It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Post-Explosion Remarks Could Sustain BP Suit

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:33 PM
The title says the story in this one. By that I mean, it really is that simple and that important both in the ruling AND it's wording. Let me share why here.

It really is a Good / Bad type of ruling, depending on which side of the start of the disaster you were on as an investor with BP.

At Ellison's urging the plaintiffs went back to the drawing board and divided their class into "pre-explosion and post-explosion subclasses."

. . .

Ellison found the methodology used by the pre-explosion plaintiffs to calculate their damages lacking, however, and denied them class certification last week.

That's the bad side, if someone was on that side of the lawsuit here.

The post-explosion litigants were more persuasive in arguing that BP's understatements about the spill's size had caused an artificial delay in the stock price falling, according to the May 20 ruling.

Ellison certified the class as all people or entities who bought BP stock between April 26, 2010, and May 28, 2010, excluding BP executives, their families and affiliates.
Source: Courthouse News

So, the case will continue and on the basis of BP understating the scope of the leak. It could be interesting to see what comes from discovery and such as it goes forward.

Something to watch, anyway!

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:56 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift



log in