BP (BP) Sued by Louisiana Indian Tribe Over Gulf Spill

Claiming devastation to its fishing grounds and ancestral lands, the Pointe Au Chien tribe filed a lawsuit against BP (NYSE:BP) seeking compensation for the alleged damages.

The lawsuit asserted the tribe “has suffered loss of use of its historical and cultural lands, including tribal cemeteries, Indian mounds, shell middens and traditional fisheries."

“Use of these lands has been lost from April 20, 2010, to the present," according to the complaint.

The tribe asserts it has an “an aboriginal land title claim’’ to the damaged areas, although they're not one of the four federally recognized tribal nations in Louisiana. The tribe consists of approximately 680 members.

BP was trading at $44.26, falling $0.70, or 1.56 percent, as of 1:53 PM EDT.

BP (BP) Says No Liability Under Oil Pollution Act

In response to a lawsuit filed by the federal government, BP (NYSE:BP) has filed an answer in Federal Court concerning liability under the Clean Water and Oil Pollution Acts.



Response:

BP admits the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon caused the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but says the amount of oil spilled from its Macondo well is still unknown.

BP says the United States cannot charge a maximum penalty of $4,300 per barrel because another, lower estimate of the maximum penalty already has been stated by a federal agency.

BP admits that the Deepwater Horizon rig is still sitting on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, and that the Macondo well was an offshore facility within the meaning of the Clean Water Act - but it denies it was an offshore facility within the meaning of the Oil Pollution Act.

The government's December lawsuit was the first suit brought by the United States after the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11 workers and unleashed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Justice Department's investigation of the oil spill is continuing; still unknown is whether criminal charges may be filed against BP and the other oil spill defendants.

BP has asked federal permission to resume drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in July.

As the catastrophic oil spill began, BP said that 5,000 barrels of oil were flowing a day from its broken Macondo well.

Later estimates by scientists independent of BP placed the flow rate more likely between 30,000 and 60,000 barrels a day.

The federal government estimates that more than 200 million gallons of oil (4.9 million barrels) spewed into the Gulf over a period of 87 days.

The government's original complaint said that millions of gallons of oil had been discharged into the Gulf of Mexico and adjoining shoreline.

In answer, BP Exploration and Production (BPXP) "admits that a still undetermined amount of oil was discharged into and upon waters of the Gulf of Mexico," but said the specific amount remains unknown.

"BPXP admits that plaintiff refers to the Clean Water Act, the full text of which speaks for itself, and that plaintiff seeks Clean Water Act penalties for each barrel of oil that the defendants discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. BPXP denies that penalties must always be based in part on the number of barrels of oil discharged, as the Clean Water Act also contemplates courts assessing penalties based on the number of days of the discharge," BP wrote in its 36-page Answer.

BP says that even if the government were to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at trial, the maximum penalty for which BP can be held liable is $4,000 per barrel, not $4,300, as the U.S. complaint states.

BP says the Coast Guard's and EPA's inflation adjustments under Clean Water Act disagree with one another, and "pursuant to due process fair notice principals, only the lesser inflation-adjusted penalty number could ever be applied."

As for the U.S. action having been brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP "denies the plaintiff has stated a valid claim or in entitled to any relief" under those acts.

BP denies that it failed "to use the best available and safest drilling technology to monitor and evaluate the Macondo well."

BP denies that it failed to "fulfill its respective responsibilities to maintain well control of the Macondo well."

BP denies that it failed to "maintain continuous surveillance on the rig floor."

BP denies that it contributed to the spill through "corporate practices of disregarding federal regulations, as evidenced by various safety and other audits of Deepwater Horizon, reflecting the known failure, prior to the Deepwater Horizon spill, to properly design, install, maintain, repair, and operate equipment intended to prevent personal injury, loss of life, harm to the environment, and disasters like the Deepwater Horizon spill."

In response to the assertion in the original complaint that BP and the responsible parties are liable for civil penalty under the Clean Water Act, under OPA, and liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP "denies that the United States is entitled to the relief it seeks with respect to" BP.

BP says the "plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment regarding alleged damages under OPA constitutes improper claim splitting" and that BP "reserves the right to object to any attempt to amend or supplement the complaint to add any such claims for damages, other than in accordance with a schedule to be agreed upon by the parties that ensures that all claims of the plaintiff are asserted in a timely and appropriate manner."

BP claims "there are superseding causes of the relevant discharges of oil beyond any events proximately caused by BPXP, including but not limited to, defective design and/ or manufacture of the [blowout preventer] and/or negligent operation of the [blowout preventer]."

A federal investigation of the failure of the blowout preventer showed that a bent pipe prevented the device from sealing off the broken well.

