DOCSLIB.ORG

In Re Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Class Action Litigation 12-CV-00900-First

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Re Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Class Action Litigation 12-CV-00900-First Case 4:12-cv-00900 Document 69 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/12 Page 1 of 124 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re ANADARKO PETROLEUM Lead Case No. 4:12-CV-00900 CORP. CLASS ACTION LITIGATION Honorable Keith P. Ellison FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP John C. Browne Jeremy P. Robinson Brett Van Benthysen 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs Case 4:12-cv-00900 Document 69 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/12 Page 2 of 124 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES I. NATURE OF THE ACTION .............................................................................................. 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE .......................................................................................... 9 III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 9 A. Lead Plaintiffs ......................................................................................................... 9 B. Defendants ............................................................................................................ 10 1. Anadarko...................................................................................................10 2. The Individual Defendants ........................................................................ 10 C. Relevant Non-Parties ............................................................................................ 11 IV. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 12 A. Anadarko Touts Itself As The “Premier Deepwater Producer In The Gulf Of Mexico” And Assures Investors That A “Safety First Culture Is A Way Of Life At Anadarko” ........................................................................................... 12 B. Anadarko And BP Become Co-Owners Of The Macondo Oil Well And Anadarko Is Provided With Detailed Information Regarding The Well ............. 14 V. DRILLING THE MACONDO OIL WELL ...................................................................... 25 A. Overview Of The Deepwater Drilling Process And The Initial Plan For TheMacondo Well ............................................................................................... 25 B. Anadarko And BP Start Drilling The Macondo Well And Immediately Encounter Significant Delays And Additional Costs ............................................ 26 C. “The Nightmare Well”: Faced With Extensive Delays And Millions Of Dollars Over-Budget, Anadarko and BP Sacrifice Safety In Order To Reduce Costs And Save Time ............................................................................... 28 1. Anadarko Approved The Use Of A Less Safe Well Casing Design That Saved Time And Money ................................................................... 30 2. Anadarko Approved The Use Of A Dangerously Small Number Of Well Casing Centralizers In Order To Save Time: “Who Cares, It’s Done, End Of Story, [It] Will Probably Be Fine” .............................. 36 3. Anadarko Approved The Failure To Conduct Proper Cement Circulation Or Properly Test The Cement Job ......................................... 39 Case 4:12-cv-00900 Document 69 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/12 Page 3 of 124 VI. THE DEEPWATER HORIZON RIG EXPLODES AND THE MACONDO CO- OWNERS ARE UNABLE TO STEM THE FLOOD OF OIL GUSHING INTO THEGULF OF MEXICO ................................................................................................ 43 A. The Explosion And Fire On The Deepwater Horizon ..........................................43 B. The Macondo Co-Owners Are Unable To Contain The Oil Spill For Months.................................................................................................................. 44 C. The Woefully Deficient And Materially False And Misleading Oil Spill Response Plan And Exploration Plan ................................................................... 47 1. Government Regulations Required An OSRP And EP To Be Publicly Filed for the Macondo Well ........................................................ 47 2. The OSRP and EP Were Materially False ................................................ 50 VII. THE TRUTH IS REVEALED ........................................................................................... 54 VIII. DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS DURING THE CLASS PERIOD ..................................................................................... 67 B. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements In The OSRP and EP ................................................................................................................... 67 C. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements Published On Anadarko’s Website Throughout The Class Period .............................................. 70 D. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements Made During The Second Quarter Of 2009 ................................................................................ 73 E. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements Made During The Third Quarter Of 2009 ................................................................................... 73 F. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements Made During The Fourth Quarter Of 2009 ................................................................................. 75 G. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements Made During The First Quarter Of 2010 ..................................................................................... 79 H. Defendants’ Materially False And Misleading Statements Made During The Second Quarter Of 2010 ................................................................................ 83 IX. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS CONFIRMING ANADARKO’S WILFUL OR RECKLESS MISCONDUCT AT THE MACONDO WELL .......................................... 88 A. Defendants Acknowledge That Recklessness Or Willful Misconduct Caused The Macondo Disaster ............................................................................. 