Prensa de la compafila --que todavia puede leerse en su pagina web- "?-dicaba lo siguiente: "Chevron Corp anuncirf la adquisicirfn def 100 por ciento de Petro/era Argentina San Jorge, la mqyor compaiiia expioradora y productora de petrrfieo y gas de la Argentina. El reciente aumento en la produccirfn de San Jorge ha convertido a la compaiiia en una de las mqyores productoras def pais, con una produccirfn de alrededor

41 Puede accederse al listado de subsidiarias al que aquf se hace referenda por medio de! siguiente · link: http://www.sec.gov/Archivesledgar/data/93410/000095012311017688/f56670exv2 lwl.htm 42 De nformes presentados por Chevron Corp. ante la SEC al 31 de diciembre de 2008, al 31 de die" re de 2009 y al 31 de diciembre de 2010 surge el mismo dato: Chevron Argentina S.R.L. es ubsidiaria perteneciente a Chevron Cop. en su totalidad. I

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 100 of 123 ..

78. 000 bani/es de petrrJ!eo y 40 mil/ones de pies ctibicos de gas, lo que supone un 8 por ciento de! petnileo producido en la Argentina." 43 Tambien resulta revelador de ese estrecho vinculo de propiedad total que Chevron Corp. ostenta en relaci6n con su subsidiaria Argentina, el automatico direccionamiento que la pagina web de Chevron Corp. realiza al "Fact Sheet" de Chevron Argentina S.R.L. cuando alglln postulante a un empleo en la multinacional escoge a la Argentina como sitio de destino para

44 desempeiiarse •

D~ manera similar, cabe citar lo expuesto por Chevron Corp ante la SEC45 en el marco del formulario 10-K. Alli identifica las actividades que realiza en la Argentina por medio de su subsidiaria; precisa que "Chevron tiene intereses de participacirin en 4 concesiones en la Cuenca de Neuquen. EI interis de participacion en varia entre el 18.8 y el 100 por ciento. Durante el 2011, la produccion total promedirJ los 27.000 bani/es diarios ... Durante 2011, la compafiia anibrJ a un acuerdo para extender la concesion de El Trapial por un plazo adicional de 10 afios hasta el afio 2032''. (iii) Asi como Chevron Corp. formula ante la autoridad de control de los Estados Unidos formales declaraciones que no permiten la mas minima duda en cuanto a que, desde una perspectiva de ("arriba hada abajd'), Chevron Argentina S.R.L. le pertenece en un ciento por ciento (100%) y que las ganancias e intereses de esta son las ganancias e intereses

de la matriz, de igual modo la subsidiaria misma -o sus controlantes directas, siempre propiedad de Chevron Corp.- efectuaron declaraciones formales ante la Inspecci6n General de Justicia (IGJ), autoridad de

43 http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/09271999 chevronacguiresoetroleraargentina sanjorge.news Tambien, en numerosos Reportes Anuales (anos 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 y 2008) Chevron Corp. aludi6 a esta compra como una operaci6n fundante del negocio de la compaiiia en ~atino 'ca. '.f~;,;""1 h : ww.chevron.com/documents/ fi'ar entinafactsheet. df . -~~\~1ft~ .·~ , 4 ~. rilie~ Exchange Comission, agencia gubemamental estadounidense que regula a las comp"'1//i.-~7 · _.. '.:~.S-;·~.-.''·· Mct1cho pats. _"'lf(.Jr-...1 .-ri.-· ., ' -\'{ i~'f} :>'t·'·~/'If:, Ji/ '~\it ·1"·· · ·..:' · · · ..•. I· ~ ,; i;)~~ . ~· <:' •.., •:)fJ: ';$,~•-t-V;-.6,:~ / ,_ ~- .. ~,_i\li,;: .. ,,,~ ''· .... " ' ....., .. 1 ..,., ,.. , . . .. · "~'ii' : ',, '•r~<,.... l '}~\·<(·., ' .. -,._._..,,~~ ;' !'.;

~/-~\.1 f·. ' .··;.::.,:.,;?" ''~:..~-!!{.£~~~~::~~.~ 'l>'i"f"vl-~"' '"'

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 101 of 123 ...

control en la Argentina en materia societaria, que apuntalan desde su propia perspectiva (de "abajo hacia arribd') esa noci6n de total pertenencia y total confusion con la compaiiia matriz. Esta informaci6n, sumada a la vertida por la matriz (y resenada en lo sustancial en el apartado que antecede), permitici conformar el cuadro esquematico que ilustre al senor Juez, desde un punto de vista pritctico, a la vez que preciso, sobre la vinculaci6n entre Chevron Corp. y Chevron Argentina S.R.L., cuyos propietatios "directos" son CDC ApS (50%) y Norberto Priu (50%). La sociedad CDC ApS informa a la lnspecci6n General de Justicia que: a) Es una sociedad constituida bajo las !eyes del Estado de Dinamarca y que posee participaci6n en Chevron Argentina S.R.L. (50%) y en Norberto Priu S.R.L. (90%) b) Es contr0lada en un den por ciento (100%) de las acciones por Chevron Global Energy Inc., sociedad constituida 'segtin las !eyes del Estado de Delaware en los Estados Unidos de America. Se adjunta con este escrito copia de la presentaci6n efectuada por CDC ApS ante la lnspecci6n General de Justicia de la Republica Argentina (entidad que ejerce la actividad de control sobre las sociedades en dicho pais), en donde constan los datos aqui ilustrados. A su vez, la sociedad CDHC ApS informa ante la rnisma autoridad que: a) Es una sociedad constituida bajo las !eyes del Estado de Dinamarca y que posee participaci6n en Norberto Priu S.R.L. (10%) b) Es controlada en un den por ciento (100%) de las acciones por Chevron Global Energy Inc., sociedad constituida segtin las !eyes del Estado de Delaware en los Estados Unidos de America. Tambien respecto de CDHC ApS se acompaiia anexa la presentaci6n efectuada por dicha sociedad ante la lnspecci6n General de