The blowout preventer was made by Cameron International.

Transocean, as owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig, was responsible for maintaining the blowout preventer.

BP's resonse was signed by Don Haycraft with Liskow & Lewis of New Orleans.

BP (BP) Asks for Institutional Lawsuits to be Thrown Out

BP (NYSE:BP) has asked a Texas judge to throw out lawsuits filed by institutional investors against them, which claim the company was at fault in the Gulf oil spills.

The oil giant claims “A shareholder of a company organized under English law cannot pursue a derivative claim on behalf of that company without first obtaining judicial permission from the English High Court.”

Investors sued London-based BP’s board and management last year, alleging they pursued cost-cutting over safety and disregarded “red flags” that could’ve prevented the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, which sank while drilling a BP well off the Louisiana coast, according to Bloomberg.

BP closed Monday at $45.80, up $0.69, or 1.53 percent.

BP (BP), Anadarko (APC), Transocean (RIG), MOEX Expected to Pay $1 Million a Day for Violations

BP (NYSE:BP), Anadarko (NYSE:APC), Transocean (NYSE:RIG) and MOEX via subsidiary Mitsui (NASDAQ:MITSY), could end up having to pay $1,000,000 for each day they damaged the state of Louisiana.

"Each defendant is liable under La. R.S. 30:2025 for a civil penalty of not more than $32,500 for each day of violation ($50,000 for each day of violation of a compliance order issued by LDEQ), and for an additional penalty of not more than $1,000,000 for each day of violation," according to the complaint filed by the state.

They cited violations of the Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1991, the Oil Pollution Act, and the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act as the basis for their complaint and desired compensation.

Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell alleges that before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, "warning signs of well flow were being transmitted to the rig, to Halliburton's Houston office and BP E&P's Houston office in real time for almost an hour before hydrocarbons reached the rig, alerting rig workers to shut down the well. Nevertheless, the rig workers apparently ignored these warning signs until it was too late. Moreover, during the critical hour before the well blowout, there was no one at the Halliburton or BP E&P offices to monitor this data and issue the appropriate warnings."

Louisiana estimates that 27,000 Louisianans' jobs were affected by the spill, with the shellfish industry being hit the hardest.

BP (BP) Now Investigated Via Task Force

Instead of criminal investigations of BP (NYSE:BP) going through a variety of agenies, the U.S. Justice Department announced it'll consolidate the investigation into a single task force to oversee the effort.

Leading the task force will be criminal division senior counsel, John Buretta, under the supervision of Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who is in charge of the criminal division of the department.

A department spokesman said the task force will be created in order "to maximize department resources devoted to the criminal investigation" and "to avoid duplication of effort."

Deputy Attorney General James Cole made the decision to create the task force.

BP closed Monday at $48.15, falling $0.41, or 0.84 percent.

BP (BP) Claims Fund, Feinberg Hit with Fraud Lawsuit

The BP (NYSE:BP) $20 billion claims fund and administrator Kenneth Feinberg have been hit with a lawsuit claiming fraud and negligence over distribution of the funds.

A firm called Pinellas Marine Salvage has alleged Gulf Coast Claims Facility and its administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, hasn't acted in the best interests of victims.

Pinellas Marine Salvage, which says Feinberg and the fund "circumvent many of the rights provided to victims of the BP oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990," is seeking economic, compensatory, and punitive damages in the complaint.

Anyone can file a lawsuit making any claim they want, but so far there hasn't been a shred of evidence Feinberg has willingly of purposefully paid victims of the Gulf spill less than should have been.

As a matter of fact, Feinberg has lamented for a long time that a large percentage of claimants don't have the documentation to prove they are owed what they assert.

Much of this is precipitated by greedy lawyers looking to cash in on the pain of the victims, attempting to smear the overall process in order to pressure claimants to use them to represent them, rather than go through the claims process.

BP's (BP) $20 Billion Fund Goes Far Beyond Legal Requirements Says Company Lawyers

According to BP's (BP) lawyers, the $20 billion escrow fund set aside to pay for damages associated with the Gulf oil spill "far exceeds" legal requirements, according to a court filing by the company.

This stems from request from U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans, who is overseeing over 350 lawsuits seeking damages for economic and personal injuries from the Gulf disaster, for input on whether or not the company is doing enough within the parameters of existing law to compensate those harmed by the spill.

That seems to be an odd move by the judge, as current law is very clear on the matter, and it's irrelevant what someone's opinion is.

You get into subjectivity here, and also into the actual process of determining who qualifies for claims, which can get slippery and just about everybody has an opinion on the matter.

