Goodbye to Greenpeace? ND Verdict Sends Them Reeling Towards Bankruptcy

A Morton County (ND) jury on Wednesday ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The court found that the environmental group “incited illegal behavior by anti-pipeline protesters” and defamed the company.

The nine-person jury delivered a verdict in favor of ET on most counts, awarding more than $660 million in damages to them along with Dakota Access LLC. Greenpeace USA was convicted of defamation and interfering with ET’s right to conduct legal business, but avoided trespass, nuisance and civil conspiracy charges. Those were reserved for Greenpeace International, at least as to conspiracy.

This all began in 2019, when ET first sued Greenpeace for “providing resources, including supplies, intel and training, to encourage Dakota Access Pipeline protesters to commit criminal acts to stop construction of the project.” The company also claims that Greenpeace intentionally spread misinformation about the pipeline in an attempt to tarnish its reputation with banks.  The company sued three Greenpeace entities — Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund.

Attorneys representing Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund claimed they never had any employees visit the demonstration camps nor did they provide money in support of the protests.

Both the plaintiffs and the defense have called the case one of the largest and most complex civil suits in state history.

U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., applauded the verdict Wednesday . “Today, justice has been done with Greenpeace and its radical environmentalist buddies who encouraged this destructive behavior during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests with their defamatory and false claims about the pipeline,” Cramer said in a statement. “They can think twice now about doing it again.”

Following the verdict, Trey Cox, ET’s lead attorney said, “These are the facts, not the fake news of the Greenpeace propaganda machine.”

Energy Transfer representatives reiterated that protesting is an “inherent American right” but that Greenpeace’s actions were “unacceptable,” Cox continued.

The project was a real challenge for ET and for more reasons that one. They also sued the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2019 for $38 million, calling their response to the demonstrations “mishandled”. The Corps has jurisdiction where the pipeline passes underneath Lake Oahe, a reservoir of the Missouri River. They also own the land on which the protest camp was erected. A ruling has yet to be rendered in that case.

The lawsuit regarded protests held in 2016 and 2017 to protest the Dakota Access pipeline, actions centered around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Climate activists “joined” Indigenous activists fighting for water rights and opposing the company’s planned transmission of oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The pipeline was completed, but behind schedule and only after major disruptions.

In contrast to their 2019 suit, Energy Transfer had much better luck this time. Their legal team successfully convinced the jury that Greenpeace had “incited” the disruption. Greenpeace used the incredibly lame excuse that its’ US bodies only played a “small role”. The international wing was equally innocent, they proclaimed, and their involvement was limited to merely signing a letter opposing the project.

Energy Transfer celebrated, calling it “a resounding verdict”, declaring Greenpeace’s actions “wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards. Finally, there is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace”. Greenpeace USA warns that they will appeal and are currently “weighing all legal options”.

Greenpeace, acknowledges there is a risk of bankruptcy due to the damages awarded against it. However, they claim there is only a “very remote” chance that its international arm (whose assets are located in the Netherlands) will be affected because the verdict is “very unlikely to be recognized by Dutch courts”. Greenpeace claims its 25 other branches around the world will “keep functioning as normal”.

Leftist paint the case as the poster child for what they classify as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (SLAPP). Green lawyers claim they are “lawfare” and used to silence companies and individuals around the world. Many of these cases are environmentally related.

Leftists have even complained about the legal proceedings themselves, claiming it to be “a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations.” Poor Greenpeace claims they were denied “the ability to present anything close to a full defense”. Seems the jury was “patently biased” because one of its members worked in the fossil fuel industry (North Dakota’s largest employer). They didn’t have to nefariously seek out these jurors. Further, Greenpeace claimed that the judge was incompetent to rule on the complex constitutional issues at the case’s heart.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Charlie Holt, European lead at Global Climate Legal Defense and a former legal advisor for Greenpeace International, bemoaned the decision as being “shocking if not surprising”.

“There’s still an understandable desire to trust in the judicial system. But I think we could see how urgent a threat [the lawsuit] was,” he said, while playing the victim card. Suddenly it’s the fault of the legal system, not the violent protestors under Greenpeace’s direction.

“This kind of activity is becoming increasingly common across climate action, with fossil fuel actors undermining progress wherever possible,” said Brice Böhmer, climate and environment lead at non-profit Transparency International.

Holt agreed, warning of copycat cases. “The big fear is that this will embolden other fossil fuel companies to try their luck with these large-scale SLAPPS as a means of shutting down criticism,” he said.

In a desperation move, Greenpeace International has announced plans to counter-sue in the Netherlands, for the first time using a new EU anti-Slapp Directive. If successful, it would be a first for the anti-oil antagonist and the first time used successfully in litigation.

General Counsel Kristin Casper declared that "Energy Transfer hasn't heard the last of us in this fight". "We will not back down, we will not be silenced," she said. Despite their bravado, Greenpeace officials admitted last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism.

Will you miss Greenpeace? I know most industry participants will wish them good riddance. First, let’s see if the judgement is even enforced. Greenpeace and their type have slipped out of many tight positions before, although certainly nothing of this magnitude.