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 102 of 123 Los registros mercantiles publicos de la Republica Argentina son, en etas circunstancias, contundentes en cuanto a que Chevron Argentina S.R.L. -la sociedad operativa y a cuyo nombre se encuentran registrados los activos existentes en ese pais- ya sea directa o indirectamente (a traves de Norberto Priu S.RL.) pertenece a las dos sociedades danesas CDC ApS yCDHCApS. Son tambien certeros esos mismos registros en cuanto a este otro dato esencial, destacado ante la autoridad publica argentina por las

46 controlantes danesas : Chevron Global Energy Inc. Es dueii.a de ambas en un ciento por ciento (100%). Y, por fin,. es la propia matriz Chevron Corp. quien, en su F.cporte Anual correspondiente al afio 2011, identifica a Chevron Global Energy Inc. como una sociedad operativa, con el expreso aii.adido de que le pertenece en un ciento por ciento (100%)47. El siguiente cuadro esquematiza lo expuesto aqui:

46 Este informe de las sociedades dinamarquesas a la Inspecci6n General de Justicia fue presentado en los terminos de! art. 123 de la Ley de Sociedades Comerciales de ese pals, que exige la inscripci6n en el registro publico de! estatuto social, reformas y demas documentaci6n habilitante de la sociedad irnisrno, sendos inforrnes se enmarcaron en las reglamentaci6n emitida por la IGJ en su Resoluc· 0 7/2003, mediante la cual se exige a las sociedades extranjeras --entre otras cosas- que e obre "La titularidad de participaciones sociales, de su valor patrimonial y de/ porcentaje resenten en el capital de la sociedad participada ... ". ·v 9 !wt.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 103 of 123 =~ Chevron Global.~ In<.

------.------. ------· --· . ------·------..

Chevron Denmark Holding Company ApS (CDHC ApS) ·-·­ 10% -.- ·10i ,..,otbUta Pri

50%

(iv) Teniendo en cuenta el esquema indicado, se postulan como activos respecto de los cuales se solicita se dicte orden de secuestro y/ o retenci6n y / o prohibici6n de enajenar (asi como embargo, usando la terminologfa de la Argentina) por parte del Senor Juez, los siguientes que Chevron Corp. tiene de su propiedad en la Republica Argentina por medio de sus compafiias controladas y subsidiarias:

a) Participaciones sociales ("cuotas sociales" en el derecho argentino) que CDC ApS y Norberto Priu S.R.L. tienen a su nombre en Chevron Argentina S.R.L.

b) Participaciones sociales ("cuotas sociales" en el derecho argentino) que CDC ApS y CDHC ApS tienen a su nombre en Norberto Priu S.R.L.

o en a) como en b), el secuestro comprende -y asi se solicita quede

'5"~~.....,,...,,~~ro"-"-'"''"'d'""o- todos los derechos econ6roicos

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 104 of 123 participaciones o cuotas sociales, asi como su retencion, entre los cuales quedan incluidos:

- las cuotas sociales que CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y/o CDHC ApS tengan derecho a recibir y que fueren emitidas como consecuencia del canje, suscripcion de capital, ejercicio de los derechos de preferencia y Io de acrecer, cuotas suplementarias a ser emitidas de acuerdo a lo previsto en el articulo 151 de la Ley 19.550 (t.o. 1984), capitalizacion de aportes irrevocables, de reservas legales o facultativas, de revahios, estados de resultados acumulados u otras distribuciones de cuotas liberadas, distribucion de dividendos en cuotas, o bien por fusion o escision de CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y/o CDHC ApS, por una nueva emision de cuotas en reemplazo de las cuotas actuales de CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y/o CDHC ApS, y por cualquier otro mecarusmo que involucre cualquier forma de reestructuraci6n societaria o una transformaci6n de CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y /o CDHC ApS, en cuyo caso el secuestro alcanzara a las acciones o a cualquier titulo de participaci6n que reemplace a las cuotas sociales, y/ o por cualquier otra causa o circunstancia, siendo la enumeracion expuesta meramente ejemplificativa;

- cualquier monto o importe pagadero y/o entregado a CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y/o CDHC ApS en virtud de cualquier reducdon y / o reintegro de capital social, de aportes irrevocables, de primas de emision o fusion y de cualquier cuenta patrimonial, del , amortizacion y/o reembolso total o pardal de las cuotas ciales, o en concepto de distribuci6n del remanente de bienes de .... ~.;::":;~-1tit..:tt •! ....:.\.°':t>.,,-'""'11~. .C·-~i·" ~·""{."" _1 :'!"'."-.~<- ~· "' ·'i:t"r.- ' · p,{~. "' . ""'' ··~''\ ~g··:.t,,; ~· '::~;\; ·Ar~·t.'<''~~':;'_/_ · ,·i.·;· "··~\~(;,\ -~..-~~,~_.:'··"'·· ...... ··".',,. ~ >"'' ·;;:;:'.:~$JYJ ,_,,., ( --.~~-0"''

