Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

January 19, 2018

In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation This document relates to Alameda County Emp. Retirement Assoc.
v.
BP p.l.c. Avalon Holdings Inc.
v.
BP p.l.c. South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
v.
BP p.l.c. Mondrian Global Equity Fund, L.P.
v.
BP p.l.c. Stichting Pensionenfonds Metaal en Techniek
v.
BP p.l.c. HESTA Super Fund
v.
BP p.l.c. New York City Employees' Retirement System
v.
BP p.l.c. Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan
v.
BP p.l.c. Ark. Teacher Retirement System
v.
BP p.l.c. The Bank of America Pension Plan
v.
BP p.l.c. Deka Investment GmbH
v.
BP p.l.c. DiNapoli
v.
BP p.l.c. IBM United Kingdom Pension Trust Limited
v.
BP p.l.c. Merseyside Pension Fund
v.
BP p.l.c. Pension Reserves Inv. Mgmt. Bd. of Mass.
v.
BP p.l.c. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd.
v.
BP p.l.c. Virginia Retirement System
v.
BP p.l.c. Washington State Investment Board
v.
BP p.l.c

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HON. KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are Defendant Robert Malone's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 1584) and Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 1587). The parties request reconsideration of the Court's June 30, 2017 Order (Dkt. No. 1581) (“Order”). Mr. Malone requests reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims based on his April 7, 2007 statement in BP Magazine. (Dkt. No. 1584 at 3.) Plaintiffs request reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of claims based upon statements in the 2006 Annual Review and a statement by Mr. Malone in BP Magazine. (Dkt. No. 1587 at 13.) Upon reviewing the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motions for reconsideration should be denied.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration. Shepherd v. Internat'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2004). Reconsideration motions are generally analyzed under the standards for motions to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or motions for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). Id. (citing Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1998)). If a motion for reconsideration is filed no later than twenty-eight days after the judgment or order of which the party complains, it is considered a Rule 59(e) motion. See id., Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The parties filed their reconsideration motions within twenty-eight days of entry of the Court's order, so the Court analyzes the motions under Rule 59(e).

         A motion under Rule 59(e) “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate where the motion clearly establishes either a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). Relief is also appropriate when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law. Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). Motions under Rule 59(e) “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Id. A motion for reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-79 (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990)); Sooter v. Siemens Indus., Inc., No. 4:14-CV-3637, 2015 WL 1540161, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2015). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy that courts should use sparingly. Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.

         II. DEFENDANT MALONE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

         A. Request for Reconsideration of 2007 Statement

         In its June 30 Order, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims based on one of Mr. Malone's April 7, 2007 statements in BP Magazine. Doc. No. 1581 at 26. The statement at issue (hereinafter “2007 Statement”) is the following: “This year, we'll complete a large fibre optic system in the Gulf to connect all of our deepwater fields to shore with a high-fidelity data network. This network will significantly improve safety and operations efficiency.” Doc. No. 1361 (Alameda Compl.) at ¶ 359(c). Defendants ask that the Court dismiss the claims against Mr. Malone that are based on the 2007 Statement because Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to support a conclusion that the statement was false or that Mr. Malone had the requisite scienter.

         Mr. Malone has not met the high standard for reconsideration. Reconsideration is appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, there has been an intervening change in the law, or the motion clearly establishes either a manifest error of law or fact. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005); Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567. Mr. Malone has neither put forth new evidence nor cited to an intervening change in law, so the Court has re-examined its order to determine whether the Order contains a “manifest error of law or fact.”

         The Court finds that it has not made a manifest error of law or fact with regard to falsity or scienter. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants, including Mr. Malone, knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that BP's process safety procedures did not adequately address known risks of deepwater drilling and misrepresented concrete steps purportedly being taken to increase safety at offshore sites. Doc. No. 1361 at ¶¶ 127, 360.

         Mr. Malone also argues that the claims based on the alleged misstatement should be dismissed because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate loss causation. Doc. No. 1584 at 4. The parties dispute when the fiber optic network was completed, so it would be premature to dismiss on this basis. Additionally, this was not raised in the original briefing on the motion to dismiss. Motions for reconsideration “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Sooter v. Siemens Indus., Inc., No. 4:14-CV-3637, 2015 WL 1540161, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2015) (quoting Ross, 426 F.3d at 763). Similarly, Defendants' arguments regarding the statute of repose were not raised in the original briefing.

         B. Request for Clarification of Ruling on Section 20(a) Claims

         Defendants ask the Court to clarify its ruling on Section 20(a) claims against Mr. Malone and other individual Defendants. Defendants raised their Section 20(a) arguments in the briefing on the motion to dismiss, and the Court will clarify its analysis here.

         Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act establishes secondary liability for persons who control others who violate Section 10(b). Plaintiffs must show that there was an underlying securities fraud violation and prove that the controlling person against whom the Section 20(a) claim has been brought had actual power over the controlled person and induced or participated in the alleged violation. In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig., 922 F.Supp.2d 600, 639 (S.D. Tex. 2013); Dennis v. General Imaging, Inc., 918 F.2d 496, 509 (5th Cir.1990). Section 20(a) claims are subject only to the pleading requirements of Rule 8. In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig., 922 F.Supp.2d at 640. A plaintiff must plead facts indicating that defendants not directly involved in the making of actionable misrepresentations nonetheless “had the requisite power to directly or indirectly control or influence corporate policy.” G.A. Thompson & Co. Inc. v. Partridge, 636 F.2d 945, 958 (5th Cir. 1981). Allegations that defendants participated ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.