88 ii Case 4:12-cv-00900 Document 69 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/12 Page 4 of 124 B. Anadarko Willfully Or Recklessly Ignored BP’s Abysmal Safety Record .......... 89 C. Anadarko Is Sued By The U.S. Government For Its Role In The Disaster .......... 94 D. Numerous Investigations Confirm That The Spill Was Preventable And Resulted From Reckless Decisions Made To Save Time And Money ................ 96 E. Anadarko Sues BP And Admits That The Macondo Well Disaster Was Caused By A Series Of Deliberate Or Reckless Decisions Onboard The DeepwaterHorizon ............................................................................................. 101 F. Anadarko Pays $4 Billion To BP To Settle Macondo-Related Claims .............. 103 X. ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS ................................................................ 103 XI. LOSS CAUSATION ........................................................................................................ 106 XII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................ 111 XIII. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTORY SAFE HARBOR ................................... 113 XIV. PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE ................................................................................... 114 XV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT............................................ 115 COUNT ONE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5 PROMULGATED THEREUNDER AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS.............................................................................................................. 115 COUNT TWO FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 20(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ................................................................... 118 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .................................................................................................. 119 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 119 iii Case 4:12-cv-00900 Document 69 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/12 Page 5 of 124 Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands (collectively, “Lead Plaintiffs”) bring this consolidated class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of themselves and all other persons and entities, other than Defendants, their affiliates, and BP (defined below in ¶29), who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded securities of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (together with its affiliates, including Anadarko E&P Company, LP, “Anadarko” or the “Company”) between June 12, 2009 and June 9, 2010 (the “Class Period) and were injured thereby. I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This securities class action arises out of one of the largest environmental catastrophes in United States history. The April 20, 2010 explosion and fire on board the Deepwater Horizon oil-rig, located forty-nine miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico, killed eleven people and injured dozens more. The resulting oil spill from the ruptured Macondo well lasted approximately 87 days and leaked approximately 206 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, polluting hundreds of miles of beaches,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division
    Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 113 Filed in TXSD on 02/14/11 Page 1 of 182 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re BP plc Securities Litigation No. 4:10-md-02185 Honorable Keith P. Ellison LEAD PLAINTIFFS NEW YORK AND OHIO’S CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR ALL PURCHASERS OF BP SECURITIES FROM JANUARY 16, 2007 THROUGH MAY 28, 2010 Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 113 Filed in TXSD on 02/14/11 Page 2 of 182 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................11 III. THE PARTIES ..................................................................................................................11 A. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................11 B. Defendants .............................................................................................................12 C. Non-Party ...............................................................................................................17 IV. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................17 A. BP’s Relevant Operations ......................................................................................17 B. BP’s Process Safety Controls Were Deficient Prior to the Class Period ...............18
    [Show full text]
  • Deep-Sea Observations at Hydrocarbon Drilling Locations: Contributions from the SERPENT Project After 120 Field Visits Andrew Gates University of Southampton
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health - Papers Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health 2017 Deep-sea observations at hydrocarbon drilling locations: contributions from the SERPENT Project after 120 field visits Andrew Gates University of Southampton Mark Benfield Louisiana State University David Booth University of Technology Sydney Ashley Fowler University of Technology Sydney Danielle Skropeta University of Wollongong, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Publication Details Gates, A. R., Benfield, M. C., Booth, D. J., Fowler, A. M., Skropeta, D. & Jones, D. O.B.. (2017). Deep-sea observations at hydrocarbon drilling locations: contributions from the SERPENT Project after 120 field visits. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 137 463-479. Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Deep-sea observations at hydrocarbon drilling locations: contributions from the SERPENT Project after 120 field visits Abstract The ERS PENT Project has been running for over ten years. In this time scientists from universities and research institutions have made more than 120 visits to oil rigs, drill ships and survey vessels operated by 16 oil companies, in order to work with the industry's Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV). Visits have taken place in Europe, North and South America, Africa and Australasia at water depths from 100 m to nearly 3000 m. The project has directly produced >40 peer reviewed publications and data from the project's >2600 entry online image and video archive have been used in many others.