Don Haycraft, a BP lawyer stated, “That there may be different ways to run a claims process does not mean that the GCCF’s chosen methods fail to comply. The statute “does not give claimants, or the attorneys general, any right to demand judicial involvement in or modification of the claims process.”

Commenting on BP's Gulf Coast Claims Facility, attorneys for the government strangely said, “As the United States has said from the outset, the success of the GCCF can only be measured by whether the people of the Gulf feel fairly treated.”

Since when does legal requirements revolve around whether or not someone "feels" they've been fairly treated? That has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

It appears the impetus behind a lot of this isn't claimants getting paid, or getting paid in a timely manner, but lawyers being left out of the financial picture when claimants make a deal with Feinberg for payments.

In other words, this may be a lawyer-manufactured dissatisfaction which may not be based in reality at all.

If claimants think the process is slow now, wait and see what happens if Feinberg is required to operate under government supervision.

BP's (NYSE:BP) Institutional Investors Claim They Were Misled

The old story that BP (NYSE:BP) misled investors concerning the safety practices of the company continues on, as investor lawsuits claim the commitment of the company to safety was a lie and the share price of the company was inflated for several years before the explosion on the oil rig which led to the huge Gulf oil spill.

Attorneys for the Ohio and New York state pension funds said, “The truth about BP and its lack of commitment to and implementation of safety processes to avoid preventable incidents began to emerge. Investors were deceived as to BP’s true risk profile in deep sea drilling.”

Lawyers went as far as to say BP retaliated against those workers who reported safety concerns. They added, “BP engaged in continuous and systematic retaliation against employees who reported concerns about the safety and integrity of BP’s operations.”

The lawsuit involving the Ohio and New York pension plans are seeking class status for the case, which would cover American depositary receipts (ADRs) from Jan. 16, 2007 to May 28, 2010.

BP closed Tuesday at $47.05, gaining $0.36, or 0.77 percent.

BP (NYSE:BP) Getting Sued by Alabama County School System Over Property Taxes

BP (NYSE:BP) is getting sued by the Mobile County school system in Alabama over alleged loss of revenue from lower value of homes which resulted in reduced property taxes.

The county claims this is the result of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to Mobile County schools Superintendent Roy Nichols, he will have a study conducted to ascertain the effects on the school system from the supposed loss in revenue.

Nichols incredibly says, "I believe we will get some money because we deserve it. We've been harmed and we need to be made whole."

Other allegations are the country lost revenue from other sources and jobs that have disappeared.

The idea that the country "deserves" money from BP is of course ludicrous. They deserve nothing at this time, as there is no proof the cause of the alleged loss of revenue is from a reduction in property taxes that came about from the Gulf oil spill.

How about the loss in revenue from the housing market that has property taxes around the U.S. plunging? Is all of that from BP?

It's unclear how the drop in property value from the recession can be distinguished from the alleged loss in property value from the Gulf oil spill.

If counties in other regions of the Gulf haven't suffered very similar losses, than it could be it has nothing to do with the oil spill and everything to do with the ongoing fallout from the housing crisis, which has entered into what many are identifying as a double-dip housing recession.

To attempt to use the Gulf oil crisis as a reason for the loss in tax revenue is cynical at best.

How about cutting back on big government services and overpaid teachers? The private sector is paying these outrageous wages and benefits, which are far above what the business is able to pay.

Why taxpayers should have their productivity taxed in order to allow big government and overpaid government employees continue on as they are is ridiculous. Cut the taxes and size of government. Cut the bloat. That's the answer. Using the BP oil spill as means of making up for government bloat is unethical.

BP (NYSE:BP) Oilfield Battle Lost to Alaskan Heirs

BP (NYSE:BP) and its partners in the Niakuk oilfield on the North Slope: Exxon Mobil Corp (NYSE:XOM), ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP), and Chevron Corp (NYSE:CVX), were ruled against by a federal judge, resulting in the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs have to pay out $4.92 million to heirs of Andrew Oenga.

Oenga signed a lease agreement with the oil companies which allowed them to develop and produce crude from Niakuk.

Heirs of Oenga claimed BP and its partners used more of the land than the lease agreement allowed, setting up the legal confrontation.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs had to pay out based on the conclusion they had violated its fiduciary duty to collect fair compensation for commercial use of the land.

Judge Nancy Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. agreed with the heirs, saying, Firestone, in a ruling issued late Tuesday, agreed with the family. "The rent paid thus far to the Oengas has covered only the authorized use of the allotment."

BP and its partners may be asked to pay for part of the award given the family.

Steve Rinehart, spokesman for BP Exploration (Alaska) noted, "We are considering alternative ways to reach and develop resources in that area."

