Class Action Seeks to Unite Angry BP Investors Around the World | National Law Journal

Another shareholder lawsuit has been filed against BP PLC over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, this one potentially involving plaintiffs from all around the world.

The suit, filed Tuesday by New York’s Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling in the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeks to represent not just American investors but also those who bought shares in London-based BP in the United Kingdom and throughout the rest of the world.

Partner Robert Schachter said the effort to represent investors outside the United States is the major difference between his firm’s proposed class action and other securities class actions — at least five more have been filed against BP. He said, “Our numbers show that 39 percent of BP equity holders reside in the U.S. The other 61 percent are outside the country.”

Schachter noted that “this is not our first encounter with BP”: His firm was lead counsel for the securities holders who sued BP over the massive 2006 pipeline spills in the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska. That case resulted in what Schachter called a significant settlement for the plaintiffs.

In Schachter’s current case — Greenfield v. BP PLC — plaintiffs allege that investors “were misled by Defendants’ representations regarding BP’s commitment to safety and operational integrity.” Specifically, the suit alleges that BP misled the investing public by claiming it was conducting oil drilling operations in a safe and reliable manner; had the technology to engage in deep water drilling operations; and had the “knowledge, procedures, measures and safeguards in place” to handle risks associated with deep water drilling, including an oil spill response plan.

via Law.com – Class Action Seeks to Unite Angry BP Investors Around the World.

US Foreign-cubed securities debate explained | Morrison & Foerster LLP – JDSupra

Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether foreign-cubed securities class actions may be litigated in the United States.

The extraterritorial reach of the federal securities laws is the central focus of Morrison v National Australia Bank. Morrison is the third in a series of fairly recent Supreme Court cases reviewing the extraterritorial application of federal statutes, following the Court’s consideration of the reach of antitrust law in F Hoffmann-LaRoche v Empagran and patent law in Microsoft v AT&T Corp. In the former (a unanimous decision) and Microsoft (an 8-1 decision), the Court concluded that the extraterritorial scope of the federal antitrust and patent statutes was a matter for Congress to decide. In the face of statutes that were ambiguous or silent on the issue, the Court applied a presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world.”

via US Foreign-cubed securities debate explained | Morrison & Foerster LLP – JDSupra.

Justices to Consider a Border Battle Over Lawsuits | Law.com

“Foreign-cubed” is the name of the latest legal nemesis that keeps lawyers for companies ranging from Toyota to Vivendi up at night.

The term refers to securities class action litigation in which the investors are foreign, the issuers are foreign and the fraudulent conduct took place on foreign soil. And yet, because of some company tie to the United States, large or minuscule, they end up in U.S. courts, where plaintiffs usually can do a lot better than if the suits were filed abroad.

Six years after the moniker was first coined, a foreign-cubed suit has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the case, Morrison v. National Australia Bank, today. Foreign investors accused Australia’s largest bank of fraud involving a Florida subsidiary, but the bank insists all of the disputed activity took place in Australia. So far, the bank has won.

Foreign companies and countries have flooded the Court with friend of the court briefs, signaling the importance of the case worldwide. Even parties litigating over the Toyota safety meltdown are watching; several securities class actions have been filed in federal courts against the company, which trades on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, based on statements made by Toyota officials in Japan.

The case comes to a Court that has grown increasingly skeptical about U.S. courts exerting extraterritorial jurisdiction. In the 2007 case Microsoft v. AT&T, a 7-1 majority spoke approvingly of the presumption that “United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world.” Three years earlier, in Hoffman-LaRoche v. Empagran, a unanimous Court said extending the reach of American antitrust laws too far into foreign situations would be “an act of legal imperialism.”

via Law.com – Justices to Consider a Border Battle Over Lawsuits.