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 105 of 123 cualquier tipo por haberse resuelto la liquidaci6n de CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y/o CDHC ApS.

cualquier monto o importe pagadero y/ o entregado a CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y/o CDHC ApS en virtud de cualquier pago de dividendos en efectivo que realice CDC ApS, Norberto Priu S.R.L. y / o CDHC ApS con respecto a las cuotas sociales.

c) Participaci6n accionaria de Chevron Argentina S.R.L. en

48 Oleoductos del Valle S.A •

d) Cuentas que Chevron Argentina S.R.L. posee abiertas en entidades financieras de la Republica Argentina, a cuyo efecto se librara oficio al Banco Central de la Republica Argentina, a fin de que comunique a las entidades financieras que deberan proceder la retenci6n sabre toda cuenta, dep6sito, credito, inversion y/ o cualquier suma de dinero presente y/ o futura, en pesos o en d6lares, que por cualquier motivo sea recibida y/ o se encuentre disponible en favor de

Chevron Argentina S.R.L., debiendo depositarse las ~umas retenidas / secuestradas en el banco de dep6sitos judiciales, a la orden de! juez interviniente. Para el caso que los bienes sujetos a medidas cautelares resulten insuficientes para cumplir totalmente la medida ordenada, se aclara que la

48 En~/. rte Anual Suplementario correspondiente al ailo 2011 se lee que, siempre dentro de sus acti" sen Argentina, "Chevron tambien posee una participaci6n del 14o/o en Oleoductos del Valle _ S.A ue es propietaria y opera un oleoducto desde el area de producci6n de Neuquen hasta la costa ~~ · ·; , . J;lntica". Ver http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf7chevron2011annualreportsupplement.pdf .//tf~S'';;,'f/:;; ( ·r.:.: , i} l.>,,. -"·1,1\_\.. " A.'°: -:~i•_',,,. ';~/ ,,, !?''" .{lrz: •.J:I 11,\i;_ :ib I ·<' , .>\;, 4'. -. '"\,'>- .. ! -- ~!~ 1~'-' ,_::,~~ - _'.,- ,',·~l..:;_;·~:,,.: ;.• ~-;'~ ' l~~--;-"·'-·"; -~ ~ ·: ~ ~ r::~:. --~c-v-~ ~.' ~;gs;_.~:~;1:1~~*Jl . ,-.~,~y;'•f'<'' -

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 106 of 123 misma deberi mantenerse a futuro hasta tanto se satisfagan los importes totales en cuesti6n.

e) Importes que Chevron Argentina S.R.L. tenga a percibir con motivo de sus operaciones de venta de hidrocarburos, ya realizadas o a realizarse en el futuro, de las siguien tes empresas (cuyos domicilios, adonde habri de practicarse la notificaci6n de la medida, se indican tambien a continuaci6n): - YPF S.A.: Macacha Giiemes 515, Ciudad Aut6noma de Buenos Aires, Reptiblica Argentina. - Shell Cfa. Argentina de Petr6leo S.A.: Av. Presidente R.S. Pena 788 2° piso, Ciudad Aut6noma de Buenos Aires, Reptiblica Argentina. - Esso Petrolera Argentina S.R.L.: Carlos Maria della Paolera 265, piso 19, Ciudad Aut6noma de Buenos Aires, Reptiblica Argentina. - Petrobras Argentina S.A.: Maipti 1, Ciudad Aut6noma de Buenos Aires, Reptiblica Argentina.

f) Fondos que Chevron Argentina S.R.L tenga a percibir en el juicio caratulado "Chevron Argentina S.R.L c/ Shell Argentina de Petr6leo S.A. s/ ordinarid', de trimite por ante el Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial 17 -Secretaria 34 (N° 073644, promovido el 22 de mayo de 2012).

ue seran su 'etos

/I

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 107 of 123 9 Desde el 9 de diciembre de 1926, bajo una estructura corporativa similar a la descrita anteriormente, Chevron Corp. tiene presencia en Colombia para la operaci6n de sus negocios en el pais, a traves de una sucursal de la sociedad extranjera Chevron Petroleum Company, la cual, de acuerdo con los registros de la Securites and Exchange Commission {SEC], es una subsidiaria controlada por Chevron Corp. en un ciento por ciento (whol!J owned subsidiary), domiciliada en la ciudad de Newark, en el Estado de New Jersey, Estados Unidos. Adicionalmente, las operaciones de Chevron Corp. se encuentran

49 ampliamente reconocidas en su sitio web oficial , en donde se puede constatar sin mayor dificultad que los negocios que esta multinacional orgullosamente abandera son exactamente los mismos proyectos en los que Chevron Petroleum Company- Sucursal Colombia ejerce como persona juridica titular de dichas posiciones contractuales y en la cual reposa la titularidad del dominio de todos los activos de Chevron Corp. en Colombia. Asf lo describe en su pagina web: "Como el productor mtis grande de

Colombia de f!f1S natura4 Chevron desempeiia un papel integral para satisfacer las necesidades ene1J!/ticas def pais, produciendo suficiente gas natural para abastecer aproximadamente el 65 por ciento de la demanda de la 11aci611. Nuestras actividades de produccilin se centran en tres campos de gas natural-una en a/ta mar y en tierra dos. Chevron tambiin es uno de los principales proveedores de Colombia de combustibles y lubricantes. Operamos una red de estaciones de seroicio Texaco® y tenemos intereses en las principales terminales de productos de aviaczifn en todo el pals. (. ..) 160 (Iraducci6n libre).

