Civil and criminal processes from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began shortly after the April 20, 2010 incident and continued since then. They have incorporated a broad claims settlement process for plea guilty of criminal prosecution by BP, and the ongoing Water Clean Act lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice and others.
A federal judge, who came to power in the Clean Water Act lawsuit in September 2014, found that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill as a result of deliberate mistakes and major negligence. This discovery means that the company may be fined $ 18 billion in addition to the $ 28 billion already paid in claims and cleaning costs. Such punishment is far greater than the $ 3.5 billion BP grants for the case, and can have serious implications for the company.
Video Deepwater Horizon litigation
Linimasa Litigation
The proceedings began immediately after the explosion and oil spill. On May 27, 2010, Transocean, who owns the Deepwater Horizon, said in testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee that the defendants in 120 lawsuits, of which more than 80 were class actions seeking payments for financial losses covered by Oil Spill Contamination Act. The company said that most of the early plaintiffs were "fishermen, hotel operators, landowners, rental companies, restaurants and seafood processors, who claim current losses or future potential of the business after the oil spill.
At the same time, the British media reported that more than 130 lawsuits related to the spill had been filed against one or more BP, Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, and Halliburton Energy Services, although it was considered possible by observers that this would be combined into one. court as a multidistrict litigation. Since the spill has been largely offshore, the plaintiffs who claimed damages at the time were mostly non-working fishermen and tourist resorts receiving cancellations. BP and Transocean wanted the cases to be heard in Houston, which was seen as friendly to the oil business, but the plaintiffs demanded the case be heard in Louisiana, Mississippi or Florida. Five New Orleans judges withdrew from oil spills due to ownership of shares in involved companies or other conflicts of interest. BP has retained the Kirkland & amp; Ellis to defend most of the lawsuits arising from the oil spill.
BP, which largely insured itself through Jupiter Insurance Ltd itself, was also the subject of early litigation of some of Lloyd's London underwriting syndicates and other responsible persons seeking a statement that they are not accountable to BP under Transocean's US $ 700 million insurance policy.
In June 2010, Hornbeck Offshore Services, joining several dozen companies with overseas interests, filed a lawsuit in US District Court seeking to order the US Department of the Interior from imposing a deep water drilling ban.
In July 2010, news reports claimed that BP had sought to hire prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to help defend against the lawsuits that the federal government would bring in as a result of the oil spill. BP seeks to hire the entire marine science department at one university, but the university refuses due to confidentiality restrictions, but several other universities have been accepted. In developing its case, the government will utilize a large amount of scientific research conducted by academic institutions along the Gulf, and many scientists hired by BP serve at the same institution. The contract prohibits scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or talking about data they collect for at least the next three years, and it requires scientists to agree to withhold data even in the face of a court order if BP decides to fight orders. It establishes that scientists will be paid only for research approved by BP. Robert Wiygul, who specializes in environmental law, said he saw ethical questions about the use of laboratories and research vessels belonging to the public to do secret work on behalf of private companies. "This is not an agreement to do research for BP.This is an agreement to join BP's legal team You agree to communicate with BP through their lawyers and to receive orders from their lawyers." The contract has an additional impact limiting the number of scientists who are able to work with federal agencies.
In August 2010, 77 cases, including those carried by state, individual, and corporate governments, in US District Courts for Eastern District of Louisiana under Multi-District litigation, MDL No. 2179, In ​​a report: Oil Spill by the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, led by US District Judge Carl Barbier. Judge Barbier was trying this case without a jury, as usual in admiralty law of the United States.
On December 15, 2010 the US Department of Justice filed a civil suit against BP and other defendants for violations under the Clean Water Act in US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, this was consolidated with other cases. description United States v. BP Exploration & amp; Production Inc. et al., Civ. Action No. 2: 10-cv-04536 .
