This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.
Back in 2010, we filed a putative class action seeking to recover $750 million in dividends that were not paid to shareholders of BP after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill.
A Texas federal judge denied class certification for investors facing losses in the aftermath of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in 2010, after determining that the investors’ damages calculation was too murky to earn certification in light of a recently bolstered standard from the U.S. Supreme Court.
An Illinois private placement fund mounted a putative class action against BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Statoil ASA in New York over the alleged crude oil futures manipulation scheme that was disclosed in a recent European regulatory sting.
A Houston federal judge allowed a securities class action case against BP plc to go forward. The litigation stems from alleged misrepresentations made to investors about the success and scope of BP’s process safety efforts, as well as false claims about its oil spill response capabilities in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison, of the Southern District of Texas, ruled on February 6, 2013 that most of the claims asserted in the lawsuit can proceed to discovery. Continue reading “Securities class action against BP allowed to proceed”
By most accounts, BP Plc appears to be well on its way to concluding an estimated $7.8 billion settlement to resolve most of its civil liability from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. But a potential landmine lurks in the settlement. Under certain circumstances, the company can invoke a little-noticed provision that allows it to walk away from the deal.
The trigger is opt-outs. In a settlement of a class action, class members can reject the deal and decide to go it alone. Defendants have to be prepared for the possibility that a high volume of opt-out litigation will undermine the goal of global resolution. BP certainly is prepared: Its settlement agreement with plaintiffs claiming economic and property damages includes a provision that gives BP the right to terminate the deal if the total of opt-outs “exceeds a number agreed to by the parties.” Continue reading “BP settlement has blow-out provision”
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier’s ruling set a “fairness hearing” on November 8, 2012, to decide whether to give his final approval to the deal between London-based BP PLC and a team of plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The proposed settlement doesn’t have a cap, but BP estimates it will pay about $7.8 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims by people and businesses who blame the spill for economic losses. Continue reading “BP oil spill class action settlement gets preliminary approval”
BP and attorneys for more than 100,000 people and businesses presented a federal judge on April 18 with a class action settlement designed to resolve billions of dollars in claims spawned by the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The London-based oil giant and the lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans to give preliminary approval to the settlement agreement. The judge hasn’t indicated when he will rule.
BP PLC estimates it will pay about $7.8 billion to resolve these claims, but the settlement doesn’t have a cap. It will likely be one of the largest class action settlements ever. Continue reading “BP seeks approval of oil spill class action settlement”
A class action has been filed against BP in state court in Oregon. The complaint alleges that BP and affiliates illegally and secretly add debit card fees to gasoline purchases.
To see a copy of the complaint in Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, Case No. 1112-17045 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty.), click BP Complaint re Debit Card Fees.