49 En: ]/www.chevron.com/countries/colombial so :)t p://www.chevron.com/countries/colombial ''As Colombia's largest producer of natural gas, C ron plays an integral role in meeting the country's energy needs, producing enough natural gas supply approximately 65 percent of the nation's demand. Our production activities are focused on

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 108 of 123 S6lo para dar un ejemplo de lo anteriormente dicho, los contratos de exploraci6n y explotacion de gas (llamados Contratos de Asociaci6n) en la zona de la Guajira, (dos campos en tierra y uno en alta mar) fueron suscritos en 197 4 por Ecopetrol S.A., empresa estatal, y lo que era en su momenta, Texas Petroleum Company -Texpet-, hoy, Chevron Petroleum Company 51 . Y para continuar demostrando que los actos propios que publicamente realiza Chevron Corp., cuando asi lo necesita y le conviene, y que evidencian su total y exclusiva propiedad sabre la sociedad extranjera Chevron Petroleum Company y de su sucursal debidamente establecida en Colombia, traemos a su atenci6n Senor Juez lo reportado por esta multinacional en el marco del formulario 10-K, ante la SEC, en donde identifica coma actividades que la Compaiiia desarrolla en Colombia, que "La empresa opera el campo en a/ta mar, Chuchupa,y los dos campos en tierra, Ballena y Riohacha, campos de gas natural como parte def contrato de Asociacion Guajira. A cambio, Chevron recibe el 43 por ciento de la produccion de la vida util restante de cada campo y un vo/umen de produccion variable de un cobro jijo, un Acuerdo de Construir­ Operar-Mantener-Transjerir sobre la base de aportes de capital antes de Chuchupa. Durante el aiio 2010, la compaiiia l/ev6 a cabo un estudio sismico de las zonas de

three natural gas fields-one offshore and two onshore. Chevron also is among Colombia's leading suppliers offuel and lubricants. We operate a network of Texaco® service stations and hold interests in major aviation product terminals countrywide. As an active member of the community, we also support education, culture, health, sustainable business development and environmental projects in Colombid'. 51 Al respecto, es importante resaltar que en el Certificado de Existencia y Representaci6n Legal de Chevron Petroleum Company, expedido por la Camara de Comercio de Bogota, autoridad investida para II os registros mercantiles publicos de las sociedades con domicilio en Bogotil D.C., se evi c· claramente los cambios de nombre de la sociedad, asi como el registro de las diferentes ciones (fusiones y adquisiciones) que a lo largo de los aiios Chevron Corp. ha ejecutado a .~~'?~ es de sus subsidiarias. _ :~~~~::~::-~: ~ tfe· ,,,,, .<:~\ 11;'" ~·· "\" 1 {. ~J .. ,, ~~IJ :;.,'n-:·' ,~1,},: __ ·;:~- - , , '%~- /-· • ,~- 'i ~~\~-,~:i-ikJ.~::;·~··

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 109 of 123 -2~"2.D.::, '10 . ~"'~' ·X>S \J~tt ~~\ ~u v..~u..l6") ~~~

desarrol!o en a/ta mar, cerca de la costa y en tierra, produccion neta diaria promedio de ~ 249 mil/ones de pies mbicos de gas natural en 2010."52 (Traducci6n libre) Asimismo, sefiala Chevron Corp en dicho formulario que "Chevron es una compaiiia enerJ/tica global con aaividades comerciales sustancia!es en /os siguientes

53 paises: (. ..) Colombia (. ..J' • Luego, estas claras posiciones de Chevron Corp. como amo, senor y duefio de las operaciones de Chevron Petroleum Company y de su sucursal en Colombia, hace simplemente imposible i . I desconocer la clara propiedad, control, supervision y manejo que la Compafiia demandada tiene en todas y cada una de las operaciones y, por tanto, de los activos existentes en Colombia. En consecuencia, el siguiente esquema describe su organizaci6n en Colombia:

Chevron Corp. r (USA).·

Chevron Petroleum Company .·1·••.•.·• .. (IJ§A)<

! Chevron Petroleum Company, I Sucursal f lie 'I; ;·;1<(C:oJ?!P~i1lh,c .,:,;:;

52 lnforme presentado por Chevron Corp. ante la SEC al 31 de diciembre de 2010. "The compaey operates the offshore Chuchupa and the onshore Ballena and Riohacha natural gas fields as part of the Guajlra Association contract. Jn exchange, Chevron receives 43 percent of the production/or the remaining life of each field and a variable production volume from a fixed-fee, Build-Operate· Maintain-Tr!_, agreement based on prior Chuchupa capital contributions. During 2010, the company c ted a seismic survey of the offshore, near-shore and onshore development areas. Daily pr9 uction averaged 249 million cubic feet ofnatural gas in 2010." " In )>presentado por Chevron Corp. ante la SEC al 31 de diciembre de 2010. "Chevron is a gl al energy company with substantial business activities in the following countries: ( .. .)Colombia )'' .,;J:'!;.ilJ.lo~ ··· rC~~"~··tr~:r:::·.·;·l'.~t~51{"_- IJ(;. . .·;.;'!';;.. !2,.11,. •1,{'.>' ._1;•- -:fi'. ·. _,.,\,\·, :!1 ., r'I'• !/;,~~ - (t!'".... -- ... -, . ·::·;~·-'t 31tm ;:I; ~,• . ·. ih 1~\.c'·-·-'.¥,-,,'.,..._· -,,2,.-.._, ·i.-, i .I '~C.,::,l

