Shareholders win right to sue BP over 2006 oil spill
The suits are related to a spill from a BP owned pipeline, which leaked around 200,000 gallons of oil in March 2006.
February 14, 2014 at 07:54 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
BP is not unfamiliar with the business end of a lawsuit, but recently settlement figures and court hearings have been related to the massive oil spill it was party to in 2010. Adding more trouble to those legal woes is the go ahead from a district court that will allow shareholders to hold the oil giant culpable to another spill that occurred in 2006.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that some shareholders would be allowed to move forward with securities fraud cases against BP, after a previous judge ruled that they could not do so.
“Despite BP's public statements suggesting that the spill was an anomaly, a second leak was discovered five months later in a different BP oil transit line in the region,” Reuters reports the court wrote. “As a result, the company temporarily shut down regional operations.”
The suits are related to a spill from a BP owned pipeline, which leaked around 200,000 gallons of oil in March 2006. The parties seeking to suit BP claim that as a directly result of the charges the company faced as a result of the incident, stock value dropped.
BP was on the hook for $20 million in settlements as a result of the spill and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for negligence in relation to the spill. While the initial suit brought by shareholders was thrown out by a Seattle-based judge in 2008, litigation will now be allowed to move forward with the new the ruling from the 9th Circuit.
BP legal woes have been mounting in 2014. Earlier this year a court upheld the stalled repayment plan for those impacted by the Gulf oil spill, despite BP's attempt to have the settlement restricted.
For more on BP's litigation check out these stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 2Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
- 3Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
- 4Turning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
- 5Appellate Division Rejects Third Circuit Interpretation of NJ Law, Says No Arbitration for Insurance Fraud
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250