The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered an anti-suit injunction blocking Greenpeace International's Dutch lawsuit, shielding a $345 million Dakota Access Pipeline verdict from overseas collateral attack.
The North Dakota Supreme Court has directed a state district court to issue an anti-suit injunction barring Greenpeace International from prosecuting a parallel lawsuit in the Netherlands, ruling that the Dutch proceeding constitutes a collateral attack on a $345 million jury verdict entered against the environmental organization [1]. The order marks one of the rare instances in which a U.S. state supreme court has affirmatively enjoined a party from pursuing foreign litigation to protect a domestic judgment [1].
The underlying verdict arose from protest activity connected to the Dakota Access Pipeline, during which Energy Transfer Partners alleged that Greenpeace International coordinated and incited demonstrators, causing substantial operational and financial harm [1]. A North Dakota jury returned the $345 million judgment in favor of Energy Transfer Partners, and Greenpeace International subsequently filed suit in Dutch courts, where the organization is headquartered [1]. Energy Transfer Partners moved in the North Dakota district court to enjoin that foreign proceeding, arguing the Dutch litigation was designed to relitigate issues already resolved by the jury and to shield assets from collection [1]. The North Dakota Supreme Court, sitting in Bismarck, agreed and instructed the district court to enter the injunction [1].
The ruling carries substantial doctrinal weight. Anti-suit injunctions directed at foreign proceedings are governed by comity principles that ordinarily counsel restraint, and U.S. courts have historically been reluctant to block parallel litigation in sovereign jurisdictions [1]. The court's willingness to override that restraint signals that where a party deliberately routes litigation to a foreign forum to neutralize a domestic judgment, American courts may treat that maneuver as an abuse of process sufficient to justify injunctive relief [1]. For practitioners advising multinational clients on judgment enforcement and international litigation strategy, the decision creates a meaningful precedent that domestic verdicts can, under defined circumstances, be insulated from overseas collateral challenge [1].
The injunction does not extinguish Greenpeace International's appellate options in North Dakota, and the organization may seek further review or challenge the enforceability of the anti-suit order in Dutch courts, where U.S. injunctions carry no direct legal authority [1]. Energy Transfer Partners will still need to pursue separate enforcement mechanisms to collect on the $345 million judgment, including potential asset recovery proceedings in multiple jurisdictions [1]. Observers expect the case to generate appellate briefing on the outer limits of state-court power to regulate transnational litigation conduct, and it may draw attention from foreign sovereign interests wary of U.S. courts asserting extraterritorial reach over proceedings in their jurisdictions [1].