The case against Unocal for human rights abuses committed against villagers living along the Yadana pipeline route in Burma is still underway in California state court. An AP Wire story dated January 23, 2004, which states that Unocal cannot be liable for human rights abuses in that court, is incorrect. Judge Victoria Cheney ruled on January 23 that Unocal cannot be held liable under one legal theory, the "alter ego" theory. However, plaintiffs have asserted two other theories of liability, which means that Unocal may yet be held liable for gross human rights abuses committed in the Yadana pipeline area.

The case against Unocal for human rights abuses committed against villagers living along the Yadana pipeline route in Burma is still underway in California state court. An AP Wire story dated January 23, 2004, which states that Unocal cannot be liable for human rights abuses in that court, is incorrect. Judge Victoria Cheney ruled on January 23 that Unocal cannot be held liable under one legal theory, the "alter ego" theory. However, plaintiffs have asserted two other theories of liability, which means that Unocal may yet be held liable for gross human rights abuses committed in the Yadana pipeline area.

Unocal is on trial in California state court for human rights abuses committed against villagers (the plaintiffs) from Burma during the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline. The current phase of the trial (phase 2)* is focused on the question of corporate structure, and more particularly, who is accountable for the pipeline abuses. Plaintiffs, represented by a team of lawyers including EarthRights International, claimed that Unocal is accountable, and set forth three separate legal theories upon which to hold them liable: alter ego, joint venture, and agency. Judge Cheney addressed the first of these three theories at a hearing on January 23.

At this hearing, Plaintiffs argued that Unocal should be accountable for the abuses because the subsidiaries Unocal set up were shells constructed for the purpose of shielding Unocal from liability. Judge Cheney disagreed, finding that because independent subsidiaries--not Unocal--owned and operated the pipeline, Unocal could not, under California law, be responsible for the subsidiaries' actions. She limited her ruling on Unocal's liability to the alter ego theory, keeping the door open for liability under other theories.

Judge Cheney will hear arguments about the two other theories of liability, joint venture and agency, after a scheduling conference in late February. Under these theories, plaintiffs claim that Unocal is still liable for the actions of the subsidiaries because the subsidiaries were acting in partnership with Unocal (the joint venture theory) or as proxies (the agency theory) of Unocal. Judge Cheney has ruled in the past that the joint venture and agency theories are viable. If she allows the case to move forward, the plaintiffs will have the chance to prove their injuries in phase 3 of the trial.

Unocal's lawyer Dan Petrocelli called the recent ruling a "complete victory and vindication" for Unocal. Judge Cheney's finding in the recent hearing that Unocal knew villagers would likely suffer human rights abuses in connection with the pipeline contradicts this outsized and inaccurate claim.

*Phase 1 of the trial focused on which law should be applied. Judge Cheney rejected Unocal's arguments that she should apply the law of Burma or Bermuda.