Transocean lobs legal bomb at BP
When not drilling for oil, Transocean Ltd. also is effective at boring into its legal adversaries. The Swiss drilling rig owner yesterday filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana looking to put the screws to BP Plc, forcing the petroleum...
November 02, 2011 at 08:21 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When not drilling for oil, Transocean Ltd. also is effective at boring into its legal adversaries. The Swiss drilling rig owner yesterday filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana looking to put the screws to BP Plc, forcing the petroleum company to honor its contractual obligation and indemnify Transocean against damages as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The two companies have been battling in courtrooms over the past year, focusing mainly on whether Transocean should be on the hook for part of the billions in costs and penalties owed to the U.S. government as a result of the spill. A federal investigation fingered both parties as culpable.
While BP has agreed to pay for the cleanup, it's after Transocean to cover its share, saying the rig owner should bear partial responsibility. Transocean disagrees, noting that BP contractually agreed to indemnify the company.
In its motion, Transocean says BP is attempting to nullify its contract in regard to the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. “Why have you signed so many contracts, reviewed by an army of your lawyers and businessmen, that you have no intention of honoring,” Transocean wrote in the motion. “The answer is simple: money.”
The contract for the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig contains industry-standard reciprocal indemnity provisions that apportion risk and quantify liabilities between the two companies, Transocean noted in a statement.
“In the contract, which was signed in 1998 and extended several times including in 2009, BP agreed to 'defend, release, protect, indemnify and hold harmless' Transocean for any and all fines, penalties and damages associated with environmental pollution originating from the well 'without limit and without regard to the cause or causes' including negligence, 'whether such negligence be sole, joint, active passive or gross,'” Transocean said.
BP spokesman Daren Beaudo countered by saying Transocean breached the contract, according to the Wall Street Journal. “To enforce the indemnification would be to allow Transocean to escape the consequences of its actions and avoid meeting its obligations in the Gulf,” Beaudo said.
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
© 2024 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 AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
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