BP 2015 Annual Report Download - page 244

Securities class action
On 20 May 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a proposed
class of ADS purchasers before the Deepwater Horizon explosion (from
8 November 2007 to 20 April 2010) and granted plaintiffs’ motions to
certify a class of post-explosion ADS purchasers from 26 April 2010 to
28 May 2010 and to amend their complaint to add one additional alleged
misstatement. The parties appealed the district court’s class certification
decisions and on 8 September 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both of the
district court’s decisions. On 26 October 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied
the pre-explosion ADS purchasers’ motion for rehearing en banc. On
25 January 2016, the pre-explosion ADS purchasers filed in the Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fifth Circuit’s
decision. The trial of the securities fraud claims of the class of post
explosion ADS purchasers has been scheduled to commence on 5 July
2016.
Individual securities litigation
From April 2012 to September 2015, 37 cases were filed in state and
federal courts by pension funds and investment funds and advisers
against BP entities and several current and former officers and directors
seeking damages for alleged losses those funds suffered because of
their purchases of BP ordinary shares and, in two cases, ADSs. The funds
assert claims under English law and, for plaintiffs purchasing ADSs,
federal securities law, and seek damages for alleged losses that those
funds suffered because of their purchases of BP ordinary shares and/or
ADSs. All the cases, with the exception of one case that has been
stayed, have been transferred to MDL 2185. In August and September
2015, plaintiffs filed or sought leave to file amended complaints in those
cases. On 4 January 2016, the district court dismissed two of those
cases and some of the claims of a third case with leave to replead by
19 January 2016. Plaintiffs in the two dismissed cases filed amended
complaints on 19 January 2016.
Canadian class action
On 15 November 2012, a plaintiff re-filed a statement of claim against BP
in Ontario, Canada, seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against
BP on behalf of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered
losses because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and ADSs. On
14 August 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the claims made
on behalf of Canadian residents who purchased BP ordinary shares and
ADSs on exchanges outside of Canada should be litigated in those
countries, and granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the complaint to
assert claims only on behalf of Canadian residents who purchased ADSs
on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On 26 March 2015, the Supreme Court
of Canada dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal of this decision. Plaintiff has
not amended his complaint to assert claims on behalf of Canadian
residents who purchased ADSs on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and thus
there have been no further proceedings in the case. On 27 March 2015,
the plaintiff filed a complaint in Texas federal court asserting claims under
Canadian law against BP on behalf of a class of Canadian residents who
allegedly suffered losses because of their purchase of BP ADSs on the
New York Stock Exchange. That action was transferred to MDL 2185 and
was dismissed by the district court on 25 September 2015. The time to
appeal that dismissal has expired.
Dividend-related proceedings
On 11 May 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court decision in
June 2014 dismissing an action against BP p.l.c. for cancelling its
dividend payments in June 2010 on the grounds that the courts of
England were the more appropriate forum for the litigation. This followed
earlier unsuccessful lawsuits against BP p.l.c. for the 2010 dividend
payment cancellation.
ERISA
On 15 January 2015, following an earlier dismissal in the ERISA case
related to BP share funds in several employee benefit savings plans, the
district court allowed the plaintiffs’ to amend their complaint to allege
some of their proposed claims against certain defendants. The district
court certified that decision for appeal, and the Fifth Circuit accepted that
appeal on 20 May 2015. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
12 February 2015. On 30 October 2015, the district court granted
defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, dismissing some of the claims in
the amended complaint.
Other Deepwater Horizon oil spill related claims
Other civil complaints
On 26 August 2011, the district court in MDL 2179 granted in part BP’s
motion to dismiss a master complaint raising claims for economic loss by
private plaintiffs, dismissing the plaintiffs’ state law claims and limiting
the types of maritime law claims the plaintiffs may pursue, but also held
that certain classes of claimants may seek punitive damages under
general maritime law. On 30 September 2011, the court granted in part
BP’s motion to dismiss a master complaint asserting personal injury
claims on behalf of persons exposed to crude oil or chemical dispersants,
including state law claims, claims for punitive damages and claims for
medical monitoring damages. In each case the court did not, however, lift
an earlier stay on the underlying individual complaints raising those
claims or otherwise apply its dismissal of the master complaints to those
individual complaints.
On 4 September 2015, the district court in MDL 2179 issued an order
directing the clerk to docket no further joinders by plaintiffs in the two
master complaints for private plaintiff economic and property damages
claims and for medical claims.
On 14 September 2015, the district court granted BP’s motion for
summary judgment and issued a judgment dismissing with prejudice the
Center for Biological Diversity’s claim against BP under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act. This followed an earlier
unsuccessful appeal against the dismissal of the other action brought
against BP by the Center for Biological Diversity. On 8 October 2015, the
Center for Biological Diversity filed a motion asking the district court to
reconsider its 14 September 2015 order. That motion was denied on
4 December 2015.
Non-US government lawsuits
On 1 May 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal
with prejudice of the claims brought in September 2010 by three
Mexican states bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Veracruz, Quintana Roo
and Tamaulipas) against several BP entities. The lawsuits allege that the
Incident harmed their tourism, fishing and commercial shipping industries
(resulting in, among other things, diminished tax revenue), damaged
natural resources and the environment and caused the states to incur
expenses in preparing a response to the Incident. On 30 July 2015, the
three Mexican states filed a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme
Court, which was denied on 30 November 2015.
On 5 April 2011, the Mexican State of Yucatan submitted a claim to the
Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) alleging potential damage to its natural
resources and environment, and seeking to recover the cost of assessing
the alleged damage. This was followed by a suit against BP which was
transferred to MDL 2179.
On 19 April 2013, the Mexican federal government filed a civil action
against BP and others in MDL 2179. The complaint seeks a
determination that each defendant bears liability under OPA 90 for
damages that include the costs of responding to the spill; natural
resource damages allegedly recoverable by Mexico as an OPA 90
trustee; and the net loss of taxes, royalties, fees or net profits.
On 18 October 2012, before a Mexican Federal District Court located in
Mexico City, a class action complaint was filed against BPXP, BPAPC,
and other BP subsidiaries. The plaintiffs, consisting of fishermen and
other groups, are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages
for the class members who allegedly suffered economic losses, as well
as an order requiring BP to remediate environmental damage resulting
from the Incident, to provide funding for the preservation of the
environment and to conduct environmental impact studies in the Gulf of
Mexico for the next 10 years. After initial dismissal of the action, it was
reported in December 2015 that the action was reinstated after appeal,
although BP has not been formally served with the action.
False Claims Act actions
On 17 December 2012, the court ordered unsealed one complaint that
had been filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana by an individual under the Qui Tam (whistle-blower) provisions
of the False Claims Act (FCA). The complaint alleged that BP and another
defendant had made false reports and certifications of the amount of oil
released into the Gulf of Mexico following the Incident. On 17 December
2012, the DoJ filed with the court a notice that the DoJ elected to decline
240 BP Annual Report and Form 20-F 2015