In April 2011, BP filed $ 40 billion in lawsuits against Transocean rig owners, Halliburton cementers and Cameron International's blast-proof manufacturer. The oil company accused the failed security system and the irresponsible behavior of the contractor has caused an explosion, including the claim that Halliburton failed to use modeling software to analyze the safe drilling conditions.
In October 2013, it was reported that BP could face tens of millions of dollars in new claims from UK shareholders who lost money and claimed that BP did not come clean about the scale of the disaster. Shareholders include South Yorkshire Pension Authority, Skandia Global Funds and GAM Fund Management.
Maps Deepwater Horizon litigation
Justice Department
On December 15, 2010, the United States Department of Justice filed a civil and criminal lawsuit against BP and its partners in oil wells, Transocean and Halliburton, for violations under the Clean Water Act in US District Court for Eastern District Louisiana. The plaintiffs include Gulf countries and individuals. This case is consolidated with about 200 other people, including those brought by state governments, individuals, and companies under the MDL Multi-District Courts document. 2179, in the presence of US District Judge Carl Barbier. The Justice Department is looking for the strongest possible fines, and has said it will seek to prove that BP "is very negligent and engages in deliberate errors in causing oil spills." BP denies it, saying that massive negligence is an insurmountable high bar, and that the oil spill is a "tragic accident." The case is closely watched, as the verdict of massive negligence will result in a fourfold increase in the Clean Water Law fines, and will keep the company liable for punitive damages for personal claims. Any fines of major omissions will hit BP's bottom line very difficult, as they will not be tax deductible. The company did not pay federal income taxes to the US government in 2010 due to cuts related to the spill.
DOJ claims
On August 31, 2012, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a paper in federal court in New Orleans blaming BP PLC for the Gulf oil spill, describing the spill as an example of "major negligence and deliberate mistakes." BP rejected the allegations, saying "BP believes it is not very negligent and hopes to present evidence of this issue in court in January." DOJ also said Transocean, owner and operator of the Deepwater Horizon rig, was guilty of negligence as well.
The DOJ Brief criticized officials for failing to repeat "negative pressure tests" when the first test revealed an anomaly of pressure from a well. Despite acknowledging the pressure of reading and agreeing that it was worrying, BP's supervisors did not run tests anymore. Ordered retesting will begin with the closure of the rig blowout, which will stop the flow before the explosion. The DOJ lawyers said, "That such a simple, yet basic, and safe-critical test can be so stunning, so confusing in many ways, by so many people, showing great negligence."
The government cites "corporate carelessness culture" in their investigation of the events leading to the explosion. The brief DOJ lawyers include several emails exchanged between John Guide, Macondo technician, and David Sims, his boss. In an email Guide it states that Macondo is a very difficult well, that the drilling crew "fly near our pants seat" under the "big paranoia level" that "pushes chaos" and concludes that "the operation will not work. in this way. "Government lawyers refer to Guide emails as" a clear cry of future disaster "and the question of why Sims is not following up and why BP's internal investigators do not mention it in their reports of catastrophic events. In another email, Sims noted that BP had sent 15 additional "centralizers" to complete cementing well, but the Guides then ordered them to not be used. In the email quoted briefly, the Guide concludes, "But who cares, it's over, the end of the story, it'll probably be all right."
The DOJ also refused to accept BP's assertion that the Gulf ecosystem has been through a strong recovery and most of the cleaning is completed, saying that there is far more damage than the eye looks and more cleaning may need to be done. "The fact that the shoreline is no longer considered suitable for response actions does not mean that it does not suffer from a sustained injury from the Spill.For example, an important consideration in deciding the right response is whether the cleanup technique will cause more harm than good."
