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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rule lets claimants seek to have SLAPP-designated lawsuits against them thrown out and also makes companies filing the lawsuits liable for the cost of the proceedings, penalties and other measures, according to the EU Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

Those costs, Mr. Cox told the jury, included physical damage to the pipeline and the equipment in addition to increased security and public relations costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenpeace International believes the EU’s anti-SLAPP rule will save it from having to shell out its share of the penalty and also allow it to recoup legal fees. But American lawyers questioned whether an Amsterdam judgment against Energy Transfer could be enforced in the United States.  

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

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

Mr. Simons, the Greenpeace International lawyer, said there is a path to recoup money from the company if they prevail.

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

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

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

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

• Susan Ferrechio can be reached at sferrechio@washingtontimes.com.