First phase of BP spill trial ends
Just days before the third anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, the first phase of a trial to determine if BP or its partners are guilty of gross negligence in the disaster came to a close on Wednesday.
April 18, 2013 at 07:43 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Just days before the third anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, the first phase of a trial to determine if BP or its partners are guilty of gross negligence in the disaster came to a close on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ordered an 80-day period in which to determine findings before moving on to the second phase of the trial, which will determine damages in the spill that killed 11 people and dumped 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The U.S. government, along with people and businesses affected by the spill, brought the suit. If Barbier determines, following the trial's first phase, that BP or its co-defendants acted with reckless indifference or wanton misconduct, the three companies could see a four-fold increase in the Clean Water Act penalties for which they are liable.
BP on Wednesday pointed the finger at its drilling partners—Halliburton Co., which cemented the Macondo well and Transocean Ltd., which operated the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig. On Wednesday, expert witnesses for BP argued that the cement Halliburton used to plug the well was unstable and needed remixing before use. Another witness testified that Transocean's rig captain failed to activate the well's blowout preventer, even though he had between four and eight minutes after the start of the disaster in which to do so, Thomson Reuters reports.
BP is already on the hook for significant damages connected to the spill. A settlement with individuals and businesses that suffered economic or medical damages in the wake of the spill will cost the company at least $8.5 billion. That amount could grow, the oil company said last month, because the claims that are being paid out are higher and more numerous than expected.
For ongoing InsideCounsel coverage of the BP oil spill, see:
Just days before the third anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, the first phase of a trial to determine if BP or its partners are guilty of gross negligence in the disaster came to a close on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge
The U.S. government, along with people and businesses affected by the spill, brought the suit. If Barbier determines, following the trial's first phase, that BP or its co-defendants acted with reckless indifference or wanton misconduct, the three companies could see a four-fold increase in the Clean Water Act penalties for which they are liable.
BP on Wednesday pointed the finger at its drilling partners—Halliburton Co., which cemented the Macondo well and Transocean Ltd., which operated the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig. On Wednesday, expert witnesses for BP argued that the cement Halliburton used to plug the well was unstable and needed remixing before use. Another witness testified that Transocean's rig captain failed to activate the well's blowout preventer, even though he had between four and eight minutes after the start of the disaster in which to do so, Thomson Reuters reports.
BP is already on the hook for significant damages connected to the spill. A settlement with individuals and businesses that suffered economic or medical damages in the wake of the spill will cost the company at least $8.5 billion. That amount could grow, the oil company said last month, because the claims that are being paid out are higher and more numerous than expected.
For ongoing InsideCounsel coverage of the BP oil spill, see:
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 AllBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 2HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 3Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 4In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
- 5How Kirkland Has 'Reinvented a Meaningful Aspect' of Funds Work
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