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 110 of 123 Teniendo en cuenta el esquema indicado, se postulan como activos de Chevron Corp. en Colombia, por medio de sus comparuas controladas y subsidiarias, los que a continuaci6n describo, respecto de los cuales solicito respetuosamente dictarse auto de retenci6n, y prohibici6n de enajenar, todo ello para que se realice de acuerdo con lo dispuesto por la ley Colombiana, que, segtin lo ordena el articulo 3° de la Convenci6n Interamericana sobre Cumplimiento de Medidas Cautelares, hecha en la ciudad de Montevideo el 8 de mayo de 1979, es la que rige para el cumplimiento de la medida.

V.2.1. Medida de retenci6n (embargo) sobre Creditos de los cuales es titular el deudor. Se solicita la retenci6n (es decir, el embargo, bajo la ley colombiana) de todos los creditos, presentes y futuros, de los que Chevron Corp., a traves de su controlada, Chevron Petroleum Company, cuya sucursal colombiana esci identificada con el nfunero de identificaci6n tributaria 860.005.223-9 es acreedor, y cuyo deudor sea cualquiera de las sociedades que se enumeran a continuaci6n:

• Ecopetrol S.A.: Carrera 13 No. 36 - 24, Bogota D.C. • PDVSA Gas S.A. Sucursal Colombia: Carrera 14 No. 81 - 19 Of 605, Bogota D.C. • Abonos Colombianos S.A.: Avenida Carrera 15 No. 100-43 / Oficina 201, Bogota D.C. • Cerro Matoso S.A.: Calle 113 No. 7 - 21 Torre A Of. 509, Bogoci D.C • / /

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 111 of 123 • E2 Energia Eficiente S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 59 No. 59 - 166, Barranquilla, Atlantico. • Edalgas S.A. ESP: Calle 53 No. 6 - 25, Puerto Berrio, Antioquia. • Empresas publicas de Medellin S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 58 No. 42- 125 Piso M - Torre Sur, Medellin, Antioquia. • Gas Comprimido de Colombia S.A E.S.P.: Calle 79 No. 18 - 45, Sector Industrial, La Romelia, Pereira, Risaralda. • Gecelca S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 55 No. 72 - 109 Piso 9, Barranquilla, Atlintico. • Isagen S.A. E.S.P .: Carrera 43• No. 11 • - 80, Medellin, Antioquia. • Terrnoflores S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 43A No. 1• Sur - 143, Medellin, Antioquia. • Cementos Argos S.A.: Via 40 Las Flores, Barranquilla, Atlintico. • Cabot Colombiana S.A.: Zona Industrial Mamonal Km 12, Cartagena, Bolivar. • Terrnocandelaria Power Colombia S.A.S. En Liquidaci6n: Carrera 7 No. 71 - 52 Torre B Piso 9, Bogota D.C.

• Proelectrica & Cia. S.C.A- E.S.P: Zona Industrial Mamonal Km 5, Cartagena, Bolivar. • Malteria Tropical S.A.: Calle 94 No. 7A - 47, Bogota D.C. • Mexichem Resinas Colombia S.A.: Autopista Sur No. 71 - 75, Bogota D.C. • Efigas Gas Natural S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 12 No. 3 - 23 Casa Vallejo, Pereira, Risaralda. • c os de Colombia S.A E.S.P.: Carrera 9 No. 7 - 25, Neiva, uila.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 112 of 123 • Gases de Occidente S.A E.S.P.: Centro Comercial Chipichape Bodega 2, Piso 3, Cali, Valle del Cauca. • Gecelca S.A. E.S.P.: Carrera 55 No. 72 - 109 Piso 9 Edificio Centro Ejecutivo II, Barranquilla, Atlantico.

'-~~ !1 • GasOriente S.A. E.S.P.: Diagonal 13 No. 60' - 54. Bucaramanga, it~:_ -*' :c• .'.>- Santander.

V.2.2. Establecimientos de Comercio

De rnanera similar, se solicita respetuosamente que se ordene la prohibici6n de enajenar sobre todos los establecimientos de comercio que tiene registrada la sucursal en Colombia de Chevron Petroleum Company. Para determinar el ntimero e identificar a cada uno de dichos establecimientos, sera necesario que el juez colombiano ante quien se solicite la aplicaci6n de los efectos extraterritoriales de las medidas precautorias aqui solicitadas, libre atento oficio a las siguientes Camaras de Comercio de diversas ciudades colombianas:

Camara de Comercio Direccion de Notificaci6n Judicial Camara de Comercio de Bogoci Avenida Eldorado No 68D-35 Bogota D.C. Camara de Comercio de Facatativa Carrera 3 No 4-60 Facatativa, Cundinamarca. Camara de Comercio de San Andres, Avenida Francisco Newball No 4' - 20 Providencia y Santa Catalina Piso Zdo, San Andres. Camara de Comercio de Cartagena Calle Santa Teresa No. 32-41, Cartagena de Indias.

Cam~ Comercio de Medellin Calle 53 No. 45-77 Medellin, Antioquia.

~a de Comercio de Pahnira Calle 28 No. 30-15 Pahnira, Valle de! 0 : i_l' // J/c--· 1i

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 113 of 123 T

Cauca. Camara de Comercio de Amazonas Carrera 11 No. 11 - 09 Leticia, Amazonas.

