To read more about the ongoing legal battle between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer over the Dakota Access oil pipeline protests, click the following link: Read more at KXNET.COM
—
Judge says Greenpeace must pay $345 million in pipeline lawsuit, cutting jury amount nearly in half
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota judge has stated that he will order Greenpeace to pay damages amounting to a total of $345 million in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline from almost a decade ago. This figure, which the environmental group claims it cannot afford, is expected to launch an appeal process in the North Dakota Supreme Court from both sides.
Last year, a nine-person jury found Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. liable for defamation and other claims brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and subsidiary Dakota Access. The jury found Greenpeace USA liable on all counts, including conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference, while the other two entities were found liable for some of the claims.
The lawsuit stems from the pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017 when thousands of people demonstrated and camped near the project’s Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a threat to its water supply.
Damages initially totaled $666.9 million, divided among the three Greenpeace organizations, before the judge reduced the judgment. Greenpeace USA’s share was $404 million, a sum the organization has stated it cannot pay.
Energy Transfer has signaled its intention to appeal the reduced damages, emphasizing that the original jury findings and damages were lawful and just. Greenpeace USA has expressed its inability to pay the judgment, citing financial constraints and assets of $23 million as of December 31, 2024.
The case is ongoing, with Greenpeace USA planning to appeal the judgment on various legal grounds. Greenpeace has characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to stifle activism and criticism, while Energy Transfer maintains that it is about enforcing the law rather than curtailing free speech. During the trial, Energy Transfer’s attorney alleged that Greenpeace orchestrated efforts to obstruct the pipeline’s construction, while attorneys for Greenpeace entities refuted these claims, asserting minimal involvement in the protests and construction delays.
For more information on this developing story, click here. following sentence in a more concise way:
“Despite the fact that it was raining heavily, the football game still went on as scheduled.”
“Despite heavy rain, the football game proceeded as planned.” following sentence in a more concise manner:
Original: “The company has decided to implement a new policy regarding employee vacation days.”
Rewritten: “The company is implementing a new vacation policy for employees.” following sentence in a different way:
“The teacher explained the lesson thoroughly.”
“The lesson was explained in great detail by the teacher.”
