Halliburton Sues BP In Texas - Alleges Misrepresentation

- Halliburton Files Lawsuit Against BP

Friday, September 02, 2011
Halliburton Co.

On September 1, 2011, Halliburton filed claims against BP in Texas state court for negligent misrepresentation, business disparagement and defamation related to the April 20, 2010, Macondo incident. Halliburton has also moved to amend its claims against BP in the multi-district litigation in New Orleans, Louisiana, to include fraud.

These allegations are based upon BP providing Halliburton with inaccurate information prior to performing cementing services on April 19, 2010, and BP's use of and omission of that information in subsequent public statements, filings and governmental investigations.

Halliburton has learned that BP provided Halliburton inaccurate information about the actual location of hydrocarbon zones in the Macondo well. The actual location of the hydrocarbon zones is critical information required prior to performing cementing services and is necessary to achieve desired cement placement.

Halliburton remains confident that all the work it performed with respect to the Macondo well was completed in accordance with BP's specifications for its well construction plan and instructions, and that Halliburton is fully indemnified under the contract.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Halliburton Sues BP In Texas - Alleges Misrepresentation

Friday, September 02, 2011
Dow Jones Newswires
by Melodie Warner

Halliburton filed a negligent misrepresentation, business disparagement and defamation lawsuit against BP in Texas state court related to the April 2010 Macondo explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Halliburton has also moved to amend its multi-district litigation in New Orleans to include fraud claims against BP.

The oilfield-services company alleges BP provided Halliburton with inaccurate information--such as the actual location of hydrocarbon zones in the Macondo well--before cementing services began on April 19, 2010. Halliburton also claims BP has used and omitted that information in subsequent public statements, filings and governmental investigations.

"This lawsuit is the latest attempt by Halliburton to divert attention from its role in the Deepwater Horizon incident and its failure to meet its responsibilities," BP said in a statement. The energy giant said it has accepted responsibility for responding to the spill and is accordingly paying costs and compensation. BP "expects other parties to accept their responsibilities and bear their share of the costs," the statement said.

Last fall, BP released a report that largely faulted Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and Halliburton for last year's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill. While government investigations have generally assigned blame to both BP and its contractors, Transocean disclosed an internal investigation in June that focused almost entirely on decisions made by BP.

Halliburton said Friday it remains confident that all the work it performed was completed in accordance with BP's specifications, and that Halliburton is fully indemnified under the contract.

Shares of Halliburton were trading 2.8% lower at $41.83 moments after the opening bell.

Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.


LINK 
The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Latest Deepwater Horizon Headlines


Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too
LINK

Lawsuit Against BP Tossed

- Lawsuit Against BP Tossed

Monday, July 18, 2011
Houston Chronicle
by Tom Fowler

A federal judge has dismissed racketeering claims brought by Gulf Coast businesses and residents against BP for last year's massive oil spill.

The plaintiffs alleged that BP defrauded regulators in connection with the safety of its drilling operations and its response to the spill. They invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law typically used against organized crime.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier dismissed the claims Friday. The decision does not affect other damage claims still pending from the same plaintiffs.

The judge also set aside a lawsuit filed against BP by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., one of its partners on the Macondo well. He ruled that the two companies' prior contractual agreements required them to try to settle such disputes through arbitration before suing.

Anadarko argued that BP had voided that requirement by, among other things, demanding that Anadarko produce evidence in the civil case.

"We respect today's decision, which does nothing to diminish our claims; it simply addresses the venue in which they may be resolved," Anadarko spokesman John Christiansen said in a statement.

Anadarko has not set aside funds explicitly for possible spill-related liabilities but has said during analyst meetings that it has up to $3.4 billion in cash on hand and a $5 billion credit line it acquired after the accident.

BP, which has set aside more than $40 billion in reserves, said in a prepared statement after the ruling that Anadarko shares liability under the federal Oil Pollution Act.

"Anadarko has blatantly disregarded its responsibilities to the residents of the Gulf Coast by failing to pay its fair share of the costs relating to the accident and resulting spill," it said. "BP remains focused on ensuring that Anadarko lives up to its obligations as a co-leasehold owner of the Macondo prospect and as a 'responsible party' under OPA."

Copyright (c) 2011, Houston Chronicle. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

LINK 
The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Latest Deepwater Horizon Headlines

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too
LINK

Pride, Ensco Enter MOU in Merger Lawsuit

- Pride, Ensco Enter MOU in Merger Lawsuit

Friday, May 20, 2011
Pride International Inc

Pride announced it and the other named defendants in the previously disclosed stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the proposed merger with Ensco entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation. As part of the memorandum of understanding and subject to the approval of the Ensco board of directors, Pride and Ensco agreed to, among other things, enter into an amendment to the merger agreement.

The amendment would reduce the fee payable by Pride in connection with certain terminations of the merger agreement to $195 million from $260 million. The amendment also would shorten the "tail period" for certain transactions that could trigger a termination fee from 12 months to nine months after termination. Under the amendment, the $195 million fee would be payable by Pride if the agreement is terminated under specified circumstances, including (1) the decision by the Pride board of directors to accept a superior proposal, (2) an adverse change in the recommendation of the Pride board of directors or (3) a failure to obtain approval by Pride stockholders after public disclosure of an alternative business combination proposal before the stockholder meeting and either the Pride board of directors determines such proposal to be a superior proposal or, within nine months after termination of the merger agreement, Pride enters into a definitive agreement or consummates an alternative business combination proposal.

The amendment also would eliminate the "force the vote" provision applicable to Pride such that Pride would not be required to submit the adoption of the merger agreement to its stockholders if the Pride board of directors made an adverse recommendation change.

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Pride has also agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger in an SEC filing.

The memorandum of understanding also provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the release of certain claims held by such class. The stipulation of the settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement that receives court approval. The memorandum of understanding is also subject to the approval of the Ensco board of directors.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

Arbitration Tribunal Orders Siemens To Pay Areva $927 Million

- Arbitration Tribunal Orders Siemens To Pay Areva $927 Million



May 20, 2011

Siemens AG (NYSE:SI) has been ordered by an arbitration tribunal to pay $927 million to French state-controlled company Areva SA, finding the Munich, Germany based company failed to meet contractual obligations in a nuclear joint venture it exited earlier this year.

The payment, plus interest, will be recorded in Siemens' fiscal Q3 ending in June. Siemens sold its stake in the joint venture to Areva in March for a pretax gain of $2.17 billion.

The French joint venture, previously called Framatome, was the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors and when it was created a decade ago when Areva and Siemens merged their nuclear reactor businesses in France, Germany and the U.S.

Shares of Siemens are trading down 2.94% at $130.76.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

Transocean Counter Sues BP, Among Others, Over Oil Spill Liabilities

Transocean Counter Sues BP, Among Others, Over Oil Spill Liabilities



Apr 21, 2011

As the legal battle over the offshore drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico continues to expand, Transocean said today it has filed cross claims against BP and other entities involved in last year's spill.

Yesterday BP filed suit against Transocean, which owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, and Cameron International, which manufactured a critical safety device intended to shut down the well in an emergency.

BP also filed suit against Halliburton, accusing that company of concealing information about its cement slurry that could have prevented the disaster The claims were filed in federal court in New Orleans.

The BP suit said that Transocean is responsible for the failures of safety devices and control procedures and is seeking at least $40 billion in damages. Transocean said in its suit that BP agreed to assume full responsibility for any "loss, expense, claim, fine, penalty or liability" for pollution or contamination in the drilling contract the two companies signed.
Shares of Transocean are trading down 1.39%.