Camara de Comercio de Tolima Carrera 8 No. 8-35 El espinal, Tolima. Camara de Comercio de Palmira Carrera 47 No. 64 A 263, via Belen Kil6metro 2, Palmira, Valle del Cuaca.

Camara de Comercio de Cartago Carrera 4 No. 12-101, Piso 1, Cartago, Valle del Cauca. Camara de Comercio de Cali Calle 8 N° 3 - 14, Cali, Valle del Cauca.

C:imara de Comercio de La Guajira Carrera 6 No. 11-03 Riohacha, La Guajira. C:imara de Comercio de Cucuta Calle 10 No 4-38 - !er Pisa Torre B, Cucuta, Norte de Santander. C:imara de Comercio de Bucaramanga Carrera 19 No. 36 - 20 Pisa 2, Bucaramanga, Santander.

VI- SOBRE LA GRATUIDADDEL PROCESO Y EL TRASLADO DE LOS EXHORTOSA LA LUZ DE LA CONVENCION SOBRE MEDIDAS PRECAUTORIAS

(i) Gratuidad del procedimiento. Este asunto tiene una importancia practica fundamental, dado que la condici6n personal de los afectados y la cuantia de las cifras en disputa torna imposible que los actores afronten gastos por ninglin concepto vinculado a la litigaci6n. Y es preciso que ello quede declarado por el seiior Juez, en forma expresa, desde esta instancia inicial de la ejecuci6n, pues, caso contratio, se corre el riesgo de que las actuaciones transnacionales que es plir por la negativa de Chevron a pagar, se vean clificultadas por

encia de pagos millonarios -sea por tasas, cauciones proces~~~~ ...-! <01:\"E p;;;':i''_"~ .Uc0'... ;~-~~,;~ --~ ,;_~~<. ;,':··. .: '._:-'\····,_:~~Sr~ /:'v'r;.;;,::e,~~':\ <\t ~I·· ··\·~ '1~ -~\~_:c_:'. ,... \<'.,:--~_ .. ,, ':·),··: .1 \, ,... ;,., ".-\., ; •• ,,_... -~~\ ,;1;:., ·· ·~,._.,. c)J/ -~~'..'. ,,,, ~~ ..-::::·,· . ·1'- . "~::-::.:<·

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 114 of 123 T:

costas o cualquier otro concepto- y que los afectados, como es obvio, NO se encuentran en condiciones de afrontar bajo ninguna circunstancia. Es indisputable que aqui, en el Ecuador, los dernandantes gozan de dicho beneficio, tanto por su condici6n particular como por la gratuidad general que es de la esencia, segiln lo senala la propia Constituci6n de la Republica, del sistema judicial local. En el Ecuador "Toda persona tiene derecho al acceso gratuito a la justicia ya la tutela efectivfi' (art. 75 de la Constituci6n Politica); concepto que el mismo cuerpo normativo vuelve a enfatizar mas adelante al senalar --como un principio rector en materia de funci6n judicial- que "El acceso a la administraci6n de justicia ser:i gratuitd' (art. 168 inc. 4°). A su vez, el C6digo Organico de la Funci6n Judicial reitera casi de modo literal esta Ultima norma (en su art. 12), y contiene ademas otras directivas en el mismo sentido (por ejemplo, su art. 22). Dicho eso, ca be destacar que la Convention S obre Eftcacia Extmterritorial de Sentencias dice en su articulo 5 -parte pertinente- que "El benefido de pobreza reconocido en el Estado de origen de la sentencia sera mantenido en el de su presentaci6ti'; a su vez, la Convention Sabre Cumplimiento de Medidas Cautelares se pronuncia pcicticamente en iguales terminos, al reglar en su art. 16 -parte final- que "El beneficio de pobreza concedido en el Estado requirente ser:i mantemao en el Estado requeridd'. Ambas Convenciones, como se dijo antes, fueron adoptadas en el marco de la CIDIP II (Montevideo, 1979), lo que explica la identidad de criterios entre uno y otro instrumento. Con esa disposici6n se trata de no impedir que aquellos litigantes carentes de recursos econ6micos vean frustrados sus derechos si se ven en la n~c· de hacer valer decisiones judiciales en paises del extranjero que / d 1 c . . ,--.,.. .. sean e e a onvencron. ($.~.~?J,~·'·'~ I'/.>('.· .,: :~- J, C.. . <·r.- ( \'.~ 11 l~'..':~. ~i("7 ~'. :.} . / J~%", :). {,, ' ,>'!!~, ··A\tr: ~~·:;(f::{,~~-,,~l~- ~5J1· \\J. '•,(,\):,,~· .. : ~~·· '~~ '':.i,·;.'i}<' lj.~;,_~~Q~~~~f~~~4•~~·