    [Show full text]
  • ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION Doug Lawler Vice
    www.anadarko.com | NYSE: APC ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION INVESTOR RELATIONS CONTACTS: John Colglazier Vice President 832/636-2306 Dean Hennings Doug Lawler Manager 832/636-2462 Vice President, Operations Wayne Rodrigs Manager 832/636-2305 May 25, 2011 www.anadarko.com | NYSE: APC Cautionary Language Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Other Matters This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The words “believe,” “expect,” “plan” or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon Anadarko’s current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential impact thereon. While Anadarko believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions as and when made, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to have been correct. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this presentation, including the following: Anadarko's ability to successfully drill, complete, test and produce the wells and prospects identified in this presentation; to meet financial and operating guidance; to execute the 2011 capital program and meet the long-term goals identified in this presentation; the outcome of events in the Gulf of Mexico relating to the Deepwater Horizon event and the Company’s ability to successfully defend its stated position under the corresponding Operating Agreement; the legislative and regulatory changes, such as delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits, exploration plans andoil spill response plans, that may impact the Company’s Gulf of Mexico and International offshore operations resulting from the Deepwater Horizon event.
    [Show full text]
  • Anadarko Petroleum Co. Civil Penalty Ruling
    Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 15606 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater * Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, * MDL 2179 on April 20, 2010, * * * SECTION J This Document Applies To: * * * JUDGE CARL BARBIER No. 10-4536, United States of America v. BP * Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. * * MAG. JUDGE SALLY SHUSHAN * * ——————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PENALTY PHASE Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 15606 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 34 CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. Factual Background ......................................................................................................... 3 B. The Government’s Complaint.......................................................................................... 4 C. Relevant Prior Rulings ..................................................................................................... 6 D. The CWA’s Civil Penalty Factors ................................................................................... 7 II. Findings of Fact ..................................................................................................................... 8 A. Factor 1: Seriousness ....................................................................................................... 8 B. Factor 2: Economic Benefit ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Halliburton Company
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q [X] Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 OR [ ] Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the transition period from _____ to _____ Commission File Number 001-03492 HALLIBURTON COMPANY (a Delaware corporation) 75-2677995 3000 North Sam Houston Parkway East Houston, Texas 77032 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) Telephone Number – Area Code (281) 871-2699 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Petion to Object to the Anadarko Petroleum Frederick Compressor
    BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF ) Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC/Anadarko ) PETITION TO OBJECT TO Petroleum, Frederick Natural Gas ) ISSUANCE OF A STATE Compressor Station ) TITLE V OPERATING ) PERMIT Permit Number: 95OPWE035 ) ) Petition Number: VIII-2010- Issued by the Colorado Department of ) Public Health and Environment, Air ) Pollution Control Division ) ) PETITON FOR OBJECTION Pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R. § 70.8(d), and applicable state regulations, WildEarth Guardians hereby petitions the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter “Administrator” or “EPA”) to object to the July 14, 2010 Response of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (hereafter “Division”) to the October 8, 2009 Order by the Administrator objecting to the issuance of the renewed Title V Permit for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation’s (hereafter “Anadarko’s”) Frederick Compressor Station, Permit Number 95OPWE035 (hereafter “Title V Permit”), which was issued on January 1, 2007.1 The Title V Permit, the Technical Review Document for the Title V Permit, and the Division’s Response to Objection are attached hereto. See Exh. 1, Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC, Frederick Compressor Station Title V Permit, Permit Number 95OPWE035 (January 1, 2007); Exh. 2, Technical Review Document (“TRD”) for Renewal of Operating Permit 95OPWE035 (January 1, 2007) and Technical Review Document Addendum (April 28, 2008); Exh. 3, Division Response to October 8, 2009 Objection by the Administrator (July 14, 2010). In her objection, the Administrator found that the Division “failed to adequately support its determination of the source for PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and title V purposes.” See Ex.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Water Depth Workshop 2011
