51黑料

JEFFERSON CITY 鈥� Two months after Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a legal brief siding with Maryland Heights-based Doe Run Resources Corp., his political action committee accepted a $50,000 contribution from Doe Run鈥檚 parent company.

Bailey鈥檚 office on July 11 filed an amicus brief arguing that Peru, where Doe Run purchased a smelting complex in 1997, is the proper venue for a lawsuit brought by Peruvian plaintiffs, echoing the company鈥檚 arguments in the case.

On Sept. 18, Bailey鈥檚 Liberty and Justice PAC received $50,000 from Doe Run鈥檚 parent company, New York City-based Renco Group.

The case in which Bailey filed his brief accuses Doe Run and others of causing lead poisoning of children in La Oroya, a mining town in the Peruvian Andes. There were more than 1,420 plaintiffs in the lawsuit as of January, according to court documents.

Doe Run says a court in Peru should handle the case, while plaintiffs鈥� attorneys say the matter should play out in the United States.

鈥淭hese American companies and their American executives would rather litigate in Peru, thousands of miles from home,鈥� the plaintiffs said in an August filing.

Bailey鈥檚 move to back Doe Run is a break with previous Republican attorneys general Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, who both rejected Doe Run鈥檚 requests to intervene in the case.

Bailey鈥檚 鈥渇riend of the court鈥� filing came after U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry denied Doe Run鈥檚 motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the case. Doe Run has appealed her January ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 51黑料 while the underlying case is pending in district court.

Now, attorneys for the Peruvian plaintiffs are attempting to connect the $50,000 Renco donation to Bailey鈥檚 brief.

In court filings Wednesday, plaintiffs鈥� attorneys asked the appeals court to toss Bailey鈥檚 brief or force him to amend it to include mention of the $50,000 donation.

鈥淯ntil (Attorney General) Bailey鈥檚 amicus brief supporting Renco鈥檚 position in this case, Renco does not appear to have made any previous donations to him or to his campaign,鈥� the attorneys said.

Madeline Sieren, spokeswoman for the attorney general鈥檚 office, on Thursday denied the legal filing and the campaign donation were related.

鈥淭he amicus brief was filed on behalf of the people of the State of Missouri to protect their judicial system from abuse by foreign plaintiffs,鈥� Sieren said. Any suggestion that the attorney general鈥檚 office is influenced by campaign donations is 鈥渁bsurd,鈥� she added.

Doe Run in a statement to the Post-Dispatch challenged the newsworthiness of the donation and asserted there was 鈥渆xtraordinary evidence of fraud in this case鈥� by employees of the plaintiffs鈥� attorneys.

Perry on Aug. 29 denied a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs in regard to 鈥渁lleged conduct giving rise to a criminal investigation that is in its preliminary/preparatory stage in Peru.鈥�

She said the motion asked her to make a determination on the veracity of evidence in an ongoing investigation that Peruvian law requires to be confidential.

鈥淚t is not within the purview of this Court to make such premature judgments and findings,鈥� Perry said.

$50,000 donation

Doe Run defended the $50,000 donation sent to Bailey鈥檚 PAC after his office filed the brief.

鈥淭here is absolutely nothing improper or even newsworthy about Doe Run鈥檚 parent company supporting political officials in Missouri, and its support for pro-business candidates is nothing new,鈥� said a spokesperson for Doe Run in a statement.

鈥淎ttorney General Bailey took a principled position in the best interest of Missouri that has nothing to do with political donations,鈥� the company said.

鈥淛erry Schlichter, the plaintiffs鈥� lawyer in this case, has a long history of political donations,鈥� the statement said.

鈥淲hat should be of greater interest to the public is the extraordinary evidence of fraud in this case being orchestrated by those employed by the plaintiffs鈥� lawyers, about which this newspaper has reported nothing.鈥�

Schlichter accused the defendants of 鈥渟corched earth鈥� legal tactics.

鈥淭he 51黑料 University School of Public Health went to Peru to test these children before there was even a lawsuit and found some of the highest blood lead levels ever recorded in children anywhere in the world,鈥� Schlichter said in an email. 鈥淲e look forward to our day in court to secure justice for them.鈥�

The conflict around the $50,000 donation arose after Bailey鈥檚 office included a footnote in its brief to reflect federal rules of procedure, which require authors of amicus briefs to disclose whether anyone other than the authors contributed money for the brief鈥檚 preparation.

The plaintiffs鈥� attorneys stated in their Wednesday brief that federal rules exempt states from having to comply with the rule.

Nonetheless, Bailey鈥檚 office certified that no one else had 鈥渕ade a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.鈥�

鈥淭hat statement, which was technically unnecessary, appears designed to convey compliance with funding-disclosure commitments applicable to other parties,鈥� the attorneys wrote.

The attorneys go on to argue Bailey鈥檚 footnote asserting no outside aid 鈥渁ppears to be inaccurate.鈥�

They compared the $50,000 donation to Bailey to an incident the Post-Dispatch reported on in 2019 involving Bailey鈥檚 former boss, Gov. Mike Parson.

In December 2018, Renco gave $25,000 to Parson鈥檚 Uniting Missouri PAC.

鈥淭he result was similar. The month after Renco鈥檚 donation, Governor Parson sent a letter to this Court urging dismissal,鈥� the plaintiffs said.

Parson followed that letter with a plea to the U.S. State Department urging then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to intervene, the Post-Dispatch reported in 2019.

The plaintiffs note that other than the checks to Parson and Bailey, Missouri Ethics Commission records show no other contributions to statewide politicians from Renco.

鈥淩enco seemingly has only ever made two donations to Missouri state politicians 鈥� and both closely coincided with the recipients intervening in this litigation to help Renco,鈥� the plaintiffs said.

Herculaneum to Peru

Doe Run is best known locally for its now-shuttered lead smelter in Herculaneum.

But in 1997, at the same time scrutiny surrounding its Herculaneum operation was building, Doe Run acquired the La Oroya smelter from the Peruvian government.

In 2007, Doe Run Peru became a separate sister company under the Renco Group.

Doe Run Peru went bankrupt two years later, and in 2017 the smelter was put up for auction by a group of creditors.

The Herculaneum smelter closed in 2013, following years of upheaval from local residents exposed to lead and tighter pollution standards by the federal government.

A 51黑料 University study in 2005 found virtually all children younger than 6 in La Oroya, a town of 35,000, had lead in their blood.

In 2007, La Oroya was named one of the world鈥檚 most polluted places, according to a report issued by the Blacksmith Institute that year.

That same year, a group of the children from Peru sued in state court, alleging they were injured by emissions from the Doe Run smelter. The case was later transferred to federal court in 51黑料.

A separate case involving another group of more than 1,000 plaintiffs, as of January, is also pending in U.S. District Court in 51黑料.