BP closed Wednesday at $45.83, dropping $0.54, or 1.16 percent.

Feinberg Says Gulf Will Recover from BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill by 2012

After pouring over as much data he can find on the effects of BP's (NYSE:BP) oil spill on the Gulf of Mexico, Kenneth Feinberg, who oversees the $20 billion compensation fund, said he sees the Gulf recovering by 2012.

Feinberg said by that time the economy should be healthier and the effects of the spill to have dissipated.

Feinberg says, "For every claimant who is eligible other than oyster harvesters, we believe at the GCCF that it is reasonable to conclude full recovery by the end of 2012. There will be gradual recovery over the next two years."

Responding to criticism and uncertainty as to whether or not victims have been properly compensated, Feinberg noted, "If people feel that I have misread the available data or have underestimated the long term data don't take the final payment."

Lawyers have been circling around the victims, attempting to portray Feinberg in a negative light, as they want more of the money the fund offers, which they'll get if victims go that route.

The problem is even if the lawyers win more money for them, after the fees they charge and possibly years down the road, they may get nothing more than they would have received if they deal directly with Feinberg. The only ones getting more money will more than likely be lawyers.

BP (NYSE:BP) closed Monday at $46.54, gaining $0.51, or 1.11 percent.

BP (NYSE:BP) Accused of Breaking Civil Racketeering Law in Gulf Spill Lawsuit

A lawyer suing BP (NYSE:BP) claims the oil giant broke civil racketeering laws in relationship to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lawyers Stephen Herman and James Roy asserted, “BP engaged in a pattern of fraudulent conduct directed at regulators from the inception of the Macondo project, continuing through and after the spill and to this day. BP’s fraudulent actions and omissions were part of a broader pattern of unlawful conduct that it has employed over the years to place profits over safety.”

The two lawyers are liaison counsel for a committee representing plaintiffs in more than 400 lawsuits in regard to personal and economic injuries resulting from the oil spill.

They allege that “BP has, since at least 2001, used this enterprise to conduct the related acts of mail and wire fraud comprising the pattern of racketeering.”

BP closed Monday at $48.08, gaining $0.47, or 0.99 percent

Lawyers Battling Over BP (NYSE:BP), Feinberg Concerning Compensation Fund

Lawyers are starting to fight one another over the BP (NYSE:BP) compensation fund being run by Kenneth Feinberg.

These are lawyers opposing one another, but two groups of lawyers representing plaintiffs.

When you come down to it, regardless of the smokescreen being thrown out by the 17-member plaintiffs' steering committee, it's about them losing business to the compensation fund, as those who make a deal with BP via Feinberg and the fund, aren't allowed to sue BP later on.

In December the lawyers filed a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier to order Feinberg to make changes to the release form, adding of course that they contact a lawyer before making a permanent decision to accept a final payment.

This is a roundabout way of attempting to force BP, via their release form, to be a marketing arm of the lawyers.

When you consider the 30 to 40 percent the lawyers will extract from the plaintiffs, it's hard to see what benefit, if any, they get from hiring a lawyer, along with the potential long period of time before they see any money at all. How much is that time period being measured in value to the plaintiffs?

After all, what lawyer is going to recommend the plaintiffs to settle with BP via the compensation fund and give up their huge cut?

The other group of lawyers opposing the 17, are actually six firms, who want to keep things running as they are.

While there is a possibility these lawyers may get a cut from any distribution from claims, it isn't necessarily so, and would probably be much less per individual or entity than those who are fighting to get access to every person seeking compensation.

Those working directly with the fund will receive compensation which totally goes to them and not to lawyers.

In the end, this is nothing other than about how much more money the 17 lawyers can get from potential clients.

BP (NYSE:BP) Investor Suit Lead Plaintiffs from Ohio, New York Pension Funds

U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison, who is presiding over the BP (NYSE:BP) investor lawsuit, named Ohio State Attorney General Richard Cordray and New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli as lead plaintiffs in the litigation.

They each head up the public employee pension fund of the state they reside in.

Parameters of the lawsuit is for those who invested in American depositary receipts (ADRs) or common stock of BP from from June 2005 to June 2010 and suffered losses from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a different class, Ellison named four individual investors as lead plaintiffs, with the parameters being those who acquired common shares of BP or ADRs from from March 2009 to April 20 of 2010.

One difference in the two classes is the Ohio and New York funds say they suffered major losses when they purchased ADRs in the weeks following the explosion on the doomed oil rig.

They claim BP deliberately understated the flow of oil released from the oil well. But you have to wonder what those over these funds were doing when putting pension money into that type of scenario.