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 115 of 123 Si en el pais de origen se hallan los demandantes en una situaci6n ta! que no puede exigirseles presten cauciones procesales o que paguen tasas o costas judiciales de ninguna indole, entonces -en esa misma medida- la exenci6n debe reconocerse en el Estado receptor en donde, segUn el caso, se procure la eficacia de una sentencia o el cumplimiento de una medida cautelar. No obstante, a los fines de hacer valer la exenci6n en los demis paises miembros de las Convenciones Interamericanas citadas, resulta necesario acreditar ante los jueces respectivos de esos Estados la vigencia de! beneficio en el pais de origen. Y es por ello que se solicita al Sr.. Juez Presidente declare que los demandantes han litigado este juicio sin que se Jes exigiera el pago de gastos. costas y/o cauciones procesales de ning(m tipo, situaci6n que se mantiene vigente en la etapa de ejecuci6n. Ta! declaraci6n es relevante para ser · consignada en los exhortos a librarse a los paises con que el Ecuador se halla vinculado por la Convenci6n sobre Medidas Cautelares, o bien para ser directamente adjuntada -con su debida certificaci6n y Apostil/ad()- en las solicitudes de Reconocimiento y ejecucion a plantearse en los distintos paises (en este ultimo caso, ya sea que se trate de paises miembros de la Convenci6n respectiva, o bien de paises que no la han suscripto y/ o ratificado, pero que de todos modos cuentan en sus legislaciones intemas con mecanismos para este tipo de trimites).

(ii) Traslado de los exhortos por la parte. En es partado, tambien como cuesti6n procesal cuya atenci6n es t a fin de evitar se susciten luego incidentes dilatorios, se solicita a. Jueza que expresamente autorice a los actores (por medio de sus oderados y/o patrocinadores en el juicio, ode quien estos expres . ~«'~~ . '" ,i>t::',r:<.. ~~·. '~t~:,l~~ ----.;~::~~~, l(.0'1.•• 1,1~ll'.(:; ~ '\; 11' '·-r. , ·"·:!:: "I ,.1.; {\7'~,,,:·~Jl ' ,;;,C;;- ·:.,...,1·

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 116 of 123 1I

designen), a transmitir ellos mismos al 6rgano requerido de! Estado parte los exhortos o cartas rogatorias que se libren en el marco de la Convenci6n Interamericana Sohre Medidas Cautelares.

Se destaca en este aspecto la norma del art. 13 de la Convenci6n sobre Cautelares, en cuanto de manera expresa alude a que " ... los exhortos o cartas rogatorias podr:in ser transmitidos al 6rgano requerido por las propias partes interesadas'. Cabe seiialar que este mecanismo no supone sustraer la diligencia de la 6rbita de! Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la Republica -en la medida en que le concierne seglin la ley vigente-. En efecto, al ser el Ecuador parte de la "Convenci6n de La Haya sobre Supresi6n de Legalizaciones" (1961), instrumento que lo vincula con (entre otros paises) las Republicas de Argentina y Colombia, dicho Ministerio es el encargado de otorgar la denominada Apo.rtifla, que certifica y brinda certeza sobre " ... la autentiddad de la linna, el caracter con que ha actuado el signatario de/ documento y ... la identidad de/ 54 sello o timbre que el documento ostentt!' • Es decir, el hecho de que el traslado material de los documentos se haga por la parte interesada (en el caso los demandantes), en modo alguno implica evitar que el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de! Ecuador (que es la Autoridad de Aplicaci6n designada por el Estado a los fines de extender la Apostilla o las legalizaciones, segun el caso), ejerza su funci6n certificadora respecto de todos esos datos esenciales para asegurar la plena autenticidad de los documentos remitidos al Estado extranjero.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 117 of 123 Hay que tener en cuenta, ademas, que existen en nuestro orden juridico interno numerosas normas que consagran la celeridad procesal como un principio rector de la administraci6n de justicia (arts. 75 y 169 de la Constituci6n Politica; arts. 100 inc. 2° y 130 inc. 9° del C.0.F.J.), por lo que, tambien desde esta 6ptica normativa, encuentra asidero la soluci6n aqui propuesta -con expresa base legal en las Convenciones aqui analizadas- para el traslado de los exhortos o cartas rogatorias que resulte menester diligenciar ante los paises miembros. Como se dijo antes, la finalidad de esta petici6n es evitar las demoras que podrian irrogarse en caso de dar un curso diplomatico a los exhortos o cartas rogatorias, cuando es la misma ley quien pone al alcance de los litigantes un mecanismo mucho mas directo y expeditivo, cual es el de trasladar ellos mismos los documentos a la Corte extranjera.

VII- DOCUMENTACION QUE SE ACOMPANA RESPECTO DE LOS ACTIVOS QUE SE PIDE EMBARGAR

Se adjuntan al presente pedido d1 embargo, en calidad de Anexos, los siguientes documentos destinados a probar la titularidad de Chevron o sus subsidiarias de los bienes que tiene en el Ecuador, y que cumplimos en seiialar para el embargo en calidad de medida de ejecuci6n de la sentencia:

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 118 of 123 •

3. Copias del expediente procesal de pnmera instancia que contienen los cheques No. 7418 y No. 7547, provenientes ambos de la cuenta cortiente y No. 30452125-04, de titularidad de Texaco Petroleum Co. y utilizada por Chevron para cancelar los honorarios de peritos. (ANEXO 3) 4. Copia del laudo arbitral que condena al estado Ecuatoriano al pago de USD 96'355.369 a favor de Chevron y otros documentos relativos a la demanda planteada por Chevron para ejecutar esta condena. (ANEXO 4) 5. Copia y traducci6n legalizada del formulario 10-K y de su Anexo 22.1 (ANEXO 5)

Respecto de los activos situados en la Republica Argentina, mas all:i de que la vinculaci6n existente entre Chevron Corp. y Chevron Argentina S.R.L. se acredita mayormente con las propias declaraciones de la demandada ante la SEC o bien en sus Reportes Anuales, a fin de complementar esta informaci6n se acompaiian copias de las declaraciones presentadas ante la Inspecci6n General de Justicia de la Argentina por las sociedades CDC ApS y CDHC ApS, de las que surge que (i) ambas son controladas en un ciento por ciento por Chevron Global Energy Inc.; y (ii) ambas son propietarias (por si o indirectamente a traves de Norberto Priu S.R.L.) de las cuotas sociales de Chevron Argentina S.R.L.

