Court Hears Argument in BP Case

ATTORNEY: H. ADAM PRUSSIN
POMERANTZ MONITOR, MAY/JUNE 2013 

As we have previously discussed in these pages, Pomerantz is currently representing several U.S. and foreign institutional investors seeking to recover investment losses caused by BP’s fraudulent statements issued prior to, and after, the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd. prevents investors from pursuing federal securities fraud claims for their BP common stock losses (because those shares traded on the London Stock Exchange), we are arguing that Texas state common law fills this enforcement void. 

On May 10, 2013, Judge Keith Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held oral argument on BP’s motion to dismiss our claims. 

As we expected, much of the argument focused on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a Supreme Court doctrine which says that state statutes or regulations may not “clearly discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce”; “impose a burden on interstate commerce incommensurate with the local benefits secured;” or “have the practical effect of ‘extraterritorial’ control of commerce occurring entirely outside the boundaries of the state in question.” BP argued that this doctrine prevented Texas state common law from reaching BP’s misconduct. In response, we pointed out that the doctrine did not apply to common law claims and that those claims targeted BP’s misstatements, not the underlying securities transactions on the London Stock Exchange. We also advanced a variety of policy-based arguments in support of our position. 

Although it is impossible to predict how the Court will come out on this issue, we believe that the oral argument advanced our cause. We expect the Court to issue a decision on the motion in the next few months.