    Table of Contents Workshop Steering Committee ....................................................................................... iii Session Chairs ................................................................................................................ iii Recorder Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... v Administrative Staff Acknowledgements ........................................................................ vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction to Technical Summaries .............................................................................. 5 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #1 – Surface BOPs ...................................... 9 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #2 – Subsea BOPs ................................... 17 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #3 – Well Drilling and Completion Design and Barriers ............................................................................................................ 23 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #4 – Pre-Incident Planning, Preparedness, and Response .............................................................................................................. 33 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #5 – Post Incident Containment and Well Control ............................................................................................................ 37 Technical Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 20 Other Released Parties
    Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6430-38 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT 20 Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6430-38 Filed 05/03/12 Page 2 of 6 Other Released Parties Abdon Callais Offshore, Inc. Admiral Robert J Papp Jr. Admiral Thad Allen Admiral Towing, LLC Aerotek, Inc. Airborne Support, Inc. Airborne Support International, Inc. Alford Safety Services Inc. Alford Services Inc. Ameri-Force, Inc. Ameri-Force Craft Services, Inc. American Pollution Control Corporation Anadarko Petroleum Company Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Anadarko E&P Company LP Apex Environmental Services, LLC Art Catering, Inc. Ashland Services, LLC B&B Environmental Services, Inc. Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, Inc. BJ Services Company, USA Blue Marlin Services of Acadiana, LLC Bobby Lynn's Marina, Inc. BP America Inc. BP America Production Company BP Company North America Inc. BP Corporation North America Inc. BP Energy Company BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. BP Global Special Products (Americas) Inc. BP Holdings North America Limited BP Exploration & Production Inc. BP p.l.c. BP Products North America Inc. BP International Ltd. BP Corporation North America Inc. Savings Plan Investment Oversight Committee Brett Cocales Brian Morel Cabildo Services, LLC Cabildo Staffing, LLC Cahaba Disaster Recovery LLC Cal Dive International, Inc. Cameron Corporation Cameron International Corporation Cameron International Corporation f/k/a Cooper Cameron Corporation Cameron International Corporation d/b/a/ Cameron Systems Corporation Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health L.L.C. Chill Boats L.L.C. Chouest Shorebase Services, LLC Clean Harbors, Inc. Clean Tank LLC Clean Tank Inc. Core Industries, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Ferguson V. BP
    Case 1:10-cv-00281 Document 1 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES and CONSTANCE FERGUSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT vs. JURY DEMAND BP, PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-10-281 COMPANY NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP.; MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, LLC; TRANSOCEAN LTD.; TRANSOCEAN, INC.; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC.; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION; and M-I, LLC, Defendants. Plaintiffs James and Constance Ferguson, individually and as representatives of the class defined herein, bring this action against Defendants BP, PLC; BP America, Inc.; BP Corporation North America, Inc.; BP Company North America, Inc.; BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP Products North America, Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Moex Offshore 2007, LLC; Transocean Ltd.; Transocean, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Cameron International Corporation f/k/a Cooper Cameron Corporation; and M-I, LLC, as follows: {00406819.DOC-1} - 1 - Case 1:10-cv-00281 Document 1 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 29 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are owners of property on the Gulf of Mexico on the southern shore of the State of Alabama. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendants for losses and damages arising out of the catastrophic and avoidable oil spill off the Gulf Coast caused by the April 20, 2010 explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig (“Deepwater Horizon”), and the subsequent sinking of that rig and the discharge of oil into the surrounding water.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon
    Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 14021 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater * Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, * MDL 2179 on April 20, 2010, * * * SECTION J This Document Applies To: * * No. 10-2771, In re: The Complaint and Petition * JUDGE BARBIER of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al. * * and * MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN * No. 10-4536, United States of America v. BP * Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. * ——————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PHASE TWO TRIAL Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 14021 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 44 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court enters these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relative to the Phase Two trial. If any finding is in truth a conclusion of law or any conclusion stated is in truth a finding of fact, it shall be deemed so, labels notwithstanding. CONTENTS I. Introduction and Procedural History ................................................................................. 3 II. Source Control Segment ....................................................................................................... 5 A. Parties to the Source Control Segment ............................................................................. 5 B. Stipulated Facts; Timeline of Source Control Events ...................................................... 6 i. Terms and Definitions.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 030513 MDL 2179 PM1314 JS Spot Ckd Rest Merged In
    1815 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 3 4 IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG * Docket 10-MD-2179 DEEPWATER HORIZON IN THE * 5 GULF OF MEXICO ON APRIL 20, 2010 * Section J * 6 Applies to: * New Orleans, Louisiana * 7 Docket 10-CV-02771, * March 5, 2013 IN RE: THE COMPLAINT AND * 8 PETITION OF TRITON ASSET * LEASING GmbH, et al * 9 * Docket 10-CV-4536, * 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. * BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, * 11 INC., et al * * 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 14 DAY 6, AFTERNOON SESSION TRANSCRIPT OF NONJURY TRIAL 15 BEFORE THE HONORABLE CARL J. BARBIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 Appearances : 18 For the Plaintiffs: Domengeaux Wright Roy 19 & Edwards, LLC BY: JAMES P. ROY, ESQ. 20 556 Jefferson Street, Suite 500 Post Office Box 3668 21 Lafayette, Louisiana 70502 22 For the Plaintiffs: Herman Herman & Katz, LLC 23 BY: STEPHEN J. HERMAN, ESQ. 820 O'Keefe Avenue 24 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 25 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT 1816 1 Appearances : 2 For the Plaintiffs: Cunningham Bounds, LLC 3 BY: ROBERT T. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ. 1601 Dauphin Street 4 Mobile, Alabama 36604 5 For the Plaintiffs: Lewis Kullman Sterbcow & Abramson 6 BY: PAUL M. STERBCOW, ESQ. 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2615 7 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 8 For the Plaintiffs: Breit Drescher Imprevento 9 & Walker, PC BY: JEFFREY A. BREIT, ESQ. 10 600 22nd Street, Suite 402 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 11 12 For the Plaintiffs: Leger & Shaw BY: WALTER J. LEGER JR., ESQ. 13 600 Carondelet Street, 9th Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 14 15 For the Plaintiffs: Watts Guerra Craft, LLP BY: MIKAL C.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Edgar, Et Al. V. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Et Al. 17-CV
    Case 4:17-cv-01372 Document 35 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/17 Page 1 of 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ROBERT EDGAR, Individually and On § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-cv-01372 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, § § [CORRECTED]1 AMENDED CLASS Plaintiff, § ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION v. § OF THE SECURITIES LAWS § ANADARKO PETROLEUM § CLASS ACTION CORPORATION, R.A. WALKER, and § ROBERT G. GWIN, § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. § § § § Lead Plaintiff Iron Workers Benefit and Pension Fund – Iron Workers District Counsel Philadelphia & Vicinity (“Philadelphia Iron Workers” or “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by its undersigned attorneys, for its complaint against Defendants Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (“Anadarko”), R. A. Walker, Robert G. Gwin, Robert K. Reeves, and Darrell E. Hollek (“Defendants”), alleges the following upon personal knowledge as to itself and its own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, based on an investigation made by and through its counsel. I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Anadarko between February 8, 2016 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against Anadarko 1 Filed with Defendants’ consent. 1 Case 4:17-cv-01372 Document 35 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/17 Page 2 of 44 and certain of its top officials. 2. Anadarko engages in oil and gas exploration, development, and production, as well as other oil industry-related businesses.
    [Show full text]