First phase trial
The first phase of the consolidation trial begins on February 20, 2013, to determine the obligations of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and to determine whether the company is acting with major negligence and deliberate mistakes. The second phase begins on September 30, 2013, and focuses on how much oil spills into the abyss and who is responsible for stopping it. The third phase, which will begin in January 2015, will focus on all other responsibilities incurred in the process of oil spill cleanup and containment issues, including the use of dispersants. Trial tests will follow to determine the amount of actual damage. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2013 that the US government and Gulf Coast countries have set up a $ 16 billion settlement offer to BP. However, it is unclear whether the deal was formally proposed.
Claims against BP drilling contractor M-I LLC were dismissed by US District Judge Carl Barbier during the trial, and the judge also ruled out compensation for Cameron International, a blow-preventer manufacturer on the Deepwater Horizon rig.
Rule of gross negligence
On September 4, 2014, US District Judge Carl Barbier ruled in a Clean Air Act trial that BP was guilty of deliberate omissions and errors under the Act. He described BP's actions as "reckless," while he said Transocean and Halliburton's actions were "negligent." He shared 67% error due to spill to BP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton. Fines shall be distributed in proportion to the degree of negligence of the parties, measured against the amount of barrels of spilled oil. Under the Clean Water Act fines can be based on a cost per barrel of up to $ 4,300, at the discretion of the judge. The number of barrels in disputes at the end of the trial with BP debating 2.5 million barrels spilled over 87 days of the spill, while the court contended 4.2 million barrels spilled. BP issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the findings, saying the court's decision would be appealed.
Barbier decided that BP had acted with a "known risk awareness" and rejected BP's assertion that the other parties were equally responsible for the oil spill. His ruling states that BP "employees are taking risks that cause the greatest environmental disaster in US history," that the company is "frivolous," and stipulates that some of BP's important decisions "are primarily driven by the desire to save time and money, rather than ensuring that the wells are safe. "
The ruling means that BP, which has spent more than $ 28 billion on cleanup costs and damage claims, may be responsible for another $ 18 billion loss, four times the maximum punishment of the Clean Water Act and many more times than $ 3.5 billion BP has been allocated. Barbier decides that BP has acted with "a waiver of consciously known risk." BP strongly disagrees with the verdict and appeals it immediately.
Claim settlement
On March 2, 2012, BP agreed to complete about 100,000 claims filled by individuals and businesses affected by the oil spill. According to the group representing the plaintiff, the agreement has no special restrictions; BP expects to pay about $ 7.8 billion. BP says that it has $ 9.5 billion in assets set aside in trust to pay claims, and the settlement will not raise the $ 37.2 billion the company budgeted for the costs associated with the spill. Individual complainants will not be asked to approve the settlement, but experts predict that such claims will not be significant. As of December 2013, BP has paid nearly $ 13 billion in claims to businesses, individuals and governments.
Not included in the settlement is a claim by the US state and a federal fine. David Uhlmann, a lawyer who has served the environmental crime department of the Justice Department, believes completion of a personal claim will facilitate an agreement between BP and various government departments reached. Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & amp; Co agrees.
On August 13, BP asked US District Judge Carl Barbier to agree to a settlement, saying his actions "do not constitute gross negligence or intentional abuse". Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the company responsible is responsible for economic damage of $ 75 million, provided it does not show "major negligence" and the federal government takes the next $ 1 billion. In response to BP's submission and to ensure that BP is unable to use its filing and the possibility of settlement receipt to escape from the assessment of negligence, on 31 August 2012, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a paper describing the spill as an example of "major negligence and deliberate mistakes". The government also suggested that Judge Barbier should ignore BP's claims that minimize the environmental and economic impact of the oil spill. They cite environmental damage that "can cause negative impacts on swamp vegetation for years to decades." BP rejected the indictment saying "BP believes it is not very negligent and hopes to present evidence of this issue in court in January." A major omission decision will result in a fourfold increase in Clean Water fines, which will result in penalties of approximately $ 17.6 billion, and will increase damage to other clothing as well.
