Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/07/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 21, 2010

According to the complaint filed May 21, 2010, there was a massive explosion on a mobile offshore drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico operated by BP known as the Deepwater Horizon, caused by inadequate safety protocols. BP convinced investors, including Plaintiffs, that BP would be able to generate tremendous growth with minimal risk. BP was misleading the investing public. The truth was that BP was cutting comers and reducing its spending on safety measures in an effort to maximize profits in the Gulf of Mexico. Indeed, it was not until April 20, 2010, after the explosion, that material information began to emerge about BP's safety measures.

Several complaints have been filed in the District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana and the Central District of California.

By the Order from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation dated August 2010, several actions filed in the Western District of Louisiana and Central District of California are not transferred to the Southern District of Texas, In Re: BP plc Securities Litigation, MDL # 2185. All future pleadings should be filed with the newly assigned court.

On February 14, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the claims on May 6, 2011.

On February 13, 2012, a Memorandum and Order was issued partially granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the ADS Purchasers in the NY/OH Plaintiff class. The motion was also partially denied as Court found that Plaintiffs adequately pleaded section 10(b) violations and also adequately pleased control liability pursuant to section 20(a). Motion was partially granted as to the dismissal of certain individual defendants. It was further ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Ordinary Share Purchasers was granted.

On March 30, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in the BP ERISA Litigation.

On July 5, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant BP's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint in related case 11-CV-2941.

On October 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 23, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On December 6, the third amended complaint was filed.

On January 4, 2013, the court denied the motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings of the plaintiff.

On February 6, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Part the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On March 8 and 11, 2013, the Court issued Orders granting the dismissal of the claims of certain plaintiffs.

On May 20, 2014, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting the renewed Motion to Certify Class.

On January 4, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the Motions to Dismiss of certain defendants.

On September 15, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on November 4.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas - Integrated
Headquarters: United Kingdom

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BP
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 10-CV-00818
JUDGE: Hon. Richard T Haik, Sr
DATE FILED: 05/21/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/20/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (Burlingame)
    840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (Burlingame), CA 94010
    650.697.600 650.697.600 ·
  2. Domengeaux, Wright, Roy, & Edwards
    556 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 3668, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy, & Edwards, LA 70502
    (337) 233-3033 (337) 233-2796 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 10-MD-02185
JUDGE: Hon. Richard T Haik, Sr
DATE FILED: 02/14/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/16/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/28/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Mithoff Law Firm
    One Allen Center; 500 Dallas Street, Mithoff Law Firm, TX 77002
    713.654.1122 713.654.1122 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date