VIII- S.iNTESIS DE LA PETICI6N

;:::1 En concreto, y a modo de sintesis, en el presente escrito: 1 -1

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 119 of 123 1. SE SOLICITA EL DICTAMEN DE EMBARGOS COMO MEDIDA DE EJECUCION de la sentencia del 3 de enero del 2012, sobre los bienes ubicados en la Republica del Ecuador singularizados en el numeral IV.1, IV.2 y IV.3 del presente escrito, con los alcances ahl identificados, para lo cual debera librarse atento oficio a las siguientes en:tua• k 0 gubernamentales y bancarias: a. Instituto Ecuatoriano de Propiedad lntelectual.- Al lnstituto Ecuatoriano de Propiedad Intelectual se le hara llegar el oficio en la persona de su Presidente el Ab. Y caza Mantilla Andres, en la Av. Republica 396 y Diego de Almagro. Edif. Forum 300. b. Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros.- A la Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros se le hara llegar el oficio en la persona del ab. Pedro Solines Chacon, Superintendeote de Bancos y Seguros, en su despacho, en la Av. 12 de Octubre N24-185 y Madrid. c. Banco Central del Ecuador.- tarnbien al Banco Central del Ecuador, en la persona de su Gerente General, seii.ora licenciada Ruth Arregui Solano, en la Av. 10 de Agosto Nl 1-409 y Briceno. d. Procuraduria General del Estado.- A la Procuraduria General del Estado, en la persona del seii.or Procurador General del Estado, Dr. Diego Garcia, en su despacho, en la calle Robles 731 y Av. Amazonas, en la ciudad de Quito. e. Ministerio Coordinador de la Politica Econ6tnica.- Al Ministerio Coordioador de Politica Econ6mica, en la / persona de la Sra. Jeannette Sanchez -<'/

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 120 of 123 l

'I Ordene la retenci6n y/ o secuestro y/o prohibici6n de enajenar (o embargo, seglin la usanza Argentina) sobre la totalidad de los activos indicados en los puntos a), b), c), d), e) y t) de! apartado (iv) de! Capitulo V.1. -con los alcances alli explicitados-, para cuyo cumplimiento SE LIBRARA EXHORTO, en los terminos de · la "Convenci6n

Interamericana Sohre Cumplimiento de Medidas Cautelare~', AL JUEZ QUE POR SU COMPETENCIA CORRESPONDA A LA CIUDAD AUT6NOMA DE BUENOS AIRES, (jurisdiccion en donde la subsidiaria Argentina de Chevron Corp. tiene su domicilio legal), a utorizando a la parte interesada a TRAMITAR PERSONALMENTE EL TRASLADO DE LA ROGATORIA --confonne lo habilita el art. 13 de dicha Convenci6n- y dejando asimismo eJq>resa constancia en el exhorto de que los actores litigan con BENEFICIO DE POBREZA en el Ecuador, por lo que no !es resulta exigible en la sede de destino el pago de tasas. , gastos. costas y/o cauciones procesales de ningun tipo --confonne lo dispone el art. 16 de la Convenci6n-.

(ii) SOBRE ACTIVOS EN COLOMBIA: Ordene retenci6n, secuestro, o prohibici6n de enajenar (seglin sea el caso) sobre la totalidad de los activos indicados en los puntos V.2.1 y V.2.2. de! Capitulo V.2. -con los alcances alli explicitados-, para cuyo cumplimiento SE LIBRARA EXHORTO, en los terminos de la "Convenci6n Interamericana Sohre Cumplimiento de Medidas

Cautelare~', AL JUEZ QUE POR SU COMPETENCIA CORRESPONDA, autorizando a la parte interesada a TRAMITAR PERSONALMENTE EL

TRASLADO DE LA ROGATORIA --confonne lo habilita el art. 13 de

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 121 of 123 Ecuador. por lo que no !es resulta exigible en la sede de destino el q pago de tasas. gastos, costas y/o cauciones procesales de ningun tipo -conforme lo dispone el art. 16 de la Convenci6n-.

Reiteramos nuevamente que nos reservamos el derecho de presentar peticiones adicionales de medidas cautelares y de ejecuci6n, a medida que nuestras investigaciones vayan echando luz sobre el oscuro manejo corporativo de los bienes de propiedad de la petrolera condenada, y sus subsidiarias.

Cualquier notificaci6n dentro de! presente proceso, la continuaremos recibiendo en el mismo casillero judicial.

. Por parte actora, debidamente auto · zados,

// .. ·// / '--· b. Julio Prieto Mendez Mat. Prof. 21-2004-01 Mat. Prof. 17-2005-58

:i~L:::M Mat. Prof. 17-2008-162

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 122 of 123 No. 21100-2003-0002 Presentado en Nueva Loja el dia de hoy miercoles veinte y seis de septiembre del dos mil dace, a las ocho horas y treinta y nueve minutos, sin anexos. Certifico . .A_,.!,~~ b (\·-::., C>J.. ) ..L'-pC. ' I(_~ '

I

Plaintiff's Exhibit 415 p. 123 of 123