On January 13, 2013, Judge Barbier agreed on a medical benefit section of the proposed $ 35 billion partial $ 35 settlement. Persons living at least 60 days along the coast affected by oil or engaging in cleaning can document one or more specific health conditions caused by oil or dispersants that qualify for benefits, as well as those injured during cleaning. BP also agreed to spend $ 105 million over five years to create a Gulf Coast health outreach program and pay for a medical examination. According to the group that presented the plaintiff, the deal has no specific restrictions.
On July 2, Justice Barbier named former FBI director Louis Freeh to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations of unrighteousness in the Court's Supreme Court Settlement Program. Freeh found that the claims process was not corrupt, but found several incidents of conflict of interest and fraud.
BP claims the process is rife with fraud, and sues a Texas lawyer for allegedly representing tens of thousands of "ghost" clients. Lawyers for lawyers, Robert McDuff, called BP's actions "one more of a series of attempts to abandon the settlements it agreed to."
In January 2014, a panel of the US Fifth Appeal Court rejected BP's attempt to curb what payments were described as "fictitious" and "unreasonable" claims against settlement funds for businesses and people affected by the oil spill. BP says the settlement administration of 2012 is undermined by the fact that people without damage can actually file claims. The court ruled that BP did not explain "how this court or district court should identify or even know the whereabouts of a 'non-injury applicant'." BP initially projected that the settlement cost would be $ 7.8 billion. By the end of October 2013, it has raised this estimate to $ 9.2 billion, saying it could be "significantly higher."
In September 2014, Halliburton agreed to settle most of his legal claims against him over the Deepwater spill by paying $ 1.1 billion into trust through three installments over two years.
On July 2, 2015, BP and five states announced a $ 18.5 billion settlement to be used for Clean Water fines and various claims.
BP pleaded guilty
On November 14, 2012, BP and the US Justice Department reached an agreement under which BP agreed to pay a $ 4.5 billion fine and other payments, the largest of its kind in US history. BP also agreed to plead guilty to 11 counts of crimes linked to the deaths of 11 workers. The Justice Department also filed criminal charges against one BP employee in April 2012 and against three BP employees in November 2012. Two employees have been indicted on murder charges for acting negligently in their oversight of key security tests conducted on the rig before the explosion and failure to warn onshore engineers on issues in drilling operations. Two employees were charged with a barrier of justice and lied to federal investigators. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the criminal investigation is not over and that more corporate officers may be prosecuted. In addition, the US government temporarily bans BP from new federal contracts due to "lack of business integrity". The request was received by Judge Sarah Vance from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on January 31, 2013.
The settlement includes a $ 2.394 billion payment for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $ 1.15 billion for the Petroleum Spill Obligation Liability Fund, $ 350 million for the National Academy of Sciences for oil spill prevention research and response, $ 100 million to North Land Conservation Fund Wet America, $ 6 million for General Treasury and $ 525 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission. BP still faces the payment of fines under the Natural Resources Damage Assessment and payments to the affected countries. The settlement has also not resolved what might be the greatest punishment associated with spillage, a fine under the Clean Water Act. Potential fines for spills under the law are $ 1,100 to $ 4,300 per barrel spill, which means the fines could reach $ 21 billion.
On January 3, 2013, the US Justice Department announced "Transocean Deepwater Inc. has agreed to plead guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and pay a total of $ 1.4 billion in civil and criminal penalties and fines". $ 800 million fell to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund, $ 300 million for the Petroleum Fund Liability Fund, $ 150 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and $ 150 million for the National Academy of Sciences. MOEX Offshore 2007 agreed to pay $ 45 million for the Petroleum Fund Liability Fund, $ 25 million for the five Gulf states and $ 20 million for additional environmental projects.
References
External links
- Ronen Perry, "The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Limitation of Civilian Responsibility", Washington Law Review , Vol. 86, pp. 1-68, 2011 (discussing the legal framework)
- BP loses bid to cut maximum $ 13.7 billion Gulf spill fines - MSN (February 20, 2015)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments