8 third amended complaint for violations of the federal

Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 494 Filed in TXSD on 12/06/12 of 173

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

) CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND )

TRUST FUNDS; NORTH CAROLINA ) DEPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER; ) C.A. No. 4:12-cv-01272 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT; LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; and SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BP, PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.; ANTHONY B. HAYWARD; ANDREW G. INGLIS; DOUGLAS J. SUTTLES, H. LAMAR McKAY, ROBERT MALONE, DAVID RAINEY

Defendants.

MDL NO. 2185 IN RE BP SECURITIES LITIGATION

C.A. No. 4:10-md-2185

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND TEXAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, NORTH CAROLINA AND PENNSYLVANIA STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW.............................................................2

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 7

III. PARTIES .......................................................................................................................... 11

A. Plaintiffs................................................................................................................ 11

B. Defendants ............................................................................................................ 14

IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................19

A. Prior Incidents of Safety Lapses ...........................................................................19

B. The Baker Report.................................................................................................. 24

C. BP Pledged to Implement OMS and Formed Committees to Enhance and Monitor Process Safety ...................................................................29

D. OMS Scope and Implementation.......................................................................... 32

E. BP Experienced Well Blowouts During The Relevant Period As The Result Of Faulty Cementing..........................................................................36

F. The Deepwater Horizon Disaster Establishes That “Process” Safety Improvements Were Not Implemented During the Relevant Period....................................................................................................................38

G. BP Had No Legitimate Spill Response Plan, Contrary to Defendants’ Representations ................................................................................ 45

V. DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD.............................................................................................54

A. January 16, 2007 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 54

B. May 9, 2007 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 55

C. May 16, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 8 from NY/OH Class Action Order – Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 56

D. July 24, 2007 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 57

i


E. September 25, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 9 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Not Held Materially False and Misleading; No ScienterFound]..................................................................................................... 57

F. October 25, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 10 from NY/OH Class Action Order – Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 58

G. November 8, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 11 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 59

H. February 22, 2008 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 59

I. February 27, 2008 Statements [Misrep. No. 14 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 59

J. March 4, 2008 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class ActionComplaint] ................................................................................................60

K. April 17, 2008 Statements [Misrep. No. 16 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 61

L. December 17, 2008 Statements [Misrep. No. 18 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Portions Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................. 62

M. February 24, 2009 Statements [Misrep. Nos. 21 and 22 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Not Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]........................................................................... 63

N. March 4, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 25 from NY/OH Class Action Order; Misrep. No. 13 from Ludlow Class Action Order—

Held Materially False and Misleading in Ludlow Order; No ScienterFound)..................................................................................................... 64

O. March 10, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 26 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found; Misrep. No. 16 from Ludlow Order]........................................................67

P. April 16, 2009 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class ActionComplaint] ................................................................................................ 69

ii


Q. June 30, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 30 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 69

R. November 19, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 31 from NY/OH Class Action Order – Held Materially False and Misleading; No ScienterFound]..................................................................................................... 71

S. February 26, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 18 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Portions Held Materially False and Misleading; No ScienterFound]..................................................................................................... 72

T. March 5, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 35 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 73

U. March 22, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 8 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 74

V. March 23, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 38 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 76

W. April 15, 2010 Sustainability Review Statements [Misrep. No. 40 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Not Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found; Misrep. No. 5 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 76

X. April 15, 2010 Sustainability Report Statements [Misrep. No. 32 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]........................................................................... 78

Y. April 28, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 42 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 80

Z. April 29, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 43 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 81

AA. April 29, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class ActionComplaint] ................................................................................................82

BB. April 30, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class ActionComplaint] ................................................................................................ 83

iii


CC. May 4, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 84

DD. May 5, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 45 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]................................................................................................................... 85

EE. May 10, 2010 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class ActionComplaint] ................................................................................................86

FF. May 14, 2010 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 87

GG. May 17, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 89

HH. May 21, 2010 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 90

II. May 22, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/Ohio Consolidated ClassAction Complaint]....................................................................................... 92

JJ.

........................ 94

VI. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ SCIENTER..............................97

A. The Orange Book Reports Disclosed Process Safety Related Information to GORC and SEEAC Members and Board Members.....................97

B. Minutes Demonstrate that SEEAC and the Board Reviewed and Discussed the Content of BP’s Safety Related Publications ................................99

C. The Defendants Consciously Limited the Applicability and Scope of the S&O Audit Function so as to Exclude BP’s Gulf of Mexico DeepwaterWells................................................................................................. 100

D. Defendants Failed to Disclose and Address Process Safety and Operational Risk Issues....................................................................................... 101

E. Defendants Were Aware of or Recklessly Disregarded Heightened Process Safety Risks and Deficiencies With Third-Party Rigs ..........................103

F. BP Received Numerous Safety Warnings for Deficiencies in the Company’s North Sea Operations ......................................................................104

iv


G. BP Retaliated Against Workers Who Raised Safety Concerns..........................105

H. The Defendants Falsely Assured Investors That BP Was Implementing OMS Across All Operations and the Baker Report’s Recommendations............................................................................................... 106

I. Defendants’ Public Estimates Of Oil Spilling Into The Gulf Were Contradicted By Contemporaneous Internal BP Documents..............................109

J. The DOJ Has Charged Former BP Engineers for Deleting Text Messages About the Amount of Oil Spewing Into the Gulf, and is Investigating Whether BP Representatives Lied to Congress About theExtent of the Spill .........................................................................................115

K. BP Exploration & Production Inc. Has Pled Guilty to Felony Manslaughter, Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Congress .................116

L. BP Has Agreed to Pay $525 Million to Settle the SEC’s Charges That the Company Misled Investors Regarding the Oil Spill Flow- Rate..................................................................................................................... 118

M. Defendants Were Motivated to Conceal the Amount of Oil Spewing Into the Gulf to Reduce Fines and Penalties by Billions of Dollars................................................................................................................. 119

VII. LOSS CAUSATION/ECONOMIC LOSS ..................................................................... 119

VIII. RELIANCE..................................................................................................................... 126

A. Connecticut Retirement Funds............................................................................ 127

B. North Carolina DST............................................................................................ 129

C. Colorado PERA..................................................................................................131

D. City of Philadelphia ............................................................................................ 133

E. LACERA............................................................................................................. 135

F. SDCERS ............................................................................................................. 136

IX. NO SAFE HARBOR ...................................................................................................... 139

X. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIMELY........................................................................ 139

XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF..................................................................................................140

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................157

v


Plaintiffs Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (“Connecticut Retirement

Funds”), North Carolina Department of State Treasurer (“North Carolina DST”), Public

Employees’ Retirement Association of Colorado (“Colorado PERA”), City of Philadelphia

Board of Pensions and Retirement (“City of Philadelphia”), Los Angeles County Employees’

Retirement Association (“LACERA”), and San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System

(“SDCERS”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), allege the following based upon the investigation of

Plaintiffs’ counsel, which includes, among other things, a review of Defendants’ 1 public

documents, conference calls and announcements, United States Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC”) filings, Defendants’ filings and statements to government regulators

including, inter alia, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (“MMS”), wire and press releases

published by and regarding BP p.l.c. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “BP” or the “Company”),

pleadings and filings in In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation , No. 10-md-02185 (S.D. Tex.), the

Court’s Order denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims in In re BP p.l.c. Securities

Litigation , 843 F. Supp. 2d 712 (S.D. Tex. 2012), the Charge of Information and Guilty Plea

Agreement filed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in United States v . BP Exploration and

Production, Inc., No. 2:12-cr-00292-SSV-DEK (E.D. La.) (the “Information and Guilty Plea”),

the Indictment filed by the DOJ against Defendant David Rainey in United States v . Rainey , No.

2:12-cr-00291-KDE-DEK (E.D. La.) (the “Rainey Indictment”), the Complaint filed in Securities

and Exchange Commission v . BP p.l.c ., No. 2:12-cv-02774 (E.D. La.) (the “SEC Complaint”),

documents and testimony produced in connection with the oil spill litigation, In re Oil Spill by

the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 , MDL 2179 (E.D.

La.), investigations and reports issued in connection with the April 20, 2010 explosion aboard

1 As defined below. Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis herein are added.

1


the Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (“Gulf”) ( e.g.,

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Report to

the President, “The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling,” Jan. 2011 (the

“Presidential Commission”)), The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and

Enforcement, “Report Regarding The Causes Of The April 20, 2010 Macondo Well Blowout,”

Sept. 14, 2011 (the “Interior Department Report”)), securities analysts’ reports and advisories

about the Company, and information provided by Plaintiffs and their investment advisers.

Plaintiffs believe that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set

forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW

1. Plaintiffs bring this action for damages sustained in connection with their

transactions in BP American Depository Shares (“ADS”) 2 and ordinary shares between January

16, 2007 and May 28, 2010, inclusive (the “Relevant Period”). As detailed herein, Plaintiffs

suffered significant losses when events following the April 20, 2010 explosion aboard the

Deepwater Horizon semi-submersible rig and the subsequent historic oil spill from the Macondo

Prospect (“Macondo”), revealed that Defendants’ prior statements regarding, inter alia, BP’s

purported implementation of specific process safety protocols recommended by an independent

panel due to numerous accidents, the progress of BP’s implementation of the Operating

Management System (“OMS”) as well as the scope of the OMS, BP’s ability to respond to oil

spills in the Gulf and BP’s post-spill estimates of the oil flow rate following the Deepwater

Horizon incident, were materially false and misleading when made. 3

2 As used herein, ADS also includes any BP securities designated as “American Depositary Receipts.”

3 For ease of reference, Plaintiffs have indicated which statements were upheld with respect to falsity/materiality and scienter in the Court’s prior orders on Defendants’ motions to dismiss the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action

2


2. The April 20, 2010 disaster led to the tragic loss of eleven lives and BP’s inability

to cap millions of barrels of oil leaking into the Gulf for nearly three months and resulted in the

largest recorded offshore oil spill in history. While it is difficult to compare the loss of life and

the devastating impact on the environment to a purely economic injury, the resulting financial

injury suffered by BP investors was nonetheless enormous and is compensable under applicable

laws.

3. BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies, providing its customers with

fuel for transportation, energy for heating and lighting, retail services and petrochemicals

products. Among other things, the Company engages in deepwater drilling for hydrocarbons

around the globe.

4. BP’s dominance in the global energy market aside, the Company had a history of

catastrophic disasters resulting in deaths and environmental crimes leading into the Relevant

Period. These incidents, which included the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and Texas City, Texas

disasters, among others described herein, led the Company to retain former Secretary of State

James A. Baker to lead an independent panel (the “Baker Panel”) to review and improve the

Company’s safety procedures and to identify root causes of the Texas City disaster. The Baker

Panel’s investigation resulted in a 350 plus page report—the “Baker Report”—which cited

organizational problems as the root cause of BP being plagued by major incidents and repeated

safety lapses.

5. As noted by the Presidential Commission, the Baker Report concluded, among

other things, that “BP management had not distinguished between occupational safety ... and

process safety ” and “ha[d] not adequately established process safety as a core value.” Whereas

Complaint (the “NY/OH Class Action Order”) and the Ludlow Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Ludlow Class Action Order”). Plaintiffs have also attached a table as Appendix A setting forth this information.

3


process safety seeks to implement protocols in order to avoid large scale disasters (such as a

deadly explosion), occupational safety seeks to limit injuries to persons (reducing slips and falls).

As the Presidential Commission further noted, “[t]hese incidents and subsequent analyses

indicate that the company does not have consistent and reliable risk management processes – and

thus has been unable to meet its professed commitment to safety.”

6. The Baker Report also included specific recommendations for BP to implement to

improve process safety. The Baker Report was publicly released by Defendants on January 16,

2007,4 and was accompanied by statements from BP executives assuring investors that the

recommendations set forth in the Baker Report would be (and were already being) implemented

by the Company.

7. Following the release of the Baker Report, the Company’s public statements

routinely detailed specific steps taken by BP to purportedly reform its risk profile while reducing

the possibility that lapses leading to the pre-Relevant Period disasters would be repeated. For

example, in connection with the release of the Baker Report, John Browne, BP’s then Chief

Executive Officer (“CEO”), stated that “ BP gets it . . . And I get it too . . . I recognise the need

for improvement.” Defendant Anthony B. Hayward (“Hayward”), who was at the time in the

process of taking over for Browne as BP’s CEO, assured investors (in February 2007) about his

commitment to focus “like a laser ” on safety . Subsequent assurances by BP reaffirmed the

Company’s commitment to implement the recommendations in the Baker Report.

8. In response to the Baker Report, BP also pledged to implement the Operating

Management System (“OMS”). BP touted OMS as an integrated and comprehensive system for

4 The Baker Report is available at http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp internet/globalbp/globalbp uk english/SP/STAGING/local assets/assets/pdfs/Bak

er panel report.pdf, last accessed Sept. 14, 2012.

4


identifying, reducing and managing process safety risks. BP further represented that OMS

would apply across all of BP’s operations.

9. Against the backdrop of process safety reforms purportedly being guided by the

recommendations in the Baker Report, BP was increasing its presence in the Gulf and holding

out its potential to extract hydrocarbons from the Gulf as highly material to its operations and

future prospects. The Company’s regulatory filings also assured investors that BP was fully

prepared to address the risks associated with its Gulf operations. For example, the Company’s

oil spill response plan (“OSRP”) for the Gulf proclaims that the “worst case discharge” from an

exploratory well from offshore drilling is expected to be 250,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

See BP Regional Oil Spill Response Plan – Gulf of Mexico, App’x. H at p. 30 (“Regional

OSRP”). The Company’s Initial Exploration Plan for Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (marked

received by the MMS on Feb. 23, 2009) (“Macondo IEP”) also assured investors that “worst

case” scenarios were contemplated by BP and that the Company was capable of responding to a

worst case event. Defendants’ misstatements assured investors that BP could experience

significant growth while controlling risks.

10. On the night of April 20, 2010, Defendants’ false assurances about BP’s progress

in implementing the recommendations of the Baker Report and BP’s ability to respond to a

major oil spill, were exposed as being materially false and misleading when made, when an

eruption of oil or natural gas occurred at the Company’s Macondo site about 50 miles off the

Louisiana coast leading to an intense fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon .

11. The fire eventually consumed the rig, caused the tragic loss of eleven lives and

ultimately caused the rig to sink. As the Deepwater Horizon sank, it pulled a pipe connecting the

rig to the well (the “riser”) with it. The riser subsequently tore away from the well.

5


Crewmembers’ efforts to trigger Deepwater Horizon ’s blow out preventer (“BOP”), a device

used to seal a well in an emergency, failed.

12. The failure of the BOP resulted in oil spilling into the Gulf. Rather than respond

to the disaster with a definitive plan to contain the spill, as Defendants had publicly represented

BP had put in place, Defendants employed a trial and error approach with various tactics that

were developed as the spill was raging. Defendants’ efforts included very high profile failures

including “top hat,” “top kill,” and “junk shot.” BP’s inability to contain the spill within a

reasonable period of time established that Defendants’ statements regarding BP’s spill response

plan were materially false and misleading. BP was operating in the Gulf throughout the Relevant

Period without any such definitive plan.

13. By late June 2010, oil had contaminated the coastlines of Louisiana, Alabama,

Mississippi and Florida, and the well had yet to be capped. By this time, approximately 36% of

the Gulf’s fishing area was closed because of the spill. The amount of oil spewing into the Gulf

(approximately 60,000 barrels per day) established that – despite the representations made in

BP’s MMS filings – the Company had no ability to handle a fraction of the “worst case”

estimates provided in its regulatory filings.

14. Separate from BP’s inability to contain the oil spill, BP’s officers including,

Defendants Hayward, BP’s then CEO, and Douglas Suttles (“Suttles”), the head of BP’s spill

response team, minimized the impact of the disaster by providing the market with materially

false and misleading spill figures that were expressly contradicted by contemporaneous internal

BP reports that showed higher amounts of oil were spewing into the Gulf than BP’s officers had

claimed.

6


15. All told, it BP took nearly three full months after the explosion on April 20, 2010

to suspend the flow of oil and to ultimately seal the leak with a relief well. The well was finally

capped on July 16, 2010, eighty-seven days after oil began spewing into the Gulf from the

Macondo site. A relief well permanently sealed the well several days later.

16. The Gulf spill has eclipsed the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound,

Alaska, on March 24, 1989, to become the worst environmental disaster in the history of the

United States.

17. Throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants violated the federal securities laws

and the laws of Texas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina by

issuing materially false and misleading statements while possessing the required state of mind

for each particular claim. In this respect, Defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded that

they were making false and misleading statements, or were negligent in making the challenged

statements.

18. The Company’s investors have suffered massive losses from the materialization

of the risks concealed by Defendants’ misstatements and omissions. At the time of the explosion

aboard the Deepwater Horizon , BP ADS traded for approximately $60.00 per ADS and its

ordinary shares traded for 655.4 pence per share. After the explosion and BP’s inability to

adequately respond to the oil spilling into the Gulf, the Company’s ADS and ordinary shares fell

significantly, eliminating approximately $91 billion in the Company’s total market capitalization

value (through June 2010). Plaintiffs’ losses are a direct result of Defendants’ misconduct as set

forth herein.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and

7


Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and under the common or statutory

laws of the States of Texas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

20. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action

pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In

addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

state-law claims.

21. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states and the

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants named herein.

As set forth in further detail below, each of the Defendants either maintained a principal place of

business in this District, conducted a sufficient amount of business in this District, issued the

alleged false and misleading statements from within this District, resides within this District,

and/or otherwise has sufficient minimum contacts with this District or the United States to render

the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice. Among other facts, personal jurisdiction is demonstrated by the following:

(a) BP p.l.c.’s North American and Exploration headquarters are located in this

District, in Houston, Texas, and it regularly transacts business in this District, including

through its U.S. subsidiaries, BP America, Inc. (“BP America”) and BP Exploration &

Production, Inc. (“BP Exploration”), whose principal places of business are also in

Houston, Texas. In addition, BP p.l.c. and its officers issued materially false and

misleading statements from Houston, Texas during the Relevant Period. BP p.l.c. also

derives a substantial amount of revenue from within Texas, including from BP gas

8


stations. BP p.l.c.’s agent in the United States is BP America Inc., which is located in

this District at 501 Westlake Park, Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77079.

(b) BP America’s principal place of business is in this District, at 501 Westlake

Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77079. BP America produces oil and natural gas products in

the United States and conducts a substantial amount of its business in this District,

including through its wholly-owned subsidiary, BP Exploration. Throughout the

Relevant Period, BP America controlled Defendant BP Exploration and that entity’s

issuance of material information to the public.

(c) BP Exploration has its principal place of business in this District, at 200 Westlake

Park Boulevard Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77079. BP Exploration engages in oil

exploration and production activities and conducts a substantial amount of business in

this District. In addition, BP Exploration and its officers issued materially false and

misleading statements from Houston, Texas during the Relevant Period.

(d) As BP’s CEO, Defendant Hayward conducted a substantial amount of business in

this District during the Relevant Period, including operating from Houston, Texas in the

aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Hayward also issued materially false and

misleading statements from Houston, Texas during the Relevant Period.

(e) Defendant Suttles resides in this District, in Katy, Texas. As Chief Operating

Officer of BP Exploration, Suttles also conducted a substantial amount of business in this

District during the Relevant Period.

(f) Defendant Andrew Inglis (“Inglis”) also has substantial ties to this District. From

1997 to 1999 Inglis was responsible for BP’s activities in the Gulf before becoming Vice

President of BP’s U.S. Western Gas business unit and eventually gaining appointment as

9


Executive Vice President and Deputy Chief Executive Officer of BP Exploration, which

is headquartered in Houston, in 2004. Defendant Inglis served as CEO of BP Exploration

and as an executive director of the Company from February 2007 until October 2010. In

these capacities, he conducted a substantial amount of business in this District.

(g) Defendant H. Lamar McKay (“McKay”) has substantial ties to this District. First, he

moved to Houston, Texas in May 2007, according BP’s website, and is associated with a

residence there. During the Relevant Period, McKay conducted a substantial amount of

business in this District as Senior Group Vice President of BP p.l.c. and Executive Vice

President of BP America, in which capacities he was based in Houston, Texas. Further,

as Chairman and President of BP America, McKay continues to be based in Houston,

Texas where he serves as “BP’s chief representative in the United States,” according to

BP’s website.

(h) Defendant David Rainey (“Rainey”) is associated with a residence in this District,

in Houston, Texas. As BP America’s Vice President of Gulf of Mexico Exploration,

Rainey conducted a substantial amount of business in this District.

(i) Defendant Robert Malone (“Malone”) also has sufficient ties to this District. He

was raised in Northeast Texas and earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Texas. As Chairman

and President of BP America, Malone was based in Houston, Texas and conducted a

substantial amount of business in this District. Indeed, he served as BP’s “chief

representative in the United States,” according to a company press release. Malone also

is associated with a residence in Sonora, Texas.

23. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15

U.S.C. § 78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Many of the acts and transactions alleged herein,

10


including the preparation and dissemination of materially false and misleading information,

occurred in substantial part in this District. Additionally, BP’s U.S. operations are headquartered

in this District, and its two subsidiaries, Defendants BP America and BP Exploration, maintain

their principal office or place of business in Houston. See BP I, 843 F. Supp. 2d at 723 (citing

Lead Plaintiff’s Consolidated Class Action Complaint).

24. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint,

Defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce,

including without limitation, the mails, interstate telephone communications, and the facilities of

the national securities markets and exchanges.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

25. The Connecticut Retirement Funds include six pension funds and eight trust

funds, representing, among others, approximately 190,000 teachers, police officers, firefighters

and state and municipal employees who are pension plan participants and beneficiaries, and has

assets valued in excess of $25 billion. The Connecticut Retirement Funds is an arm of the

Government of the State of Connecticut and maintains its principal place of business in Hartford,

Connecticut. The Connecticut Retirement Funds is led in litigation by the Attorney General of

Connecticut and administered by the Office of the Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, who has

authority to bring this suit pursuant to the Connecticut Constitution, art. 4, § 22. Through its

authorized investment managers, the Connecticut Retirement Funds purchased BP ADS and

ordinary shares during the Relevant Period and suffered losses as a result of the violations set

forth herein.

26. North Carolina DST is an arm of the Government of the State of North Carolina,

with its offices located in Wake County, North Carolina. North Carolina DST maintains its

11


principal place of business in Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina DST is entrusted by

statute with the responsibility of managing certain state funds, including but not limited to the

funds of the Teachers’ and State Employees’ Retirement System and the Local Governmental

Employees’ Retirement System. It has authority to bring this suit pursuant to statute including,

inter alia, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 147-69.3(e), 147-69.3(g), and 147-71. At the end of the fiscal year

closing June 30, 2011, North Carolina DST managed assets of approximately $88.35 billion.

Through its authorized investment managers, North Carolina DST purchased BP ADS and

ordinary shares during the Relevant Period and suffered losses as a result of the violations set

forth herein.

27. Colorado PERA, which was established in 1931, operates by authority of the

Colorado General Assembly, and has authority to bring this suit pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-51-

201(1). Colorado PERA maintains its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado.

Colorado PERA provides retirement and other benefits to the employees of more than 400

government agencies and public entities in the State of Colorado. Colorado PERA’s membership

includes employees of the Colorado state government, most teachers in the State of Colorado,

many university and college employees, judges, many employees of Colorado cities and towns,

Colorado State Troopers, and the employees of a number of other public entities within the State

of Colorado. With approximately $38 billion in assets and more than 230 employees, Colorado

PERA is the 21st largest public pension plan in the United States. Through its authorized

investment managers, Colorado PERA purchased BP ordinary shares during the Relevant Period

and suffered losses as a result of the violations set forth herein.

28. City of Philadelphia, a local government board created by the Philadelphia Home

Rule Charter, 351 Pa. Code § 3.3-100(e), administers the retirement system for the City of

12


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. City of Philadelphia maintains its principal place of business in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and has authority to bring this suit pursuant to Philadelphia Home

Rule Charter, 351 Pa. Code § 4.4-400. Through its authorized investment managers, City of

Philadelphia purchased BP ADS and ordinary shares during the Relevant Period and suffered

losses as a result of the violations set forth herein.

29. LACERA is a California public pension plan created and governed under the

County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, set forth at California Government Code Section

31450 et seq ., and relevant sections of the California Constitution, and its rights, powers and

responsibilities as set forth therein, including California State Constitution, art. 16, § 17.

Pursuant to these statutory provisions, LACERA has authority to enter into this action.

LACERA is the largest county retirement system in the United States and administers defined

retirement plan benefits to and manages the retirement fund for the 156,000 member-employees,

including 54,000 benefit recipients, of Los Angeles County and outside Districts. LACERA

maintains its principal place of business in Pasadena, California. Through its authorized

investment managers, LACERA purchased BP ADS and ordinary shares during the Relevant

Period and suffered losses as a result of the violations set forth herein.

30. SDCERS is a California public pension plan established by the City of San Diego,

California in 1927 to administer retirement benefits for its members and is governed by relevant

sections of the California Constitution, and its rights, powers and responsibilities as set forth

therein, including California State Constitution, art. 16, § 17, the San Diego City Charter, art. IX

§ 144 and art. X, § 1, and the SDCERS Group Trust, Declaration of Trust (effective July 1,

2007), art. III, §§ 1.18, 3.2. SDCERS also administers retirement benefits for employees of the

San Diego Unified Port District and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.

13


SDCERS maintains its principal place of business in San Diego, California, and provides

services to nearly 20,000 active, retired and deferred members. Through its authorized

investment managers, SDCERS purchased BP ADS and ordinary shares during the Relevant

Period and suffered losses as a result of the violations set forth herein.

B. Defendants

31. BP (or BP p.l.c.) is a United Kingdom corporation with its international

headquarters located at St. James’s Square, London SW1Y 4PD, United Kingdom. BP’s North

American and Exploration headquarters are located in Houston, Texas, at 501 Westlake Park

Blvd., Houston, TX 77079. BP’s ADS trade on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under

the ticker “BP.” BP’s ordinary shares trade on the London Stock Exchange (“LSE”). On

November 15, 2012, BP agreed to pay $525 million to settle charges by the SEC that BP made

materially false and misleading statements regarding the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of

Mexico in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

32. BP America, Inc. (“BP America”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP Holdings

North America Limited, which is in turn 100% wholly-owned by BP, is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, at 501 Westlake Park Blvd., Houston, TX

77079. BP America produces oil and natural gas products in the United States.

33. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (“BP Exploration”), a wholly-owned

subsidiary of BP America, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Houston, Texas, at 200 Westlake Park Blvd., Houston, TX 77079. BP Exploration operates as a

subsidiary of BP America. As set forth herein, BP Exploration and its officers issued materially

false and misleading statements in MMS filings during the Relevant Period. Among other

things, the Macondo IEP falsely states that “BP Exploration & Production Inc. has the capability

to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge , or a substantial

14


threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan.” On

November 15, 2012, BP Exploration pled guilty to felony manslaughter, environmental crimes

and obstruction of Congress, and agreed to pay a record $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties

for its conduct related to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, including its failure to exercise due

care with respect to negative pressure tests performed on the Macondo Well prior to the accident,

and misrepresentations and omissions of oil spill estimates made by Defendant David Rainey, a

senior BP Exploration executive, in connection with the United States House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment’s investigation into the Deepwater Horizon blowout

and oil spill.

34. BP p.l.c., BP America and BP Exploration shall hereinafter be collectively

referred to as “BP” or the “Company.”

35. Hayward became BP’s CEO in May 2007 after previously serving as an executive

director of BP since 2003. When Hayward assumed the CEO position, he vowed to focus “like a

laser” on safety. Beginning in 2006, Hayward chaired the Group Operations Risk Committee

(“GORC”), an executive committee that monitored and examined BP’s safety protocols,

including the Operating Management System (“OMS”), and addressed safety incidents in BP’s

operations. Hayward also served as executive liaison to the Safety, Ethics and Environment

Assurance Committee (“SEEAC”). This committee was charged with examining the processes

adopted by executive management to identify and mitigate significant non-financial risks, and

obtaining assurance that these processes are appropriate in design and effective in

implementation, as well as reviewing BP’s internal risk control systems for non-financial risk.

SEEAC was responsible for ensuring that the Baker Panel’s recommendations, as well as BP’s

other safety policies and practices, were implemented and adhered to. GORC and SEEAC

15


members received the quarterly Health and Safety Environment & Operations Integrity Reports,

also called the “Orange Book” reports. These reports monitored the process of the OMS

implementation and provided various safety metrics. During the Relevant Period, Hayward

signed BP Annual Reports filed with the SEC that contained materially false and misleading

information, and he made other materially false and misleading statements as alleged herein.

Hayward made several misstatements from Houston and operated from Houston in the wake of

the Deepwater Horizon disaster. On July 27, 2010, BP announced that Hayward would step

down as the Company’s CEO effective October 1, 2010. He remained on the BP board until

November 30, 2010.

36. Suttles served as Chief Operating Officer of BP Exploration from January 2009

until at least January 2011. As noted by the Telegraph, “Suttles was the face of operational

briefings during the [Gulf] spill and led the technical response to stopping the oil leak.” Prior to

these roles, Suttles had a long-standing career at BP, including serving as President of BP

Exploration (Alaska) Inc., from November 2006 through December 2008, and as President of BP

Sakhalin (Russia) from June 2005 until November 2006. During the Relevant Period, Suttles

made materially false and misleading statements as alleged herein, and as alleged in the SEC

Complaint. On January 12, 2011, Suttles announced his retirement from BP.

37. Inglis served as CEO of BP Exploration and as a managing director of the

Company from February 2007 until October 2010. Inglis began his career with BP as a

mechanical engineer in 1980 and served in various commercial and executive roles at BP,

working in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and the North Sea. From 1997 to 1999 Inglis was

responsible for BP’s activities in the Gulf before becoming Vice President of the U.S. Western

Gas business unit and eventually gaining appointment as Executive Vice President and Deputy

16


Chief Executive Officer of BP Exploration in 2004. Inglis attended meetings of SEEAC to

report on issues germane to BP Exploration. Inglis was also a member of GORC and in this

capacity he provided reports on BP Exploration to Hayward and received the Orange Book

reports, which monitored the progress of the implementation of the OMS across BP’s operations.

Inglis is a Chartered Mechanical Engineer, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a

Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. At the time of the Deepwater Horizon

incident, Inglis viewed himself as occupying the highest position of authority over BP

Exploration’s drilling and exploration operations worldwide, except for maybe Hayward:

Q. Do you feel any responsibility, sir, at all for what happened on April 20 th

of 2010? A. As the CEO of the exploration and production company, I am responsible

for the safe and reliable operations across all of the E&P operations globally.

* * *

Q. And that, of course, would include Gulf of Mexico, correct?

A. Again, as I said, I was responsible for the – the safety and reliability of— of our operations globally. So that would include the Gulf of Mexico operations.

* * *

Q. All right. And in terms of safety for drilling and exploration operations in the Gulf of Mexico and worldwide insofar as safety is concerned, other than perhaps Dr. Hayward, you would have been the highest in line of authority; is that true?

A. In terms of the – the responsibility for their safe and reliable operations, yes.

Inglis Dep. at 75:24-76:5, 79:18-24, 80:13-22. In addition, according to the SEC Complaint and

Rainey Indictment, Inglis received an e-mail on May 14, 2010 from a BP engineer raising

concerns about the accuracy of the 5,000 barrel per day oil spill estimates BP reported to the

public in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon blowout. On September 29, 2010, BP

announced the creation of a new safety division and disclosed that Inglis would step down as a

board director on October 31, 2010 and would leave the Company at the end of 2010. As alleged

17


herein, Inglis knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements about the systems in

place for ensuring the safety of BP’s operations.

38. McKay has served as Chairman and President of BP America since January 2009.

Since 1998, McKay has worked for BP in various capacities, including as the Head of Strategy

and Planning for Worldwide Exploration and Production, the Business Unit Leader for the

Central North Sea in Aberdeen, Scotland, and the Chief of Staff for worldwide Exploration and

Production. In May 2007, McKay became the Senior Group Vice President of BP and Executive

Vice President of BP America, in which capacity he led BP’s negotiations on the settlements for

both the Texas City refinery disaster and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska pipeline oil spills. McKay is a

member of BP’s executive management, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of BP.

During the Relevant Period, McKay negligently made materially false and misleading statements

as alleged herein.

39. Malone served as Chairman and President of BP America and as an Executive

Vice President of BP from July 2006 until his retirement in February 2009. Malone served on

BP’s executive management team, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of BP.

During the Relevant Period, Malone negligently made materially false and misleading statements

as alleged herein.

40. Rainey served as BP America’s Vice President of Gulf of Mexico Exploration

from April 2005 through June 2010. Rainey also was BP’s representative to the Unified

Command, the federal government task force responsible for the overall management of the

Deepwater Horizon spill response. During the Relevant Period, Rainey negligently made

materially false and misleading statements as alleged herein. On November 14, 2012, the DOJ

indicted Rainey on charges of obstruction of Congress and making false statements during the

18


course of a government investigation. Among other things, the Rainey Indictment charged

Rainey with misrepresenting the accuracy of BP’s publicly-reported 5,000 barrel per day oil spill

rate while concealing internal estimates, including Rainey’s own estimates, which showed the

flow rate to be much higher, when responding to inquiries in a May 4, 2010 briefing document

and a May 24, 2010 letter to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, which was

investigating the Deepwater Horizon blowout and resulting oil spill.

41. Defendants Hayward, Suttles, Inglis, McKay, Malone and Rainey are collectively

referred to hereinafter as the “Individual Defendants.” The Individual Defendants, because of

their high-level positions with BP or BP Exploration, possessed the power and authority to

control the contents of BP’s and/or BP Exploration’s SEC and other regulatory filings, press

releases and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers and institutional

investors. Because of their high-level positions and access to material non-public information, as

detailed below, each of the Individual Defendants knew, were reckless in not knowing, or were

negligent in not knowing, that the undisclosed risks had been concealed from the investing

public, as further detailed below, and that other affirmative representations regarding BP’s safety

practices and procedures, ability to respond to oil spills, and post-spill oil flow rates were

materially false and misleading when made.

42. BP, BP America, BP Exploration and the Individual Defendants are collectively

referred to herein as the “Defendants.”

IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

A. Prior Incidents of Safety Lapses

43. Prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting environmental

catastrophe, BP had been at the epicenter of numerous other catastrophic events, including

19


drilling rig blowouts in the Gulf in 2002 and 2003 and in the Nile delta in 2004, as well as a fire

and explosion at BP’s Texas City refinery and two separate oil spills in the Prudhoe Bay.

44. In August 2002, the Ocean King, a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico that was

under BP’s operational control, suffered a gas blowout that caused an explosion and fire on the

rig, resulting in $2 million in damage. The ensuing investigation by MMS revealed a number of

systemic safety issues. Just three months later, the Ocean King suffered a failed cement job and

the crew was forced to evacuate. MMS criticized BP for the incident and noted serious

deficiencies in the Company’s safety protocols.

45. In May 2003, the Transocean Discoverer Enterprise, contracted by BP, was jolted

off its drill site near the Macondo well, causing a near blowout. An inspection of the rig

equipment following the accident revealed that the BOP had been partially damaged by the

broken riser pipes, highlighting the vulnerability of this crucial fail-safe device.

46. In August of 2004, BP experienced a blowout on the GSF Adriatic IV, a drilling

rig lease from Global Santa Fe that was drilling in the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Egypt.

47. On March 23, 2005, a fire and explosion occurred at BP’s Texas City refinery in

Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others. The disaster led to a

series of investigations by government regulators and resulted in BP pleading guilty to one

felony count and paying $50 million in criminal fines for the unlawful release of air pollutants

during and after the explosion, amounting to the largest fine for Texas Clean Air Act violations

at a single facility. In October 2009, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(“OSHA”) issued an $87.4 million civil penalty – the largest in its history – against BP for

process safety management violations for failing to correct safety problems at its Texas City

refinery.

20


48. The investigations following the disaster at Texas City revealed that BP was

notified of deteriorating safety conditions at the plant months before the explosion, but did

nothing to remedy them. For example, an October 29, 2006 report on 60 Minutes revealed

“evidence that Texas City’s own plant manager, Don Parus, was dismayed by unsafe conditions

at the refinery and even tried to get the attention of his bosses in London. He showed them a

report revealing that most workers at the refinery felt the plant was unsafe: one worker wrote ‘the

equipment is in dangerous condition and this is not taken seriously.’ Another wrote ‘this place is

set up for a catastrophic failure.’”

49. Despite the warnings, BP continued cost cutting measures at Texas City.

According to a BP employee interviewed for a 2006 article in Fortune, “‘The mantra was, Can

we cut costs 10%?’ he recalls. At Texas City, even money for painting and external corrosion

control was tight - until leaks started appearing. ‘ There was an it-can’t-happen-here mentality

on the part of middle management. . . .’”

50. On May 12, 2005, BP released an interim report on the Texas City explosion.

The interim report suggested that the disaster was preventable with proper protocols (or proper

processes):

Supervisory staff did not verify that the correct procedure was being used or followed, and were absent from the unit during shift relief, and key stages of the startup. There was a lack of clarity around who was supervising the startup. Although the startup procedure was not up-to-date, if the procedure had been followed, or if one of several possible interventions had been made earlier, this incident would not have happened .

51. The interim report proposed a number of corrective measures to prevent future

accidents. BP released the final report on December 9, 2005.

52. Concurrently with the settlement of charges relating to the Texas City explosion

(see ¶ 47, supra), BP settled charges relating to two oil leaks in Alaska. The leaks occurred in

21


March and August of 2006, and according to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”),

“were the result of BP[]’s failure to heed many red flags and warning signs of imminent internal

corrosion that a reasonable operator should have recognized . The first pipeline leak,

discovered ... on March 2, 2006, resulted in more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil spreading

over the tundra and reaching a nearby frozen lake, where oil spread out onto the ice along one

shore. It was the largest [oil] spill to occur on the North Slope. The second leak occurred in

August of 2006, but was ... contained after leaking approximately 1,000 gallons of oil.

Nevertheless, the second leak led to the shutdown of Prudhoe Bay oil production on the eastern

side of the field.”

53. According to a May 4, 2010 article in ProPublica entitled “Congressmen Raised

Concerns About BP Safety Before Gulf Oil Spill,” congressional hearings following the 2006

Alaskan oil spills accused BP’s management of implementing “ ‘draconian’ budget cuts that

affected safety and health, including limiting the use of a corrosion inhibitor inside the pipeline,

a step that could have prevented the deterioration that led to the 2006 spill.” An October 31,

2006 article by Fortune entitled “Can BP bounce back?” suggested that BP proceeded with

budget cuts after being warned in 2002 about a problem with the pipeline.

54. The DOJ eventually imposed a $20 million fine on BP for the Prudhoe Bay oil

spills. The fine was accompanied by BP’s Alaska subsidiary entering into a criminal plea

agreement with the DOJ for a misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

55. Ronald J. Tenpas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, stated, “The Texas and

Alaska cases illustrate the twin pillars of environmental enforcement: first, protecting human life

22


and health and, second, protecting our natural resources . . . . BP cut corners with disastrous

consequences for both and is being held to account .”

56. The Texas City and Prudhoe Bay disasters were not unrelated, isolated events.

During a Congressional hearing in May 2007, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation

Board (“CSB”) Chairman Carolyn W. Merritt informed Congressional leaders that she found

“‘striking similarities ’ between the causes of the fatal BP accident in Texas City, Texas, in 2005,

and the company’s pipeline failure at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in 2006. . . .” See “CSB Chairman

Carolyn Merritt Tells House Subcommittee of ‘Striking Similarities’ in Causes of BP Texas City

Tragedy and Prudhoe Bay Pipeline Disaster,” CSB (May 16, 2007), available at

http://www.csb.gov/newsroom/detail.aspx?nid=190 . According to CSB:

While the CSB did not investigate the Prudhoe Bay accident, Chairman Merritt was asked by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight to review a BP internal audit of the accident completed by Booz Allen Hamilton. Chairman Merritt told the subcommittee, “ Virtually all of the seven root causes identified for the Prudhoe Bay incidents have strong echoes in Texas City ." These included, she said, the " significant role of budget and production pressures in driving BP’s decision-making - and ultimately harming safety .”

57. Chairman Merritt’s comments portrayed common core issues cutting across BP’s

operations as the source of the Company’s safety lapses.

58. On March 20, 2007, CSB issued its report on the Texas City disaster. Among

other things, the CSB report chided BP for maintaining a culture where employees were

discouraged from raising problems with managers. According to the report, “BP Texas City

lacked a reporting and learning culture. Reporting bad news was not encouraged, and often

Texas City managers did not effectively investigate incidents or take appropriate corrective

action.” The CSB report further detailed efforts by Company officials to cut safety funding by

25% despite three years of mounting safety warnings. According to a March 20, 2007 article

23


about the CSB report in Bloomberg , “‘[d]ecisions to cut budgets were made at the highest levels

of BP Group despite serious safety deficiencies at Texas City,’ the agency said in its final report

on the accident’s causes. Cost-cutting ‘left the Texas City refinery vulnerable to a catastrophe.’”

BP agreed to consider the CSB’s recommendations but “ disagree[d] strongly with parts of the

report.”

59. In October 2007, the DOJ announced that it had entered into a criminal plea

agreement with BP related to the Texas City explosion and fire. On February 4, 2008, BP

pleaded guilty, pursuant to the plea agreement, to one felony violation of the risk management

planning regulations promulgated under the US federal Clean Air Act. In connection with the

plea agreement, BP paid a $50 million criminal fine and was sentenced to three years’ probation.

In October 2009, OSHA issued an $87.4 million civil penalty – the largest in OSHA’s history –

against BP for alleged process safety management violations.

B. The Baker Report

60. The Texas City disaster led BP to commission the Baker Panel to study the

explosion after, as explained in the Company’s 2006 Form 20-F (filed with the SEC on March 6,

2007), the CSB “issued an urgent recommendation to BP [in August 2005] to establish an

independent panel to assess and make recommendations regarding BP’s corporate oversight of

safety management systems at its five US refineries and its corporate safety culture.” The

ensuing report from the Panel, the Baker Report, was released to investors on January 16, 2007,

and included the following general guidelines:

The Code of Conduct provides a starting point for the conduct expected of BP employees. All employees must follow the Code of Conduct, and supervisors must also promote, monitor, and enforce compliance with it. The Code of Conduct contains a two-page section addressing the health- and safety-related conduct of all BP employees and anyone else working at BP facilities. It provides that “[n]o activity is so important that it cannot be done safely ” and emphasizes

24


that “[s]imply obeying safety rules is not enough. BP’s commitment to safety means each of us needs to be alert to safety risks as we go about our jobs.”

61. The Baker Report further noted that “[b]ased on its review, the Panel believes that

BP has not provided effective process safety leadership and has not adequately established

process safety as a core value across all its five U.S. refineries.” Moreover, as described by the

Presidential Commission (defined above), “[The Baker Panel] found that BP management had

not distinguished between occupational safety—concern over slips, sprains, and other workplace

accidents—and process safety: hazard analysis, design for safety, material verification,

equipment maintenance, and process-change reporting. And the [P]anel further concluded that

BP was not investing leadership and other resources in managing the highest risks.”

62. In order to remedy the issues that led to repeated safety violations and culminated

in catastrophic events such as the Texas City disaster, the Baker Report provided BP ten specific

recommendations to improve the Company’s process safety profile and thereby lower its risk

profile:

RECOMMENDATION # 1 – PROCESS SAFETY LEADERSHIP

The Board of Directors of BP p.l.c, BP’s executive management (including its Group Chief Executive), and other members of BP’s corporate management must provide effective leadership on and establish appropriate goals for process safety . Those individuals must demonstrate their commitment to process safety by articulating a clear message on the importance of process safety and matching that message both with the policies they adopt and the actions they take .

RECOMMENDATION #2 – INTEGRATED AND COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

BP should establish and implement an integrated and comprehensive process safety management system that systematically and continuously identifies, reduces, and manages process safety risks at its U.S. refineries.

25


RECOMMENDATION #3 – PROCESS SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE

BP should develop and implement a system to ensure that its executive management, its refining line management above the refinery level, and all U.S. refining personnel, including managers, supervisors, workers, and contractors, possess an appropriate level of process safety knowledge and expertise .

RECOMMENDATION #4 – PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE

BP should involve the relevant stakeholders to develop a positive, trusting, and open process safety culture within each U.S. refinery.

RECOMMENDATION #5 – CLEARLY DEFINED EXPECTATIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROCESS SAFETY

BP should clearly define expectations and strengthen accountability for process safety performance at all levels in executive management and in the refining managerial and supervisory reporting line.

RECOMMENDATION #6 – SUPPORT FOR LINE MANAGEMENT

BP should provide more effective and better coordinated process safety support

for the U.S. refining line organization.

RECOMMENDATION #7 – LEADING AND LAGGING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR PROCESS SAFETY

BP should develop, implement, maintain, and periodically update an integrated set of leading and lagging performance indicators for more effectively monitoring the process safety performance of the U.S. refineries by BP’s refining line management, executive management (including the Group Chief Executive), and Board of Directors. In addition, BP should work with the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and with industry, labor organizations, other governmental agencies, and other organizations to develop a consensus set of leading and lagging indicators for process safety performance for use in the refining and chemical processing industries.

RECOMMENDATION #8 – PROCESS SAFETY AUDITING

BP should establish and implement an effective system to audit process safety

performance at its U.S. refineries.

RECOMMENDATION #9 – BOARD MONITORING

BP’s Board should monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel (including the related commentary) and the ongoing process safety

performance of BP’s U.S. refineries. The Board should, for a period of at least

26


five calendar years, engage an independent monitor to report annually to the Board on BP’s progress in implementing the Panel’s recommendations (including the related commentary). The Board should also report publicly on the progress of such implementation and on BP’s ongoing process safety performance.

RECOMMENDATION #10 – INDUSTRY LEADER

BP should use the lessons learned from the Texas City tragedy and from the Panel’s report to transform the company into a recognized industry leader in process safety management . The Panel believes that these recommendations . . . can help bring about sustainable improvements in process safety performance at all BP U.S. refineries.

See Baker Report, p. xvi-xvii.

63. BP accompanied the release of the Report with assurances to investors such as

Plaintiffs that BP was prepared to implement the recommendations set forth by the Baker Panel.

For example, on January 16, 2007 BP issued a press release entitled “BP will Implement

Recommendations of Independent Safety Review Panel.” The press release, issued from

Houston, stated, in relevant part:

HOUSTON - BP p.l.c. will implement the recommendations made by an independent safety review panel as part of the company’s continuing effort to improve its safety culture and to strengthen and standardize process safety management at BP’s five U.S. refineries.

BP already has taken a number of actions which align with the recommendations of the BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel and will, after a more thorough review, develop plans for additional action at its U.S. refineries and for applying lessons learned elsewhere.

In a report made public today, the Panel identified material deficiencies in process safety performance at BP’s U.S. refineries and called on BP to give process safety the same priority BP has historically given personal safety and environmental performance. The Panel made recommendations for improving BP’s process safety leadership, systems, expertise and oversight of process safety performance .

* * *

John Browne said: “I want to thank Secretary Baker and the other Panel members for their effort, their insights and their recommendations,” Browne said. “We asked for a candid assessment from this diverse group of experts and they delivered one. We will use this report to enhance and continue the substantial

27


effort already underway to improve safety culture and process safety management at our facilities.”

* * *

“Many of the Panel’s recommendations are consistent with the findings of our own internal reviews,” said Browne. “As a result, we have been in action on many of their recommendations for a year or more . Our progress has been encouraging but there is much more to do. Members of our refining leadership team will be meeting with the Panel within the week to address how best to implement these recommendations.

“I share the Panel’s confidence in BP’s refining workforce,” Browne added. “They are, as the Panel stated, ready, willing and able to participate in a sustained effort to move BP towards process safety excellence. As I told the Panel, I intend to ensure BP becomes an industry leader in process safety management and performance. We will want to do everything possible to prevent another tragedy like the one that occurred at Texas City .”

64. One of the key purposes of BP’s public statements regarding the Company’s

commitment to implement the recommendations in the Baker Report was to placate investor and

regulatory concerns about the Company’s slack focus on risk management and safety that led to

earlier disasters such as the Texas City Refinery accident and Prudhoe Bay spill. In making

these statements on January 16, 2007, BP: (1) had a reasonable expectation that investors and

others would rely on them; and (2) undertook an affirmative duty to disclose BP’s lapses or

failures in implementing the recommendations it promised to adopt.

65. On February 7, 2007, Hayward, who was at the time transitioning to become BP’s

CEO, reassured investors that he and BP would remain focused on reforming BP’s operations to

implement better safety processes. Consistent with the assurances provided by BP with the

release of the Baker Report, Hayward told investors that his “priority is simple and clear, it is to

implement our strategy by focusing like a laser on safe and reliable operations.”

28


C. BP Pledged to Implement OMS and Formed Committees to Enhance and Monitor Process Safety

66. BP formed the Group Operations Risk Committee (“GORC”) at the end of 2006,

with Hayward serving as committee chair, as part of the Company’s purported efforts to improve

process safety management and to reduce risk. This committee was charged with monitoring

and implementing OMS. Echoing the language of the Baker Report’s second recommendation,

BP touted OMS as an integrated and comprehensive system for identifying, reducing and

managing process safety risks.

The

overarching purpose of the committee, which met monthly, was to review and monitor the

Company’s progress in managing operational risks. The committee was also charged with

keeping Hayward apprised of the Company’s progress in these areas.

67. Defendant Hayward, as BP’s CEO and GORC Chairman, was tasked with

overseeing the development and implementation OMS. This role, and his attendance at GORC

meetings, provided Hayward with unique insight into process safety, as demonstrated by his

deposition testimony:

Q: And you are very familiar with process safety because of your position as Chair of the Group Operations Risk Committee, aren’t you?

A: I am.

Q: And one of the responsibilities you had . . . as Chair of [GORC] . . . tell me whether I read this correctly, quote, “Oversight of development and implementation of BP’s Operating Management System . . .”

A: That’s correct.

Hayward Dep. at 149:10-13; 163:14-21.

29


68. Defendant Inglis testified that he was also familiar with both the function and

implementation of OMS due to his participation in GORC:

A: The group operations – Group Operations Risk Committee was set up by – by Tony Hayward to monitor our safety and integrity performance. It was there to act as a vehicle for continuing to improve our performance. That was through OMS. So part of it was to actually look at how OMS was being implemented. It connected into the OMS audit function, so that reported in to GORC.

Inglis Dep. at 279:21-280:4.

69. The Orange Book reports provided regular updates on the status and progress of

the OMS implementation to all GORC members, including Inglis and Hayward. As described by

Inglis, this report was intended to provide “performance monitoring information around safety

and operational integrity,” contained key performance and progress indicators relating to various

initiatives and functioned as “a compendium of all the information that you could use to assess

the progress of our safety and operation integrity agenda.” Inglis Dep. at 286:24-287:15.

70. Inglis further stated that he “monitored the implementation of [OMS] through the

– the Orange book and the three stages of [g]ap assessment, prioritization, and MOC

[Management of Change].” Inglis Dep. at 379:11-16.

71. Hayward also acknowledged that the Orange Book was used to monitor the OMS

implementation, stating “if you refer to the thing called the Orange Book, it’s very clear which

areas are complete, which areas are in – in transition.” Hayward Dep. at 791:7-11.

72. In addition to providing information on the OMS implementation, William

Castell, SEEAC Chairman, described the Orange Book, as:

a compilation of Operations and Risk data which is – which is received by [GORC], which is the mechanisms of formal reporting to [GORC] as to the level of safety achieved, the lead and lag factors, the major incidents reported. These are all consolidated. So on a quarterly basis, there is a consolidated document that refers to the last quarter’s performance . . . [and] the – the data in the Orange Book goes down to lost days of work.

30


Castell Dep. at 377:23-378:12, 381:4-8.

73.

74. As stated in BP’s 2008 Annual Report on SEC Form 20-F, SEEAC’s

responsibilities included:

• Monitoring and obtaining assurance on behalf of the board that the management or mitigation of significant BP risks of a non −financial nature is appropriately addressed by the group chief executive.

• Reviewing material to be placed before shareholders that addresses environmental, safety and ethical performance and make [sic] recommendations to the board about their adoption and publication.

75. The Company’s Annual Reports further explained that SEEAC “receives

information on agenda items from both internal and external sources, including internal audit, the

safety and operations function, the group compliance and ethics function, and Ernst & Young”

and “[t]he wider board is kept informed of the activities of the committee, and any issues that

have arisen, through the regular update given by the audit committee chair after each meeting.”

76. SEEAC received periodic reports from Hayward, who served as Special Liaison

to the committee. These reports addressed matters overseen by GORC, such as the status of the

OMS implementation. Similarly, Inglis reported to SEEAC on matters pertaining to BP

Exploration. Hayward attended each of the SEEAC meetings in 2008, 2009, and 2010 leading

up to the Macondo disaster.

77.

31


78.

D. OMS Scope and Implementation

79. In response to the Texas City disaster and various other safety incidents, BP

pledged to implement OMS company-wide. The Company claimed that it intended for this

system to apply to all BP operations, including the Exploration and Production unit in the Gulf of

Mexico. Armstrong Dep. At 57:1-13. BP and Hayward routinely touted OMS as providing a

blueprint for company-wide safe and effective operating procedures.

80. For example, BP’s 2006 Sustainability Report, which was released to the public

on May 9, 2007, represented that the “OMS is a comprehensive system that covers all aspects of

our operations . . .” and that “[t]he new OMS will apply to all operations .”

81. During his speech at the Sanford Bernstein 4th Annual Strategic Decisions

Conference on September 25, 2007 Inglis stated: “One aspect of our focus on safe and reliable

operations that I mentioned earlier is our new standardised Operating Management System

(OMS). This will provide a blueprint for safety and all aspects of operations throughout BP.”

82. In the “Group chief executive’s introduction” of BP’s 2007 Sustainability Report,

Defendant Hayward noted that BP was “still learning lessons from” Texas City and had “agreed

32


to implement all [the Baker Panel’s] recommendations and we are now working to do so.”

Describing BP’s efforts in that regard, Hayward stated, “[w]e are also now introducing our new

operating management system (OMS), designed to bring greater consistency to our operations . .

. My executive team continues to monitor closely our safety performance.” The report further

stated that GORC met 14 times in 2007.

83. In the “Group Chief Executive’s Review” section of BP’s 2008 Annual Review,

released on February 24, 2009, Hayward noted that “[t]he BP operating management system

(OMS) turns the principle of safe and reliable operations into reality by governing how every BP

project, site, operation, and facility is managed. ” On March 4, 2009, BP released its 2008

Annual Report which was filed on Form 20-F and signed by Hayward. This report claimed that

the OMS was a “framework for operations across BP that is integral to improving safety and

operating performance in every site. ”

84. In its 2008 Form 20-F, BP also stated that “[e]ight sites completed the transition

to OMS in 2008,” including “the Gulf of Mexico.”

85. These statements were false, however, as BP conceded at the oral argument on its

motion to dismiss in the Class Action. See MTD Hr’g Tr. (Dkt. 304) at 58:15-20 (“The

statement here that the Gulf of Mexico completed the transition to OMS in 2008 . . . . This is the

one statement, Your Honor, that the plaintiffs have alleged that I admit to the Court is not

accurate.”). Despite BP’s disclosure of specific statistics and figures detailing the number of

sites that had already implemented OMS and demonstrating that the implementation process was

on track, the implementation of OMS in the Gulf of Mexico was not complete in 2008 and still

was not complete at the time of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April of 2010.

33


86. The members of GORC, including Hayward, were kept apprised of the progress

of the OMS implementation during the Relevant Period through reports detailing where OMS

had been “entrained.” As Hayward testified, “I believe I was aware that [OMS] had not been

fully implemented [in April of 2010]. It was in the process of being implemented as it was in

other parts of BP.” Hayward Dep. at 662:25-663:20. Hayward also admitted to knowing that BP

did not even begin to implement OMS in the Gulf of Mexico until 2009, stating, “my

recollection is that we began the process of cutover to OMS in the Fall of 2009.” Hayward Dep.

at 789:11-14.

87. William Castel, SEEAC Chairman, similarly testified: “I believe OMS started its

integration in the Gulf in 2009. I would be personally surprised – and I don’t know, but I’d be

surprised if it had been fully integrated with all the legacy systems [April 2010].” Castell Dep. at

71:11-14.

88. Furthermore, BP never intended for OMS to apply across all of its operations.

OMS did not apply to BP operations on rigs that were not fully-owned by BP. BP admitted as

much at the oral argument on its motion to dismiss the Class Action. See MTD Hr’g Tr. (Dkt.

No. 304) at 66:6-68:20. Unbeknownst to the public, some of BP’s riskiest well sites were drilled

by contracted rigs and were therefore not subject to—and thus not protected by—OMS

procedures, including the Transocean-owned Deepwater Horizon and five of the other wells

located in the Gulf of Mexico. As such, BP’s OMS implementation excluded the majority of the

Company’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

89. Pat O’Bryan, Vice President of Drilling & Completions, testified that the only rig

in the Gulf of Mexico covered by the limited implementation of OMS was the Thunderhorse.

34


Pat O’Bryan Dep. at 413:6-9. As stated by John Baxter, Group Head of Engineering for BP and

GORC member, OMS did not apply to the Deepwater Horizon , rendering the procedures

instituted in response to the Baker Panel’s recommendations inapplicable to the Deepwater

Horizon because the rig was not fully-owned by BP. See John Baxter Dep. 175:11-12; 175:14-

15; 186:24-187:8; 191:20-192:23; 210:3-10.

90. Hayward also testified that “no one from BP [is] involved in implementing well

control procedures [on a Transocean Drilling Team]” and further stated:

BP doesn’t have well control procedures to manage a [contractor site] well that is beginning to flow, because we’re not actually drilling any of the wells that our contractors are. So what we want to verify is that those procedures are in place, and that they’re deemed to be appropriate, and people have been trained such that they know them, and when a situation occurs, that they implement and follow them to control the well.

Hayward Dep. at 668:7-669:5.

91. Members of GORC were well aware of the restricted applicability of OMS. John

Mogford (“Mogford”), former Global Head of Safety & Operations for BP and former member

of GORC, confirmed that members of the committee, including Hayward and Inglis, would have

known the limitations of OMS because the “OMS document, it was approved and the scope was

approved . . . at the GORC.” Mogford Dep. at 150:13-19. As Mogford stated, GORC discussed

“that the scope was that [OMS] applied to BP owned and operated and controlled sites.” Id. at

461:23-25.

92. The utility of OMS was further limited by the lack of access to information on the

system provided to BP employees working in the Gulf of Mexico. The Well Site Leader and

Wells Team Leader for the Deepwater Horizon testified that they had no formal OMS training

until 2011 and were unfamiliar with the policies that comprised the local OMS for the Gulf of

Mexico. See John Guide Dep. at 433:5-8; Ronnie Sepulvado Dep. at 357:16-20, 391:6-394:10.

35


93. The restricted applicability of OMS and the limited scope of the system’s

implementation as of April 2010 had profound consequences. As Hayward admitted, if OMS

had been implemented in the Gulf, and had been applicable to the Deepwater Horizon , the

tragedy that ensued could have potentially been avoided:

Q: If OMS had been implemented in the Gulf of Mexico before April 20, 2010, is there not the potential for having avoided this terrible catastrophe?

***

A: There is a possible potential— ***

A: Undoubtedly.

Hayward Dep. at 793:25-794:8.

E. BP Experienced Well Blowouts During The Relevant Period As The Result Of Faulty Cementing

94. Prior to the Relevant Period, BP knew or recklessly disregarded risks associated

with the failure of cementing throughout the offshore well development process, from the

cementing of well casings into the surrounding seafloor to the plugging of wells during the

“temporary well abandonment” phase.

95. BP was aware, but failed to disclose to the investing public, that as early as 2003,

MMS had concluded in a safety alert that cementing failures had contributed to 33 blowout or

“well kick” (where oil and gas flows into the wellbore) incidents in the Gulf since 1973

(including 13 since 1995). MMS had further determined that some of these incidents involved

“cratering, well loss [or] rig and platform destruction by fire.” The MMS safety alert also noted

that “[a]nnular flow related to cementing surface casing has been identified as one of the most

frequent causes of loss of control incidents in the Gulf of Mexico.”

96. Prior to and during the Relevant Period, BP had firsthand knowledge of

cementing failures affecting its operations and was aware of similar incidents that had impacted

36


other companies’ operations. BP’s experience with cementing failures included a September 17,

2008 gas leak at its Central Azeria platform in the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshi (“ACG”) field off the

coast of Azerbaijan in the Caspian Sea. While the incident went undisclosed to the investing

public, a U.S. embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, and reported on by The Guardian on

December 15, 2010, revealed that as a result of “the blowout of a gas-injection well there was ‘a

lot of mud’ on the platform” and 211 platform workers were evacuated. The diplomatic cable

further noted that “[g]iven the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to

evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition.”

97. As a result of the Central Azeri blowout, BP suspended most of its operations in

the ACG field and reduced production from 900,000 barrels per day to approximately 300,000

barrels per day. A subsequent U.S. embassy cable would reveal that BP “ha[d] closed off a ‘few

suspect wells’ from which they think a bad cement job caused the leaking gas.”

98. BP made no announcement or disclosure of this incident when it occurred in

September 2008. Instead, BP’s Form 20-F for 2008 (filed with the SEC on March 4, 2009), only

referred to the incident as a “subsurface gas release” and failed to disclose the occurrence of a

blowout, the near-avoidance of an explosion aboard the platform, and the possibility that “bad

cement jobs” had affected a “few [other] suspect wells.”

99. As reported by The Guardian, another U.S. embassy cable noted that “BP had

been exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information about the ACG gas leak, both to the

public and to its ACG partners.” Further, the diplomatic cable stated that “some of BP’s ACG

partners are similarly upset with BP’s performance in this episode, as they claim BP has sought

to limit information flow about this event.” Undisclosed risks associated with BP’s willingness

37


to turn a blind eye to cementing issues plaguing its operations would later materialize in the Gulf

during the Relevant Period.

F. The Deepwater Horizon Disaster Establishes That “Process” Safety Improvements Were Not Implemented During the Relevant Period

100. Against the backdrop of BP’s purported company-wide implementation of OMS

and other protocols outlined in the Baker Report, BP was simultaneously expanding its

operations in the Gulf while touting the region as material to its business success. In the

Company’s 2004 annual report (filed with the SEC on June 30, 2005) BP stated, “Deepwater

Gulf of Mexico is one of our new profit centers and our largest area of growth in the United

States.” Similar statements were made in each of BP’s Forms 20-F filed with the SEC during the

Relevant Period. In addition, the Company’s operations in the Gulf have been vital to BP’s oil

production throughout the Relevant Period, providing approximately 28% of BP’s daily oil

output (excluding equity-accounted entities) in 2009, up from approximately 16% in 2004. The

Company’s 2009 Form 20-F (filed with the SEC on March 5, 2010) declares that “Deepwater

Gulf of Mexico is our largest area of growth in the US.”

101. In furtherance of BP’s Gulf operations, in March 2008 BP paid approximately

$34 million to the MMS for an exclusive lease to drill in Mississippi Canyon Block 252, a nine-

square-mile plot in the Gulf of Mexico where the Macondo well is located.

102. As explained by the Presidential Commission, “[a]lthough the Mississippi Canyon

area has many productive oil fields, BP knew relatively little about the geology of Block 252:

Macondo would be its first well on the new lease. BP planned to drill the well to 20,200 feet,”

understand the geology of the site and to assess whether installing production equipment at the

well was warranted. However, before BP was permitted to drill, federal regulations required BP

to file an oil spill response plan with the MMS. See 30 C.F.R. § 254.23.

38


103. As noted in BP I, “MMS regulations require that [an oil spill response plan]

include: (1) an emergency response action plan; (2) disclosure of the equipment available to

combat an oil spill; (3) any oil spill response contractual agreements with third-parties; (4)

calculations of worst-case discharge scenarios; (5) a plan for dispersant use in case of a spill, (6)

an in-situ oil burning plan; and (7) information regarding oil spill response training and drills.”

843 F. Supp. 2d at 740 (citation omitted). The current version of the Company’s Regional OSRP

for the Gulf was filed on June 30, 2009. BP’s Regional OSRP estimated the “total worst case

discharge” scenario for the Gulf of Mexico at a range of between 28,033 barrels of oil per day to

up to 250,000 barrels per day .

104. The Regional OSRP also stated that if there was an oil spill in the Gulf, BP (with

subcontractors) had the capacity to recover approximately 491,721 barrels of oil per day,

significantly higher than the projected total worst case discharge estimate for the Gulf (250,000

barrels per day):

Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing MSRC [Marine Spill Response Corporation] & NRC’s [National Response Corporation] Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRVs), Oil Spill Response Barges (OSRBs), ID Boats, and Quick Strike OSRVs, which have a combined derated recovery rate of 491,721 barrels/day . Temporary storage associated with the identified skimming and temporary storage equipment equals 299,066 barrels.

105. In addition to the Regional OSRP, BP also submitted the Macondo IEP for the

Mississippi Canyon Block 252 to the MMS on March 10, 2009 (the Macondo IEP was dated

February 2009 and received by the MMS on February 23, 2009). The Macondo IEP provided

the following additional estimate of the worst case spill scenario specific to the Mississippi

Canyon Block 252:

Since BP Exploration & Production Inc. has the capability to respond to the appropriate worst-case spill scenario included in its regional OSRP . . . and since the worst-case scenario determined for our Exploration Plan does not replace the appropriate worst-case scenario in our regional OSRP , I hereby certify that

39


BP Exploration & Production Inc. has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan.

106. BP was required to submit the OSRP and the Macondo IEP to the MMS, a sub-

agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33

U.S.C. 40, §§ 2701 et seq. , and the Facility Response Plan Rules, promulgated thereunder, 40

C.F.R. §§ 112.20, 112.21. The Oil Pollution Act and the rules promulgated thereunder which

require these submissions were enacted largely in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill to

improve the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that

expand the federal government’s ability to respond to oil spills and by establishing new

requirements for contingency planning by both the government and the industry. As these

documents were: (i) filed with regulatory authorities pursuant to a federal statutory scheme

enacted, in part, to provide transparency to the public regarding BP’s ability to respond to oil

spill disasters, and (ii) were designed to provide reasonable assurances about BP’s ability to

respond to oil spill disasters, BP had a reasonable expectation that investors and others would

rely on the statements set forth in the OSRP and the Macondo IEP regarding the same.

107. With the Regional OSRP and the Macondo IEP submitted to the MMS, BP began

drilling an exploratory well at the Macondo site on October 7, 2009 using the Marianas rig.

According to the Interior Department Report (defined above), BP moved the Deepwater Horizon

to the Macondo well after the Marianas sustained damage during Hurricane Ida in November

2009. The Deepwater Horizon crew resumed drilling operations at Macondo in February 2010.

The Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible

offshore drilling rig leased by BP.

108. Once the Macondo well was fully drilled, Deepwater Horizon’s instructions were

to cap the well and wait for engineers to determine how to extract the oil. Deepwater Horizon

40


had drilled 13,000 feet (3,962 meters) below the seafloor at the time of the April 20, 2010

explosion.

109. The disaster on April 20, 2010 aboard the Deepwater Horizon followed the same

path as the prior disasters that led BP to engage the Baker Panel. As with the disasters before the

Baker Report, the April 20, 2010 disaster was the product of corner-cutting, overlooked and

disregarded warnings, a lack of oversight, a failure to train employees properly, and long

overdue maintenance.

110. Specifically, the initial accounts and investigations of the April 20 disaster point

to a series of missteps by BP officials leading to hurried and incomplete safety testing before the

disaster. On the day of the explosion, Deepwater Horizon had been drilling in the Gulf for 43

days longer than scheduled and was approximately $20 million over budget. See David

Hammer, “BP was more than $40 million over budget for blown-out well, oil spill hearings

show,” The Times-Picayune (Aug. 26, 2010).

111. According to a May 27, 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “BP

Decisions Set Stage for Disaster,” “BP made choices over the course of the project that rendered

this well more vulnerable to the blowout. . . . Some of BP’s choices allowed it to minimize

costly delays ” in a project weeks behind schedule. For example:

• BP cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem, according to documents belonging to, inter alia, BP. The test required circulation of mud for six to twelve hours, BP’s circulated mud for 30 minutes.

• In an April 18 report to BP, Halliburton warned that if BP didn't use more centering devices, the well would likely have “a SEVERE gas flow problem.” Still, BP decided to install fewer of the devices than Halliburton recommended—six instead of 21.

• a BP manager overseeing final well tests apparently had scant experience in deep-water drilling. He told investigators he was on the rig to “learn about deep water” drilling.

41


• When mud was removed from the well and cement was being poured in, BP failed to run tests to determine whether the cement was sealing properly. Workers from a company able to perform such tests were sent back to land by BP 12 hours before the explosion.

• BP officials argued with the rig’s crew about how mud should be removed from the well on the day of the disaster. BP’s view carried the day. BP has admitted a possible “fundamental mistake” in concluding that it was safe to proceed with mud removal, according to a memo from two Congressmen.

112. According to the Wall Street Journal, on the night of the disaster, Deepwater

Horizon’s crew, following BP’s instructions, began to replace the mud in the well with seawater.

Around 9:45 pm, the seawater and remaining mud began shooting out of the derrick. Workers

on the rig attempted to seal the well. Their efforts came too late. Gas flowing out from the well

found an ignition source and exploded on the rig.

113. The explosion led to an intense fire ultimately causing the Deepwater Horizon to

sink 36 hours after the initial blast. As the Deepwater Horizon sank, it pulled a riser connecting

the rig to the BOP causing oil to begin spewing into the Gulf. Moreover, the BOP – the final

protection against a full blown spill – failed.

114. Rig workers profiled in a 60 Minutes interview after the explosion stated that the

BOP was damaged one month before the spill and that management was on notice of problems.

According to one witness, a worker on Deepwater Horizon accidently pulled 15 feet of the drill

through the BOP as it was sealed four weeks before the explosion. The witness reported pulling

a “handful of chunks of rubber” from the drill. Managers dismissed the witness’ concerns. 5

115. On May 29, 2010, The New York Times published an article entitled “Documents

Show Early Worries About Safety of Rig” based on internal BP documents showing that BP had

specific concerns about the well design and the BOP at the Gulf disaster site more than 11

5 “Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster,” 60 Minutes (May 16, 2010).

42


months earlier and that BP officials expressed concerns about a loss of “well control” as late as

March 2010. According to The New York Times :

On June 22 [2009] . . . BP engineers expressed concerns that the metal casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure. ‘This would certainly be a worst-case scenario,’ Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP, warned in an internal report. ‘However, I have seen it happen so know it can occur.’ The company went ahead with the casing, but only after getting special permission from BP colleagues because it violated the company’s safety policies and design standards. The internal reports do not explain why the company allowed for an exception.”

116. In March 2010, BP officials, according to The New York Times , acknowledged

“problems on the rig that included drilling mud falling into the formation, sudden gas releases

known as ‘kicks’ and a pipe falling into the well, BP officials informed federal regulators that

they were struggling with a loss of ‘well control.’ On at least three occasions, BP records

indicate, the blowout preventer was leaking fluid, which the manufacturer of the device has said

limits its ability to operate properly.” The New York Times analysis of BP documents “show that

there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig far earlier than

those the company described to Congress” in May 2010.

117. According to the Presidential Commission, governmental investigation into the

causes of the explosion have concluded that “the Macondo blowout was the product of several

individual missteps and oversights by BP [, among others,] . . . the cumulative risk that resulted

from these decisions and actions was both unreasonably large and avoidable .”

118. BP was itself directly involved in reducing the effectiveness of Deepwater

Horizon’s BOP. Specifically, in October 2004 BP requested that one of the two blind ram shears

on Deepwater Horizon ’s BOP be removed. A June 20, 2010 report in the New York Times stated

that BP’s request was made in order to make the BOP more portable. The risk of having only

one blind shear ram rather than two was significant, especially when used by deepwater rigs

43


given the BOPs in such rigs had a failure rate of 45%. The blind shear ram is intended to be a

final preventive mechanism if well control is lost. In the event of well control loss, the blind

shear ram could be engaged to slice through the riser and keep hydrocarbons from leaking

outside of a well. Thus, BP’s decision to utilize the Deepwater Horizon , despite knowing that it

had asked to remove one of its shears in order to increase portability, is inconsistent with BP’s

post-Baker Report assurances about increasing process safety. In fact, the October 11, 2004

agreement removing the one of the BOP’s shears stated that removing the shears would “reduce

the built-in redundancy of the BOP, thereby potentially increasing [BP’s] risk profile .” BP’s

decision to use the Deepwater Horizon (and its single shear BOP) to commence the drilling after

BP knew its request to remove one of the ram shears increased the risk to BP was inconsistent

with BP’s stated commitment to increase process safety as recommended by the Baker Panel.

119. The circumstances leading to the April 20, 2010 explosion – given the common

root causes between this disaster and the disasters in Texas City and Alaska– establish that the

Baker Report’s recommendations that the Company publicly (and repeatedly) assured investors

it was implementing were not in fact being implemented. Rather, the April 20, 2010 disaster

illustrates the same root causes (cost cutting, ignoring warnings, lack of oversight, improper

training) leading to the pre-Baker Report accidents which were, according to BP, being remedied

by implementing the Baker Report’s guidelines. Contrary to the Company’s public assurance,

BP was not implementing the process safety guidelines recommended by the Baker Report, and

the April 20, 2010 disaster and follow-on misrepresentations were materializations of the risks

that BP concealed.

44


G. BP Had No Legitimate Spill Response Plan, Contrary to Defendants’ Representations

120. In addition to deficient process safety that ultimately led to the Deepwater

Horizon explosion, and despite public assurances to the contrary, including those made in its

Regional OSRP and well specific response plans (Macondo IEP), BP had no legitimate plan for

containing the 250,000 barrel per day in a “worst case” scenario. See 30 C.F.R. § 254.23 (“The

‘Emergency response action plan’ section is the core of the response plan.”).

121. The Regional OSRP and the Macondo IEP grossly misrepresented BP’s

capabilities to respond to a spill by declaring that “[BP] has the capability to respond to the

maximum extent practicable to a worst-case discharge.” Other statements in the Macondo IEP

further highlight the absence of reasonable of safety processes and the overall reckless approach

BP undertook considering the risks of the project and failure to develop an adequate spill

response plan for the well. According to the Macondo IEP:

An accidental oil spill that might occur as a result of the proposed operation in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 has the potential to cause some detrimental effects

to fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities. If such a spill were to occur in open waters of the OCS proximate to mobile adult finfish or shellfish, the effects would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage would be reduced to the capability of adult fish and shellfish to avoid a spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. No adverse activities to fisheries are anticipated as a result of the proposed activities .

122. Contrary to BP’s assurances, the oil spill resulted in the closure of 36% of the

fisheries in the Gulf.

123. With respect to the impact on the shoreline of the United States, the Macondo IEP

declares that: “ due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would

be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected .” Contrary to BP’s assurances,

45


hundreds of miles of coastline were impacted by BP’s oil spill and BP was unable (for three

months) to offer any legitimate response to address the spill.

124. The Company’s separate spill response plan for the Gulf region – a region touted

by BP as its “largest area of growth in the US” – was equally deficient as it, among other things,

discussed the impact to walruses from an oil spill in the Gulf. Large sections of the OSRP were

copied from other sources without any attempt to verify the applicability of the information to

the Gulf of Mexico. As noted by Rep. Ed Markey during congressional hearings after the Gulf

oil spill, “walruses . . . have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years.” The

Regional OSRP, as summarized in a June 9, 2010 article in the Christian Science Monitor

entitled “BP’s gulf oil spill response plan lists the walrus as a local species,” contains several

other inaccuracies, including:

• Listing Professor Peter Lutz (in BP’s 2009 Regional OSRP) as a national wildlife expert when, in fact, Professor Lutz had passed away in 2005.

• Listing the wrong names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists.

• Listing inaccurate phone numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are no longer in service.

• “[A]ccording to an Associated Press analysis that details how BP officials have pretty much been making it up as they go along . The lengthy [oil spill response] plans approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, reacting to the AP story, said Wednesday he was angry and frustrated. ‘Look, it's obvious to everybody in south Louisiana that they didn't have a plan, they didn't have an adequate plan to deal with this spill,’ Jindal said. ‘They didn't anticipate the BOP (blowout preventer) failure. They didn't anticipate this much oil hitting our coast. From the very first days, they kept telling us, ‘Don't worry, the oil’s not going to make it to your coast.’”

46


125. A group of eight U.S. Senators sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric H.

Holder, Jr., dated May 17, 2010 letter. In this letter, the senators asserted that there was no

“proven equipment and technology” for responding to a spill and that “[m]uch of the response

and implementation of spill control technologies appears to be taking place on an ad hoc basis.”

As BP later acknowledged on May 10, 2010, “[a]ll of the techniques being attempted or

evaluated to contain the flow of oil on the seabed involve significant uncertainties because they

have not been tested in these conditions before.” Furthermore, as confirmed by Inglis, BP had

not previously invested any money in developing methods for containing an oil spill. Inglis Dep.

at 162:9-162:21.

126. Without a legitimate spill response plan in place, BP was forced to implement

trial and error tactics to suppress the flow of oil into the Gulf.

127. Within hours of the initial explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon , on April

21, 2010, BP initiated efforts to use remotely operated vehicles (“ROVs”) to seal off the well.

All of BP’s attempts failed.

128. BP’s initial ROV attempts involved a process known as a “hot stab” to apply

hydraulic pressure to a control panel for the blind shear ram. BP’s efforts to engage the blind

shear ram were futile. Days later, on May 5, 2010, BP would learn that the hot stab method had

no probability of success because the control panel was actually attached to a non-operative test

ram.

129. BP also employed ROVs to cut electrical wires in the hope that the BOP’s

“deadman switch” would be triggered and attempted to deploy the ram by activating the well’s

autoshear system (an emergency system that automatically seals the well when the riser

disconnects from the BOP). These efforts were also unsuccessful.

47


130. The failed initial efforts to seal the well were followed by additional failures.

Among these efforts was the placement of a “cofferdam,” or containment dome, over the larger

of the well’s leaks. The cofferdam was fitted with a pipe that was intended to funnel the leaking

oil and gas to the surface where a ship, the Discoverer Enterprise, was waiting to collect the oil

and gas. BP anticipated that the cofferdam would collect as much as 85% of the leaking oil.

131. While BP had previously used cofferdams to control oil spills, they had been

intended for shallow water operations and had not been tested under deepwater drilling

conditions, where extreme pressure and low temperatures present heightened risks. As a result,

BP was forced to modify an existing 100-ton concrete and steel cofferdam in order to use it at the

Macondo well. By May 5, 2010, BP’s modifications had been completed and the cofferdam was

en route to the oil spill site from Louisiana.

132. On May 7, 2010, when response crews attempted to lower the cofferdam into

place over the leak, gas hydrates (crystal-like substances that form when gas and water are mixed

at high pressure and low temperature) began to clog the cofferdam’s opening, thereby preventing

the crew from properly positioning the cofferdam. As reported by the Presidential Commission,

the gas hydrates presented an additional problem for the response crews:

Because hydrocarbons are lighter than water, the containment dome became buoyant as it filled with oil and gas while BP tried to lower it. BP engineers told [the Company’s Vice President overseeing the project Richard] Lynch that they had “lost the cofferdam” as the dome, full of flammable material, floated up toward the ships on the ocean surface. Averting a potential disaster, the engineers were able to regain control of the dome and move it to safety on the sea floor. In the wake of the cofferdam’s failure, one high-level government official recalled Andy Inglis, BP’s Chief Executive Officer of Exploration and Production, saying with disgust, “If we had tried to make a hydrate collection contraption, we couldn’t have done a better job.”

133. As further noted by the Presidential Commission, the failure of the cofferdam

should not have come as a surprise to BP officials:

48


BP’s Suttles publicly cautioned that previous successful uses had been in much shallower water. BP recognized that chief among potential problems was the risk that methane gas escaping from the well would come into contact with cold sea water and form slushy hydrates, essentially clogging the cofferdam with hydrocarbon ice. Notwithstanding the uncertainty, BP, in a presentation to the leadership of the Department of Interior, described the probability of the containment dome’s success as “Medium/High.” Others in the oil and gas industry were not so optimistic: many experts believed the cofferdam effort was very likely to fail because of the hydrates.

134. Indeed, as noted by former drilling engineer Bob Cavnar (“Cavnar”) in his 2010

book entitled “Disaster on the Horizon,” the use of a cofferdam was the “silliest contraption” as

it “never made much sense” and was “more for show – to look like they were doing something

while they were trying to come up with a real plan.” Cavnar would also state in an interview that

the cofferdam was “destined to fail” given the “scientific certainty” that gas hydrates would

immediately form and clog the cofferdam’s opening under deepwater conditions.

135. As reported by the New York Times on May 8, 2010, response crews abandoned

the cofferdam on the seafloor next to the leak while, according to Suttles, BP would spend “the

next two or three days” deciding how to proceed with efforts to seal the leaks.

136. BP’s next two attempted techniques to halt the flow of oil from the Macondo

well, known as “top kill” and “junk shot,” involved the pumping of material through the BOP to

block the flow of oil and gas from the well.

137. Specifically, the top kill technique involves pumping heavyweight drilling mud

through the BOP and down into the well. If the density of the drilling mud and the pumping

pressure are high enough, the drilling mud will be held in place and will block oil and gas from

flowing out through the well. Similarly, the junk shot technique involves pumping debris like

tire pieces, golf balls, and pieces of rope in an effort to obstruct oil flow through the BOP by

filling spaces and gaps in the BOP.

49


138. It was intended that together, the top kill and junk shot techniques would

complement each other and stop the flow of oil and gas. However, as reported by the

Presidential Commission, these techniques, like BP’s cofferdam effort, had never been used in

deepwater conditions. Additionally, top kill and junk shot had not been contemplated by BP’s

Regional OSRP, presented a significant risk of actually increasing the amount of oil flowing out

of the well if the drilling mud further damaged the well, and were unlikely to quickly contain the

flow of oil and gas. Indeed, these two techniques had previously taken approximately 290 days

to control the Ixtoc I oil spill that occurred in shallow waters in 1979 when a semi-submersible

oil rig exploded and resulted in the release of millions of gallons of oil and gas into the Gulf.

139. When BP began its top kill and junk shot operations on May 26, 2010, it

presented conflicting messages of the likelihood of success. Hayward represented that the

Company estimated the chance of success at between 60 and 70 percent while, as noted by the

Presidential Commission, “[o]ne MMS employee estimated that probability as less than 50

percent, while a BP contractor said that he only gave the top kill a ‘tiny’ chance to succeed.”

140. Over the course of three days, BP proceeded to pump heavy drilling mud at rates

in excess of 65 to 70 barrels per minute into the BOP as drilling mud and oil and gas continued

to flow back out of the well. BP also employed numerous “junk shots” to attempt to plug the

leak. Nonetheless, these efforts failed to make progress and Suttles admitted that “[t]he repeated

pumping, we don’t believe, will likely achieve success so at this point it’s time to move to the

next option.”

141. According to the Presidential Commission, BP presented the risk of a possible

collapse of rupture disks in the well’s 16-inch casing as the most likely explanation for the

failure of top kill. However, the Presidential Commission noted that it “did not fully accept BP’s

50


analysis of what happened” and, instead, attributed the top kill’s failure to the fact that BP did

not pump heavy drilling mud into the well at a high enough rate because “the rate at which oil

was flowing from the well was many times greater than the then-current 5,000 barrels-per day

estimate.”

142. Following the failures of the top kill and junk shot efforts, BP again sought the

use of a technique not previously discussed in BP’s Regional OSRP—the employment of a “top

hat” collection device that would funnel oil via a new riser to the Discoverer Enterprise at the

surface. As announced on May 29, 2010, in order to install the top hat, BP would use ROVs to

cut off the portion of the damaged riser that was still attached to the BOP.

143. Nearly fifty days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, BP had installed the top

hat collection device and the Discoverer Enterprise was collecting approximately 15,000 barrels

of oil per day –just 25% of the amount of oil being released into the Gulf of Mexico.

144. Concurrently, BP successfully implemented an additional method of channeling

oil and gas to the surface through the BOP’s choke line. Once collected at the surface by a

vessel known as the Q4000, oil and gas were burned off. Like the Company’s other post-spill

efforts, this technique had not been addressed in BP’s OSRP filings with the MMS.

145. Given these limited successes, the Presidential Commission reported that BP had

been “overly optimistic about the percentage of oil it could remove or collect.” Specifically, the

Presidential Commission noted that:

On June 1, Suttles said that he expected the top hat, when connected to the Discoverer Enterprise, to be able to collect the “vast majority” of the oil. Within days, it became apparent that the top hat and Discoverer Enterprise were inadequate. On June 6, Hayward told the BBC that, with the Q4000 in place, “we would very much hope to be containing the vast majority of the oil.” But when the Q4000 came online in mid-June, the two vessels’ joint capacity of 25,000 barrels per day was still insufficient.

51


146. As reported by the Presidential Commission, BP’s failure to adequately respond

to the oil spill was impacted by BP’s refusal to seek assistance:

BP’s Lynch said that the speed at which the company brought capacity online was limited solely by the availability of dynamically positioned production vessels. One senior Coast Guard official challenged BP’s definition of availability: he suggested that BP did not consider options such as procuring ships on charter with other companies until the government pushed it to do so. Obtaining another production vessel might have enabled BP to collect oil through the BOP’s kill line at a rate comparable to that of the Q4000.

147. On June 3, 2010, the Financial Times published an article entitled “BP ‘not

prepared’ for deep-water spill.” In this article, the Financial Times reported that Hayward

essentially admitted that BP’s spill response plans were ineffective. The article stated, in

relevant part: “BP did not have all the equipment needed to stop the leak from its Macondo well

in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the explosion on an oil rig six weeks ago, the UK

company’s chief executive admitted.” The article also quotes Hayward admitting that “What is

undoubtedly true is that we did not have the tools you would want in your tool-kit. . . .”

According to the article, Hayward further accepted it was “an entirely fair criticism” to say the

Company had not been fully prepared for a deep-water oil leak.

148. BP’s final attempt to stop the flow of oil and gas from the Macondo well was the

installation of a “capping stack” that would be placed on top of the BOP and would function in a

similar fashion as a BOP. Like the cofferdam, top kill, junk shot, and top hat efforts, the capping

stack plan had not been included in BP’s Regional OSRP and had not been previously employed

in deepwater spill conditions.

149. The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. government became heavily involved in this

process given the Company’s prior failures. As noted by the Presidential Commission:

The [U.S. government] science advisors would question BP’s assumptions, forcing it to evaluate worst-case scenarios and explain how it was mitigating risk. The government saw its pushback as essential because BP would not, on its own,

52


consider the full range of possibilities. According to one senior government official, before the increased supervision, BP “ hoped for the best, planned for the best, expected the best .” . . . [Paul] Tooms, BP’s Vice President of Engineering, believed that the government science advisors unnecessarily slowed the containment effort, arguing that scientists consider risk differently than engineers and that BP had expertise in managing risk. BP, however, was not in the best position to tout that expertise: its well had just blown out.

150. On July 9, 2010, BP was granted authorization from the U.S. Coast Guard to

begin the installation of the capping stack, but was required to wait for additional tests and

authorization before closing the capping stack. After installation of the capping stack was

completed on July 12, 2010, experts conducted well integrity testing to assess the likelihood that

the well had been damaged and that the closing of the well would force oil and gas through the

surrounding seafloor rock formations—resulting in potentially widespread leakage. On July 15,

2010, BP was granted authorization to begin shutting the valves on the capping stack and began

additional well integrity tests to monitor the well. After 87 days and roughly five million barrels

of oil had flowed from the well, BP had successfully stopped the flow of oil and gas into the

Gulf.

151. In the following days, BP sought approval from the U.S. government for a final

capping of the well via a “static kill.” The static kill procedure involved pumping heavy drilling

mud into the well in a similar procedure to the top kill. Given that the leakage of oil was now

well controlled, the static kill procedure required significantly lower pumping pressures than a

top kill to seal the well. After receiving authorization from the U.S. Government on August 2,

2010, BP completed the static kill procedure and the U.S. Coast Guard reported on August 8,

2010 that the cement seal was holding properly.

152. The static kill stopped the leaking oil but was only a temporary solution. In order

to shutdown the well, BP needed to drill a second well (a relief well) to intersect the source of

the leak and then to plug the primary well with cement. On September 17, 2010, the first relief

53


well – which BP had begun drilling in May – finally intercepted the Macondo well. On

September 19, 2010, retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen stated that “[t]he Macondo 252

well is effectively dead . . . [W]e can now state, definitively, that the Macondo well poses no

continuing threat to the Gulf of Mexico.”

V. DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD

A. January 16, 2007 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

153. In BP’s January 16, 2007 press release announcing the release of the Baker

Report, which was filed with the SEC and issued on Form 6-K, BP stated, in part:

BP already has taken a number of actions which align with the recommendations of the BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel and will, after a more thorough review, develop plans for additional action at its U.S. refineries and for applying lessons learned elsewhere.

154. The foregoing statement, which caused BP securities to trade at artificially

inflated prices, was materially false and misleading because Defendants knew or recklessly

disregarded the fact that at the time BP was expanding its deepwater drilling operations without

instituting sufficient operational protocols and safety standards necessary to reduce the risk of

catastrophic failure, thereby increasing the Company’s exposure to risk ( See, e.g. , ¶¶ 100, 258-

62, 263-70). For example, BP failed to institute procedures to reduce the risk of accidents

occurring at its rigs, including the Deepwater Horizon , despite being aware of the specific

dangers tied to executing cement jobs in the course of deepwater drilling ( See, e.g. , ¶¶ 94-99).

Likewise, during the Relevant Period, BP disregarded known risks associated with the use of

BOPs and blind shear rams (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 115-18). Moreover, the fact that the Deepwater

Horizon disaster was so similar to prior disasters at Texas City and Prudhoe Bay demonstrates

that BP, contrary to its public representation, had not made progress or taken actions to

54


implement the recommendations of the Baker Panel ( See, e.g. , ¶¶ 109, 119). Additionally, the

Presidential Commission found that BP lacked “consistent and reliable risk-management

processes.” (See ¶ 5).

B. May 9, 2007 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

155. BP released its 2006 Sustainability Report on May 9, 2007. This report stated in

part:

During 2006, we undertook specific investments and targeted programmes in response to the Texas City incident as well as building more comprehensive systems for managing process safety across the group. . . .

During 2006, we built on the learning from more recent incidents and industry best practice to develop a new operating management system (OMS) to achieve further improvements and reductions in risk. Our goals remain unchanged: no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment. The OMS is a comprehensive system that covers all aspects of our operations , including three dimensions of safety – personal safety, process safety and the environment . . .

* * * However, we recognize that we have more to do to achieve excellence in process safety, which includes preventing accidental releases of hazardous materials from industrial processes that can have catastrophic effects, such as fires, which may result in fatalities, injuries or environmental damage. This was one of the main findings of the BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel under former US Secretary of State James A Baker, III, which reported in January 2007. The panel made 10 recommendations, all of which BP will implement, in areas ranging from leadership to performance indicators[.]

* * *

The new OMS will apply to all operations by the end of 2010 and includes safety, integrity, environmental management and health. . . . Each site will have its own local OMS , based on a consistent group-wide framework. . . . The aim of the OMS is to have consistent standards of design, construction, operating procedures and maintenance that help to ensure the reliability and integrity of our plants.

* * *

In 2006, this approach was approved as a group practice, part of the new OMS, defining the environmental impact management processes and requirements to which BP will operate. We intend that all new projects in BP will use the practice [of assessing “environmental requirements for new projects”] by the end of 2007. The practice was developed primarily for major projects where the potential for environmental impact is often the greatest. However, it also applies to smaller projects that may have the potential for similar levels of impact in environmentally sensitive areas.

55


156. The foregoing statements, which caused BP securities to trade at artificially

inflated prices, were materially false and misleading and were made knowingly or with reckless

disregard for their truth for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, BP

misrepresented that the OMS program would apply to “all aspects of our operations,” “all

operations” and “all new projects in BP” when, in actuality, OMS only applied to rigs that BP

fully-owned and not to BP operations on leased rigs, such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon

located in the Gulf of Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90); Inglis and Hayward, through their respective

positions within SEEAC and GORC, had access to information, such as that disclosed in the

Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these statements ( see ¶¶ 66-69, 70-71, 76-78,

91).

C. May 16, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 8 from NY/OH Class Action Order –

Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

157. On May 16, 2007, Malone testified before the U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. In his

written statement to the Committee, Malone stated, in part:

I continue to meet with employees to reinforce my expectations of them: that they must ensure that our operations are safe, that they understand they have both a right and responsibility to shut down any process they feel is unsafe or operationally unsound, and that they are encouraged to raise concerns on any issue.

* * *

BP does not tolerate retaliation against workers who raise safety concerns.


inflated prices, was made negligently and was materially false and misleading because BP was

retaliating against workers who reported safety violations through the Company’s established

procedures and channels, including, for example, firing one employee for engaging in

56


whistleblower activities with respect to the Atlantis rig (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 273-78). The Company’s

pattern of retaliatory actions against workers who reported safety issues rendered its statement

that “BP does not tolerate retaliation against workers who report safety concerns” false when

made.

D. July 24, 2007 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

159. On July 24, 2007, BP held a conference call with investors and analysts. During

this call, Hayward, on behalf of BP plc, stated:

First, safety. We are ensuring that we have consistent, safe, reliable operations across BP. We are implementing the Baker Panel recommendations. We are also in the early days of establishing a new way of operating in BP, with the progressive roll-out of a common group wide Operating Management System .



disregard for their truth for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Hayward

misled investors by stating that the OMS program would provide a “common” and “group-wide”

system when, in fact, OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP operations on

leased rigs, such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon located in the Gulf of Mexico ( see, e.g. , ¶¶

88-90); and Hayward, through his positions within SEEAC and GORC, had access to

information, such as that disclosed in the Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these

statements (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-69, 71, 76-78, 91).

E. September 25, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 9 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Not Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

161. On September 25, 2007 Inglis gave a speech at the Sanford Bernstein 4th Annual

Strategic Decisions Conference. During this speech, Inglis, on behalf of BP Exploration, stated:

One aspect of our focus on safe and reliable operations that I mentioned earlier, is our new standardised Operating Management System (OMS). This will provide

57


a blueprint for safety and all aspects of operations throughout BP , making sure operations are undertaken to a consistently high standard worldwide.



disregard for their truth for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Inglis misled

investors by stating that the OMS program would apply to “all aspects of operations throughout

BP” when, in fact, OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP operations on

leased rigs, such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon located in the Gulf of Mexico ( see, e.g. , ¶¶

88-90); Inglis, through his position within GORC, had access to information, such as that

disclosed in the Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. , ¶¶

66-71).

F. October 25, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 10 from NY/OH Class Action Order – Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

163. On October 25, 2007, BP issued a press release announcing the resolution of

various law enforcement investigations, including those relating to the Texas City refinery

explosion and the Prudhoe Bay spill. The press release, which was filed with the SEC and issued

on SEC Form 6-K, quoted Malone as stating, in part: “[i]n the months and years since these

violations occurred, we have made real progress in the areas of process safety performance

and risk management .”


inflated prices, was made negligently and was materially false and misleading for the reasons set

forth in ¶ 154.

58


G. November 8, 2007 Statements [Misrep. No. 11 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

165. On November 8, 2007, Hayward spoke at the Houston Forum in Houston, Texas

about BP’s purported commitment to process safety and about the Company’s ability to

successfully operate at the industry’s “frontiers,” which included the Gulf of Mexico. During his

presentation, Defendant Hayward stated, in part:

We continue to implement the roadmap provided to ourselves and the industry by the excellent work of the Baker Panel. BP remains absolutely committed to taking these lessons and becoming a world leader in process safety.



disregard for its truth for the reasons set forth in ¶ 154.

H. February 22, 2008 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

167. On February 22, 2008, BP released its 2007 Annual Review, which contained

statements related to safety and risk management:

Throughout 2007, BP continued to progress the process safety enhancement programme initiated in response to the March 2005 incident at the Texas City refinery. We have made progress across the group on all the recommendations.


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth in ¶ 154.

I. February 27, 2008 Statements [Misrep. No. 14 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

169. On February 27, 2008, BP conducted its 2008 Strategy Presentation during a

conference call with investors and analysts. Hayward stated, in part:

Notwithstanding this track record, our intense focus on process safety continues. We are making good progress in addressing the recommendations of the Baker Panel and have begun to implement a new Operating Management System across all of BP’s operations. Integrity related incidents have fallen significantly

59


over the last three years and oil spills of more than one barrel continue a strong downward trend.

Safe and reliable operations remain our number one priority.



disregard for its truth for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Hayward

misrepresented that BP was implementing OMS “across all of BP’s operations” when, in

actuality, OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP operations on leased rigs,

such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon located in the Gulf of Mexico ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90);

Hayward, through his positions within SEEAC and GORC, had access to information, such as

that disclosed in the Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. ,

¶¶ 66-69, 71, 76-78, 91). Moreover, the fact that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was so similar

to prior disasters at Texas City and Prudhoe Bay demonstrates that BP, contrary to its public

representation, had not made progress or taken actions to implement the recommendations of the

Baker Panel (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 109, 119). Additionally, the Presidential Commission found that BP

lacked “consistent and reliable risk-management processes.” ( See ¶ 5).

J. March 4, 2008 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

171. On March 4, 2008, BP filed its 2007 Annual Report with the SEC on Form 20-F,

which was signed by Hayward. In this report, BP stated:

Throughout 2007, BP continued to progress the process safety enhancement programme initiated in response to the March 2005 incident at the Texas City refinery . We worked to implement the recommendations of the BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel (the panel), which issued its report on the incident in January 2007 (see www.bp.com/bakerpanelreport) . We have made material progress throughout the group across all of the panel’s 10 recommendations .

60



inflated prices, were materially false and misleading and were made knowingly, or with reckless

disregard for its truth, for the reasons alleged above in ¶ 154.

K. April 17, 2008 Statements [Misrep. No. 16 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

173. On April 17, 2008, BP held its Annual General Meeting. A transcript of that

meeting subsequently posted by BP on its publicly-accessible website demonstrated that during

the meeting Hayward stated, in part:

When I took over as chief executive last May, I said that we would focus on three basic priorities: safety, people, and performance. Everyone at BP understands those priorities. And while I am in this role they will remain the priorities.

Safety is our number one priority and in 2007 our overall safety record continued to improve. Over the last eight years our safety performance according to the standard industry measure has improved threefold and is now among the best in our industry.

Our intense focus on process safety continues. We are making good progress in addressing the recommendations of the Baker Panel and have begun to implement a new Operating Management System across all of BP’s operations. This is aimed at ensuring that our operations across the world look and feel the same everywhere – and perform to the same high standard.



disregard for its truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Hayward

misrepresented that BP was implementing OMS “across all of BP’s operations” when, in



Hayward, through his positions within SEEAC and GORC, had access to information, such as

that disclosed in the Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. ,

¶¶ 66-69, 71, 76-78, 91). Moreover, the fact that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was so similar

61


to prior disasters at Texas City and Prudhoe Bay demonstrates that BP, contrary to its public

representation, had not made progress or taken actions to implement the recommendations of the

Baker Panel (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 109, 119). Additionally, the Presidential Commission found that BP

lacked “consistent and reliable risk-management processes.” ( See ¶ 5).

L. December 17, 2008 Statements [Misrep. No. 18 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Portions Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

175. On December 17, 2008, Hayward spoke at the HRH Prince of Wales’s 3rd

Annual Accounting for Sustainability Forum. A transcript of Hayward’s speech was

subsequently posted by BP on its publicly-accessible website. During the speech, Hayward

stated, in part:

BP had a number of high-profile safety lapses in recent years, notably at our Texas City refinery, where there was tragic and unacceptable loss of life.

These lapses exposed shortcomings – but they also gave us a huge opportunity to learn and improve the way we operate. We opened ourselves up to scrutiny –

and we listened more to our front-line operations people – who, of course, really know what is going on on the ground. And we have continuously reported progress against a response plan and against an independent external report.

One of the many consequences for us has been to develop and embed a new Operating Management System right across BP – and we operate in 100 countries – so that is no mean feat.




misrepresented that BP was implementing OMS “right across BP” when, in actuality, OMS only

applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP operations on leased rigs, such as Transocean’s

Deepwater Horizon located in the Gulf of Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90); Hayward, through his


Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-69, 71, 76-78,

62


91); the fact that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was so similar to prior disasters at Texas City

and Prudhoe Bay demonstrates that BP, contrary to its public representation, had not made

progress or taken actions to implement the recommendations of the Baker Panel ( see, e.g. , ¶¶

109, 119); and the Presidential Commission found that BP lacked “consistent and reliable risk-

management processes.” ( See ¶ 5); an internal document distributed the same month to Hayward

warned of “major” process safety concerns that increased the likelihood and severity of “process-

safety related incidents.” (¶ 262).

M. February 24, 2009 Statements [Misrep. Nos. 21 and 22 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Not Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

177. BP issued its 2008 Annual Review on February 24, 2009. In this Review, BP

made false statements regarding is commitment to safety, stating, in part:

Safety, both personal and process, remains our highest priority. 2008 was one of our best ever years for personal safety, with our performance expected to remain among the best in the industry. During the year we began migrating to the new BP OMS, which has an increased focus on process safety and continuous improvement . The majority of our operations in North America Gas, the Gulf of Mexico , Colombia and the Endicott field in Alaska all completed the migration to the OMS in 2008.

178. In the “Group chief executive’s review” section of the Annual Review, Hayward

echoed the Company’s purported commitment to safety, stating:

Q: At the start of the year what priorities did you set out for BP?

A: Safety, people and performance, and these remain our priorities. Our number one priority was to do everything possible to achieve safe, compliant and reliable operations.

Good policies and processes are essential but, ultimately, safety is about how people think and act. That’s critical at the front line but it is also true for the entire group. Safety must inform every decision and every action. The BP operating management system (OMS) turns the principle of safe and reliable operations into reality by governing how every BP project, site, operation and facility is managed.

***

63


Q: How did Exploration and Production perform?

A: It was an excellent year, with major projects such as Thunder Horse in the Gulf of Mexico and Deepwater Gunashli in Azerbaijan coming onstream. That, together with safe and reliable performance from our existing operations, contributed to underlying production growth – in contrast to the falling output of our major competitors – and more than compensated for the effects of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav and other operational issues.



disregard for their truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, BP

misrepresented that BP’s Gulf of Mexico operations had transitioned to OMS when, in actuality,

OMS had not been implemented in the Gulf as of April 2010 ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 85-87); Hayward

misled investors by stating that OMS “govern[ed] how every BP project, site, operation and

facility is managed” when, in fact, OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP

operations on leased rigs, such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon located in the Gulf of

Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90); Hayward, through his positions within SEEAC and GORC, had

access to information, such as that disclosed in the Orange Book reports, which directly

contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-69, 71, 76-78, 91); and Hayward had been alerted

by an internal document to “major” process safety issues in the Gulf of Mexico which increased

the probability of “process-safety related incidents” and therefore misrepresented that BP’s

operations in the Gulf of Mexico were covered by the process-safety guidelines in OMS (¶ 262).

N. March 4, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 25 from NY/OH Class Action Order; Misrep. No. 13 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading in Ludlow Order; No Scienter Found)

180. On March 4, 2009, BP filed is 2008 Annual Report with the SEC on Form-20F,

which was signed by Hayward. In this Report, BP made numerous false statements regarding

the implementation of OMS and the safety and quality of its Gulf of Mexico operations. BP

64


represented, in part, that eight sites, including the Gulf of Mexico, had “completed the transition

to OMS in 2008.”

181. The Report further stated:

We continue to implement our new operating management system (OMS), a framework for operations across BP that is integral to improving safety and operating performance in every site.

When fully implemented, OMS will be the single framework within which we will operate, consolidating BP’s requirements relating to process safety, environmental performance, legal compliance in operations, and personal, marine and driving safety. . . .

The OMS establishes a set of requirements, and provides sites with a systematic way to improve operating performance on a continuous basis. BP businesses implementing OMS must work to integrate group requirements within their local system to meet legal obligations, address local stakeholder needs, reduce risk and improve efficiency and reliability. A number of mandatory operating and engineering technical requirements have been defined within the OMS, to address process safety and related risks.

All operated businesses plan to transition to OMS by the end of 2010. Eight sites completed the transition to OMS in 2008 ; two petrochemicals plants, Cooper River and Decatur, two refineries, Lingen and Gelsenkirchen and four Exploration and Production sites, North America Gas, the Gulf of Mexico , Colombia and the Endicott field in Alaska. . . .

For the sites already involved, implementing OMS has involved detailed planning, including gap assessments supported by external facilitators. A core aspect of OMS implementation is that each site produces its own ‘local OMS’, which takes account of relevant risks at the site and details the site’s approach to managing those risks. As part of its transition to OMS, a site issues its local OMS handbook, and this summarizes its approach to risk management. Each site also develops a plan to close gaps that is reviewed annually. The transition to OMS, at local and group level, has been handled in a formal and systematic way, to ensure the change is managed safely and comprehensively.

*

Executive management has taken a range of actions to demonstrate their leadership and commitment to safety. The group chief executive has consistently emphasized that safety, people, and performance are our top priority, a belief made clear in his 2007 announcement of a forward agenda for simplification and cultural change in BP. Safety performance has been scrutinized by the Group Operations Risk Committee (the GORC), chaired by the group chief executive

65


and tasked with assuring the group chief executive that group operational risks are identified and managed appropriately. . . .



disregard for their truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Hayward,

who signed the certification for the foregoing statement, had access to information, such as that

disclosed in the Orange Book reports, through his positions with SEEAC and GORC, which

directly contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-69, 71, 76-78, 91); Hayward admitted to

knowing that OMS was not fully implemented in the Gulf of Mexico in 2008, that the

implementation process would not begin until Fall 2009, and that by April 2010, the Gulf of

Mexico had yet to transition to OMS ( see ¶ 86);

Hayward had been alerted by

an internal document to “major” process safety issues in the Gulf of Mexico which increased the

probability of “process-safety related incidents” and therefore misrepresented that BP’s

operations in the Gulf of Mexico were covered by the process-safety guidelines in OMS (¶ 262);

Hayward knew that OMS was intended to address process safety and prevent major accidents,

such as a blowout, and admitted that OMS could have potentially avoided the Deepwater

Horizon tragedy if implemented in the Gulf of Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-68, 93); BP and Hayward

also misled investors because the Form 20-F, which Hayward signed, stated that OMS was a

“common” system applying a “single operating framework” to “all BP operations” and that the

OMS would be “adopted by operating sites” when, in actuality, OMS only applied to rigs that BP

fully-owned and not to BP operations on leased rigs, such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon

located in the Gulf of Mexico ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90); Defendants further misled investors by failing

66


to disclose that BP lacked adequate safety measures in the Gulf of Mexico, BP did not have a

legitimate OSRP, BP had downplayed the risks facing its Gulf of Mexico operations while

playing up the potential profitability of the region, and BP failed to put in place adequate internal

safety and risk controls ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 94-99, 100, 119, 120-25).

O. March 10, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 26 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found; Misrep. No. 16 from Ludlow Order]

183. On February 23, 2009, BP Exploration submitted BP’s Macondo IEP for the

Mississippi Canyon Block 252 to the MMS. By March 10, 2009, the Macondo IEP was

“deemed submitted” by MMS and was available to the public and BP investors. The Macondo

IEP made the following representations:

I hereby certify that BP Exploration & Production Inc. has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge , or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan.

* * *

An accidental oil spill that might occur as a result of the proposed operation in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities. If such a spill were to occur in open waters of the OCS proximate to mobile adult finfish or shellfish, the effects would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage would be reduced to the capability of adult fish and shellfish to avoid a spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. No adverse activities to fisheries are anticipated as a result of the proposed activities.

* * *

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of BP’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery and removal of the oil spill.

184. The Macondo IEP further stated:

67


An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to beaches. However, due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. Both the historical spill data and the combined trajectory/risk calculations referenced in the publication OCS EIA/EA MMS 2002-052 indicate there is little risk of contact or impact to the coastline and associated environmental resources.

185. The Macondo IEP also made identical statements to those set forth in the

immediately preceding paragraph concerning oil spill response capabilities as they relate to

protecting wetlands, costal wildlife, refuges, and wilderness areas.

186. Further, the Macondo IEP included misleading estimates of a worst-case

discharge scenario of 162,000 barrels per day and falsely stated that BP was prepared to respond

to such a spill.


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading because BP proved unable to respond to the

oil spill following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, despite publicly providing worst case

damage scenarios significantly higher than the amount of the actual spill that occurred after the

Deepwater Horizon explosion. (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 120-52). Moreover, as noted by the Presidential

Commission: “Despite [BP’s claims that it “could recover nearly 500,000 barrels of oil per

day”], the oil-spill removal organizations were quickly outmatched.” Several U.S. Senators

commented—and Defendants Hayward and Suttles admitted—that BP did not have “proven

equipment and technology” and was instead responding “on an ad hoc basis,” “making it up day

to day” despite BP’s public pre-spill representations that it had “the capability to respond ... to a

worst-case discharge.” (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 103-06). In fact, BP had never invested in the development

of spill containment methods or technology. Additionally, BP misrepresented that an oil spill

would not adversely impact beaches, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.

68


188. With respect to the specific representations related to the Mississippi Cannon

Block 252, BP knowing or recklessly represented that the Macondo IEP was based on an

analysis of the Mississippi site when, in reality, the Macondo IEP contained boilerplate language

simply cut and pasted from one or more exploration plans that MMS had previously approved

for other drilling sites. ( See, e.g. , ¶ 105).

P. April 16, 2009 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

189. BP issued its 2008 Sustainability Review on April 16, 2009. In the “Group chief

executive’s review” section, Hayward stated:

You can see a similar balanced approach in our new operating management system (OMS), which is to be implemented at each BP site . It covers everything from compliance and risk management through to governance and measuring results.




misrepresented that OMS would be adopted “at each BP site” when, in actuality, OMS only

applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP operations on leased rigs, such as Transocean’s

Deepwater Horizon located in the Gulf of Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90); Hayward, through his



91).

Q. June 30, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 30 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

191. On June 30, 2009, BP publicly filed its revised Regional OSRP for the Gulf of

Mexico. The response plan was issued by the Gulf of Mexico Strategic Performance Unit based

69


in Houston, Texas. As set forth therein, the “TOTAL WORST CASE DISCHARGE” scenarios

for the Gulf ranged from a release of 28,033 barrels of oil per day to 250,000 barrels of oil per

day. With respect to that range, the Regional OSRP stated: (a) an oil spill occurring less than ten

miles from the shoreline could create a worse case discharge of 28,033 barrels of oil per day; (b)

an oil spill that occurred greater than ten miles from the shoreline could create a worse case

discharge of 177,400 barrels of oil per day; and (c) an oil spill caused by a mobile drilling rig

that is drilling an exploratory well could create a worst case discharge of 250,000 barrels of oil

per day.

192. The Regional OSRP represented that BP, its subsidiaries and its subcontractors

could recover approximately 491,721 barrels of oil per day (or more than 20.6 million gallons)

in the event of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP further claimed in the Regional OSRP that

the Company and its subcontractors “maintain the necessary spill containment and recovery

equipment to respond effectively to spills.”


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading because BP proved unable to respond to the

oil spill following the Deepwater Horizon explosion. (See, e.g. , ¶¶ 120-52). Despite publicly

providing worst case damage scenarios significantly higher than the amount of the actual spill

that occurred after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, BP’s “oil-spill removal organizations were

quickly outmatched.” ( See id. ) Several U.S. Senators commented—and Hayward and Suttles

admitted—that BP did not have “proven equipment and technology” and was instead responding

“on an ad hoc basis” and was “making it up day to day” despite BP’s public pre-spill

representations that it had “the capability to respond ... to a worst-case discharge.” ( See, e.g. , ¶¶

103-06, 124-25). With respect to the specific representations in the Regional OSRP, most of the

70


content of the report was at best irrelevant and immaterial, having been copied from other

websites, and at worst wholly inaccurate, “describ[ing] biological resources nonexistent in the

Gulf” and identifying a “wildlife expert” who had died several years prior to the issuance of the

Regional OSRP. (See, e.g. , ¶ 124).

R. November 19, 2009 Statements [Misrep. No. 31 from NY/OH Class Action Order – Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

194. In connection with his testimony before the United States Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources, Rainey submitted a written statement to the committee on

November 19, 2009, which included the following misrepresentations:

Examples of the technologies which have helped to reduce accidental releases include:

• Down hole flow control valves that shut down the well automatically if damage to the surface equipment is detected;

• Blowout preventer technology which includes redundant systems and controls;

• New and improved well control techniques which maintain constant control of the fluids in the wellbore;

• Sensors which continually monitor the subsurface and seabed conditions for sudden changes in well pressures; and

• BP’s fiber optic network in the US Gulf of Mexico which allows us to monitor well pressures in real time, both at the facility and in our offices in Houston.

While our intent is to prevent all accidental discharges, we conduct regular emergency drills with local, state, and federal agencies. All of our production facilities have contingency plans that identify the procedures, response equipment, and key personnel needed for responding to incidents.


inflated prices, were made negligently and were materially false and misleading because BP

proved unable to respond to the oil spill following the Deepwater Horizon explosion. ( See, e.g. ,

¶¶ 120-52). Despite publicly providing worst case damage scenarios significantly higher than

the amount of the actual spill that occurred after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, BP’s “oil-

71


spill removal organizations were quickly outmatched.” ( See id. ) Several U.S. Senators

commented—and Defendants Hayward and Suttles admitted—that BP did not have “proven

equipment and technology” and was instead responding “on an ad hoc basis” and was “making it

up day to day” despite BP’s public pre-spill representations that it had “the capability to

respond...to a worst-case discharge.” ( See, e.g. , ¶¶ 103-06, 124-25).

196. Additionally, despite reassuring the market just six months before the Deepwater

Horizon disaster that BP had “[b]lowout preventer technology which includes redundant systems

and controls,” in fact, BP specifically asked that these redundant systems be removed from the

Deepwater Horizon to speed up testing, including the removal of a second (and recommended)

blind shear ram to counteract any issues with the BOP. ( See, e.g. , ¶ 118).

S. February 26, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 18 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Portions Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

197. BP issued its 2009 Annual Review on February 26, 2010. In the section entitled

“Safety, reliability, compliance and continuous improvement,” BP stated:

Safe, reliable and compliant operations remain the group’s first priority. A key enabler for this is the BP operating management system (OMS), which provides a common framework for all BP operations , designed to achieve consistency and continuous improvement in safety and efficiency. Alongside mandatory practices to address particular risks, OMS enables each site to focus on the most important risks in its own operations and sets out procedures on how to manage them in accordance with the group-wide framework .


inflated prices, was materially false and misleading and was made knowingly, or with reckless

disregard for its truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, BP

misrepresented that OMS provided “a common framework for all BP operations” and that OMS

enabled “each site” to manage risks in “in accordance with the group-wide framework” when, in


72



Hayward, Inglis and other GORC members were tasked with monitoring and implementing

OMS but nonetheless made the decision to limit the applicability of the S&O audit function in

the Gulf of Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 253-57); Hayward admitted to knowing that OMS was not

implemented in the Gulf of Mexico in 2008 and other BP personnel confirmed as much ( see,

e.g. , ¶¶ 86-87).

T. March 5, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 35 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

199. On March 5, 2010, BP filed its 2009 Annual Report with the SEC on Form 20-F,

which was signed by Hayward. BP’s Form 20-F stated, in part:

Safe, reliable and compliant operations remain the group’s first priority. A key enabler for this is the BP operating management system (OMS), which provides a common framework for all BP operations, designed to achieve consistency and continuous improvement in safety and efficiency.

* * *

Our OMS covers all areas from process safety to personal health, to environmental performance.

***

This performance follows several years of intense focus on training and procedures across BP. BP’s operating management system (OMS), which provides a single operating framework for all BP operations, is a key part of continuing to drive a rigorous approach to safe operations. 2009 marked an important year in the continuing implementation of OMS.

* * *

Following the tragic incident at the Texas City refinery in 2005 the [Safety, Ethics, and Environment Assurance] committee has observed a number of key developments, including: the establishment of a safety & operations (S&O) function with the highest calibre of staff; development of a group-wide operating management system (OMS) which is being progressively adopted by all operating sites ; the establishment of training programmes in conjunction with MIT that are teaching project management and operational excellence; the dissemination of standard engineering practices throughout the group; and the

73


formation of a highly experienced S&O audit team formed to assess the safety and efficiency of operations and recommend improvements. Throughout this time the group chief executive has made safety the number one priority.



disregard for their truth, for the following reasons, among others: BP falsely represented that the

Company intended to implement and was implementing the recommendations of the Baker Panel

and other measures to improve process safety after the Texas City refinery incident ( see, e.g. , ¶¶

100, 258-62, 263-70); BP misrepresented that OMS provided “a common framework for all BP

operations” and that OMS provided “a single framework for all BP operations” when, in



Hayward (who signed the Form 20-F), Inglis and other GORC members were tasked with

monitoring and implementing OMS but nonetheless made the decision to limit the applicability

of the S&O audit function in the Gulf of Mexico ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 253-57); Hayward, through his



91); moreover, the fact that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was so similar to prior disasters at

Texas City and Prudhoe Bay demonstrates that BP was not making progress in reforming its

process safety mechanisms. ( See, e.g. , ¶¶ 109, 119).

U. March 22, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 8 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

201. Inglis gave a speech at the Howard Weil Energy Conference in New Orleans,

Louisiana on March 22, 2010. A transcript of the speech was subsequently posted and publicly

74


available on BP’s website. During this speech, and speaking on behalf of BP Exploration, Inglis

stated:

We are currently planning to make final investment decisions for 24 new major projects in the next two years. Each project has been high-graded though our project selection and progression process. They are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, Azerbaijan and Angola – high margin production areas that improve the portfolio and enable profitable growth.

* * *

Safety and operational integrity underpins everything we do, and we are now in the final phase of rolling out our operating management system that provides a single, consistent framework for our operations, covering all areas from personal and process safety to environmental performance. And I am pleased to say that in 2009 we saw continuing improvement in all aspects.



disregard for its truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Inglis, as a

member of GORC, received periodic updates on the progress and scope of OMS implementation

(see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-69, 70-71); OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP


Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶ 88-90); Hayward, Inglis and other GORC members were tasked with

monitoring and implementing OMS but nonetheless made the decision to limit the applicability

of the S&O audit function in the Gulf of Mexico (see ¶¶ 253-57);

75


V. March 23, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 38 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

203. On March 23, 2010, Hayward delivered a speech at the Peterson Institute for

International Economics in Washington, D.C. BP subsequently posted a transcript of Hayward’s

speech on its publicly available website. During the speech, Hayward stated the following:

Five years ago on this day, fifteen people died and many more were injured, when an explosion tore through our Texas City refinery.

That tragic accident has changed in a profound and fundamental way our approach to safety and operations integrity - providing a safe working environment is a paramount responsibility, and our first and foremost priority.



disregard for the truth, for the following reasons, among others: Hayward falsely represented that

the Company intended to implement and was implementing the recommendations of the Baker

Panel and other measures to improve process safety after the Texas City refinery incident ( see,

e.g. , ¶¶ 100, 258-62, 263-70); and Hayward misrepresented that the Texas City incident

“changed in a profound and fundamental way” the Company’s approach to safety in light of the

Company’s failure to implement the Baker Panel recommendations as represented. ( See, e.g. , ¶¶

109, 119).

W. April 15, 2010 Sustainability Review Statements [Misrep. No. 40 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Not Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found; Misrep. No. 5 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

205. BP issued its 2009 Sustainability Review on April 15, 2010. The “Chief

Executive’s Review” section contained a Q&A exchange with Hayward:

Group Chief Executive’s Review:

Q: What progress has BP made on safety during 2009?

76


A: Safety is fundamental to our success as a company and 2009 was important because of the progress we made in implementing our operating management system (OMS). The OMS contains rigorous and tested processes for reducing risks and driving continuous improvement. I see it as the foundation for a safe, responsible and high-performing BP . Having been initially introduced at eight sites in 2008 , the OMS rollout extended to 70 sites by the end of 2009, including all our operated refineries and petrochemicals plants. This means implementation is 80% complete.



disregard for their truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Hayward,

through his positions within SEEAC and GORC, had access to information, such as that

disclosed in the Orange Book reports, which directly contradicted these statements ( see, e.g. , ¶¶

66-69, 71, 76-78); Hayward admitted to knowing that OMS was not fully implemented in the

Gulf of Mexico in 2008, that the implementation process would not begin until Fall 2009, and

that by April 2010, the Gulf of Mexico had yet to transition to OMS—other personnel BP

confirmed the same (see ¶¶ 85-87);

(see ¶ 86); Hayward had been alerted by an internal document to “major” process safety issues in

the Gulf of Mexico which increased the probability of “process-safety related incidents” ( see ¶

262); Hayward knew that OMS was intended to address process safety and prevent major

accidents, such as a blowout, and admitted that OMS could have potentially avoided the

Deepwater Horizon tragedy if implemented in the Gulf of Mexico ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 66-68, 93); BP

falsely represented that the Company intended to implement and was implementing the

recommendations of the Baker Panel and other measures to improve process safety. ( See, e.g. ,

¶¶ 100, 258-62, 263-70).

207. The 2009 Sustainability Review further provided:

77


BP’s operating management system (OMS) provides a single framework for all BP operations to follow , covering all areas from process safety, to personal health, to environmental performance.

Providing an integrated and consistent way of working, the OMS helps ensure that a rigorous approach to safe operations continues to be taken. Its principles and processes are designed to simplify the organization, improve productivity, enable consistent execution and focus BP on performance.



disregard for their truth, for the following reasons, among others: as alleged above, Hayward

and BP misled investors by stating that OMS was a “single framework” for “all BP operations to

follow” when, in actuality, OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP


Mexico (see ¶¶ 88-90); Hayward had been alerted by an internal document to “major” process

safety issues in the Gulf of Mexico which increased the probability of “process-safety related

incidents” and therefore misrepresented that BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico were covered

by the process-safety guidelines in OMS ( see ¶ 262)

(See ¶ 256).

X. April 15, 2010 Sustainability Report Statements [Misrep. No. 32 from Ludlow Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; No Scienter Found]

209. BP released its 2009 Sustainability Report on April 15, 2010. With respect to

BP’s ability to respond to oil spills, this Report provided, in part:

Oil Spills

BP recognizes the risk posed to the environment from spills and takes a range of measure to prevent any loss of hydrocarbons.

78


Our Approach

Our Strategy to address spills has three components:

Prevention: we seek to assure the integrity of vessels and pipelines used to transport oil and other hydrocarbons.

Preparation: we seek to ensure an infrastructure is in place to deal effectively with spills and their impacts. Our operating facilities have the capacity and resources to respond to spill incidents and we participate in industry and international forums to coordinate contingency planning and emergency response.

Performance: we record incidents, learn lessons and aim to reduce the number of losses from primary containment.

210. The report also addressed BP’s process safety practices, stating:

Promoting Safe Operations

We are carrying forward our efforts on process safety, which is an integral part of our operating management system (OMS) and ingrained within our capability programmes. As participants in a second round of operations leadership sessions at MIT this year, the group chief executive and his executive team were instrumental in establishing the concept of continuous improvement to help drive systematic safety and reliability in our operations. Continuous improvement is a means of empowering our operations managers and supervisors, who are closest to our operational problems, to develop the necessary solutions.

* * *

Striving for Safe Operations:

BP continues to implement its operating management system (OMS), a cornerstone of achieving safe, reliable and responsible operations at every BP operation.

Taking a systematic approach is integral to improving safety and operating performance in BP operated sites. Our operating management system covers all areas from process safety, to personal health, to environmental performance.

* * *

A Unifying Way of Operating

79


We have successfully introduced OMS at every refinery worldwide in advance of the internal expectations. Hugh Parsons, Vice President with responsibility for management processes in refining states that “the OMS framework has given us a common path, applicable across different sites and assets worldwide. It has provided a unifying way of operating. This is true not only for refining but across the whole of BP, where we have a much clearer definition of what ‘good operations’ looks and feels like, regardless of the business context.”


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading for the following reasons, among others:

the Deepwater Horizon tragedy evidences the fact that BP, contrary to its representations, did not

“seek to ensure an infrastructure is in place to deal effectively with spills and their impacts” and

its facilities did not “have the capacity and resources” to respond to spills ( see, e.g. , ¶¶ 120-52);

and, as alleged above, BP falsely represented to OMS would apply to “every BP operation”

when, in actuality, OMS only applied to rigs that BP fully-owned and not to BP operations on

leased rigs, such as Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon , located in the Gulf of Mexico (see, e.g. , ¶¶

88-90).

212. The explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon occurred just five days later, on

April 20, 2010.

Y. April 28, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 42 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

213. On April 28, 2010, after the markets closed, BP and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) held a joint press conference during which Coast Guard

leader Rear Admiral Landry stated that NOAA had increased its estimate of the oil flow rate

from 1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day.

80


214. During that same conference, Defendant Suttles provided BP’s best estimate of

the amount of oil flowing from the Macondo well on a daily basis as 1,000 barrels of oil per day .

Suttles also stated, in part:

Late this afternoon, while monitoring the blowout preventer area, which we have done continuously since the event began, we discovered a new point of leak. This leak is just beyond the top of the blowout preventer in the pipe work called the riser. Given the location, we do not believe this changes the amount currently estimated to be released .


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading because Defendants knew of or recklessly

disregarded internal and external analyses generated between April 22 and April 27, 2010, which

estimated the daily oil spill rate to be well in excess of 5,000 barrels per day, including: (1) an

April 22, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate to be as high as 64,000 to 146,000 barrels per

day; (2) an April 24, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate at roughly 100,000 barrels per day;

(3) an April 25, 2010, external analysis provided to BP engineers estimating the oil spill rate to

be as high as 10,000 barrels per day; and (4) an April 27, 2010 BP report estimating the oil spill

rate between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92. As a senior BP

executive and the Company’s representative at Unified Command, Suttles knew or was reckless

in not knowing these estimates when he told the market on April 28, 2010 that the oil flow was

1,000 barrels of oil per day.

Z. April 29, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 43 from NY/OH Class Action Order—Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

216. On April 29, 2010, Suttles conducted interviews with several media outlets,

including the Early Show , the Today Show and Good Morning America . During his interview on

the Early Show , and speaking on behalf of BP Exploration, Suttles stated, in part: “ I think that

somewhere between one and five thousand barrels a day is probably the best estimate we have

81


today. ” Suttles repeated nearly the same statement during his interviews on the Today Show and

Good Morning America .







(3) an April 25, 2010, external analysis provided to BP engineers estimating the oil spill rate to

be as high as 10,000 barrels per day; and (4) an April 27, 2010 BP report estimating the oil spill

rate between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92. As a senior BP

executive and the Company’s representative at Unified Command, Suttles knew or was reckless

in not knowing these estimates when he told the market on April 29, 2010 that an oil flow

between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels per day was the Company’s “best estimate.”

AA. April 29, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

218. On April 29, 2010, BP filed a Form 6-K with the SEC stating, in relevant part:

“Efforts continue to stem the flow of oil from the well, currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels

a day.”






82



(3) an April 25, 2010 external analysis provided to BP engineers estimating the oil spill rate to be

as high as 10,000 barrels per day; and (4) an April 27, 2010 BP report estimating the oil spill rate

between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92. BP knew or was

reckless in not knowing these estimates when it misrepresented on April 29, 2010 that the spill

rate was “currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels a day.”

BB. April 30, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

220. On April 30, 2010, BP filed a Form 6-K filed with the SEC in which it stated:

“Efforts to stem the flow of oil from the well, currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels a day, are

continuing with six remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) continuing to attempt to activate the

blow out preventer (BOP) on the sea bed.” BP also published this statement on its website that

same day.








as high as 10,000 barrels per day; (4) an April 27, 2010 BP report estimating the oil spill rate

between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day; (5) Defendant Rainey’s “Bonn” estimates, which

were prepared between April 26 and April 30, 2010, and calculated the spill rate to be as high as

92,000 barrels per day; and (6) an April 30, 2010 BP analysis estimating the spill rate to be

83


between 5,000 and 40,000 barrels per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294. BP knew or was

reckless in not knowing these estimates when it misrepresented on April 30, 2010 that the spill

rate was “currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels a day.”

CC. May 4, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

222. On May 4, 2010, BP filed with the SEC a report on Form 6-K which stated, in

relevant part: “Accurate estimation of the rate of flow is difficult, but current estimates by the

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggests some 5,000 barrels

(210,000 US gallons) of oil per day are escaping from the well.”


inflated prices, was materially false and misleading because Defendants knew of or recklessly

disregarded internal and external analyses generated between April 22 and early May 2010,

which estimated the daily oil spill rate to be well in excess of 5,000 barrels per day, including:

(1) an April 22, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate to be as high as 64,000 to 146,000

barrels per day; (2) an April 24, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate at roughly 100,000

barrels per day; (3) an April 25, 2010 external analysis provided to BP engineers estimating the

oil spill rate to be as high as 10,000 barrels per day; (4) an April 27, 2010 BP report estimating

the oil spill rate between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day; (5) Defendant Rainey’s “Bonn”

estimates, which were prepared between April 26 and April 30, 2010, and calculated the spill

rate to be as high as 92,000 barrels per day; (6) an April 30, 2010 BP analysis estimating the spill

rate to be between 5,000 and 40,000 barrels per day; and (7) an early May 2010 BP estimate

showing that the leak from the riser pipe, alone, was contributing to 20,000 barrels of spillage

per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294. BP knew or was reckless in not knowing these

84


estimates when it misrepresented on May 4, 2010 that the spill rate was “currently estimated at

up to 5,000 barrels a day.”

DD. May 5, 2010 Statements [Misrep. No. 45 from NY/OH Class Action Order— Held Materially False and Misleading; Scienter Found]

224. On May 5, 2010, Hayward conducted an interview with journalists from the

Houston Chronicle at BP’s offices in Houston, Texas. With respect to the oil flow rate from the

Macondo well, Hayward stated: “A guesstimate is a guesstimate. And the guesstimate remains

5,000 barrels a day. ”


inflated prices, was materially false and misleading because Hayward knew of or recklessly

disregarded internal and external analyses generated between April 22 and early May 2010,

which estimated the daily oil spill rate to be well in excess of 5,000 barrels per day, including:

(1) an April 22, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate to be as high as 64,000 to 146,000

barrels per day; (2) an April 24, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate at roughly 100,000

barrels per day; (3) an April 25, 2010 external analysis provided to BP engineers estimating the

oil spill rate to be as high as 10,000 barrels per day; (4) an April 27, 2010 BP report estimating

the oil spill rate between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day; (5) Defendant Rainey’s “Bonn”

estimates, which were prepared between April 26 and April 30, 2010, and calculated the spill

rate to be as high as 92,000 barrels per day; (6) an April 30, 2010 BP analysis estimating the spill

rate to be between 5,000 and 40,000 barrels per day; and (7) an early May 2010 BP estimate

showing that the leak from the riser pipe, alone, was contributing to 20,000 barrels of spillage

per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294. As CEO of BP, Hayward knew, or was reckless in

not knowing, of these estimates when he misrepresented on May 5, 2010 that the Company’s

spill estimate remained 5,000 barrels per day.

85


EE. May 10, 2010 Statements [Not Pled in NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

226. On May 10, 2010, McKay appeared before the Committee On Transportation And

Infrastructure and stated the following in response to a question about whether “5,000 barrels per

day was the most accurate” figure for the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf: “[McKay] That is

our best estimate. Obviously, it’s continually being looked at. As you may know, we’ve gotten

this riser insertion tube to work, and we’re getting increased volumes at the surface where we

can actually measure. And then, I believe there is a new small task force that has been put

together under direction of Unified Command to get all the experts together in a room and try to

understand, with the latest available data, is there a more accurate estimate? But we do

recognize there is a range of uncertainty around the current estimate.” The following exchange

ensued later during this same hearing:

[Rep. LAURA A. RICHARDSON] : . . . . Why is there a disagreement between the total amount of oil that is leaking? BP has said 5,000, other reports are saying otherwise. Why do you think there is a disagreement, and do you stand by your point that it is only 5,000?

Mr. McKay. I think there are a range of estimates and it is impossible to measure. That is the reality. What we have been doing with government officials, government experts, industry experts, is trying to come up with the best estimate, and that has been done essentially by understanding what is happening at the surface and trying to understand volume there, adding to it what we believe the oil properties, how it would disperse in a water column as it moves to the surface. And those two added together is the estimated volume. It has been clear from day one there is a large uncertainty range around that.

Ms. Richardson . Is it possible it could possibly be the larger number that has been reported?

Mr. McKay . It is theoretically possible. I don't think anyone believes it is quite that high that has been working on this. I believe the uncertainty range is around that 5,000 number, and it could be higher. But if the number you are talking about is 70,000 barrels a day, I don't know this, but I don't think people that are working with it believe that that is a possibility.

86



inflated prices, were materially false and misleading because McKay knew of or recklessly or

negligently disregarded internal and external analyses generated between April 22 and May 10,

2010, which estimated the daily oil spill rate to be well in excess of 5,000 barrels per day,

including: (1) an April 22, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate to be as high as 64,000 to

146,000 barrels per day; (2) an April 24, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate at roughly

100,000 barrels per day; (3) an April 25, 2010 external analysis provided to BP engineers

estimating the oil spill rate to be as high as 10,000 barrels per day; (4) an April 27, 2010 BP

report estimating the oil spill rate between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day; (5) Defendant

Rainey’s “Bonn” estimates, which were prepared between April 26 and April 30, 2010, and

calculated the spill rate to be as high as 92,000 barrels per day; (6) an April 30, 2010 BP analysis

estimating the spill rate to be between 5,000 and 40,000 barrels per day; (7) an early May 2010

BP estimate showing that the leak from the riser pipe, alone, was contributing to 20,000 barrels

of spillage per day; (8) a May 9, 2010 BP analysis estimating the oil spill rate to be between

37,000 and 87,000 barrels per day; and (9) a May 10, 2010 BP analysis which concluded that it

could not be “ruled out” that the oil spill rate was “in the order of 40,000” barrels per day, as

detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294, 296.

FF. May 14, 2010 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

228. On May 14, 2010 Defendant Suttles was interviewed on the ABC morning show,

Good Morning America , regarding the spill. During the interview he stated, in relevant part,

that, “ourselves [i.e., BP] and people from NOAA and others believe that something around

5,000, that’s actually barrels a day, is the best estimate” of the then-current flow spill rate.

87



inflated prices, was materially false and misleading because Suttles knew of or recklessly

disregarded internal and external analyses generated between April 22 and May 11, 2010, which








92,000 barrels per day; (6) an April 30, 2010 BP analysis estimating the spill rate to be between

5,000 and 40,000 barrels per day; (7) an early May 2010 BP estimate showing that the leak from

the riser pipe, alone, was contributing to 20,000 barrels of spillage per day; (8) a May 9, 2010 BP

analysis estimating the oil spill rate to be between 37,000 and 87,000 barrels per day; (9) a May

10, 2010 BP analysis which concluded that it could not be “ruled out” that the oil spill rate was

“in the order of 40,000” barrels per day; (10) a May 10 or 11, 2010 analysis estimating the flow

rate to be 14,000 to 96,000 barrels per day; and (11) a May 11, 2010 analysis estimating the flow

rate to be 14,000 to 82,000 barrels per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294, 296, 297.

Further, an e-mail sent by a senior BP engineer on May 14, 2010 informed Defendant Inglis and

another executive that BP “should be very cautious standing behind a 5,000 BOPD figure as our

modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to ~ 100,000 BOPD . . . .” ¶ 299.

Suttles received at least some of these reports and thus knew or recklessly disregarded the

88


foregoing estimates when he reiterated on May 14, 2010 that 5,000 barrels per day remained the

Company’s “best estimate” of the oil spill flow rate.

GG. May 17, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

230. On May 17, 2010 Defendant Suttles spoke at a Unified Command press briefing

during which he reiterated that the 5,000 barrels per day estimate was “our best estimate today.”


inflated prices, was materially false and misleading because Suttles knew of or recklessly















rate to be 14,000 to 96,000 barrels per day; (11) a May 11, 2010 analysis estimating the flow rate

to be 14,000 to 82,000 barrels per day; (12) a BP analysis prepared between May 14 and 15,

89


2010 estimating the spillage attributable solely to the riser pipe leak to be 15,000 barrels per day;

and (13) a May 16, 2010 BP analysis estimating the flow rate to be 86,600 barrels per day, as

detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294, 296, 299. Further, an e-mail sent by a senior BP engineer on

May 14, 2010 informed Defendant Inglis and another executive that BP “should be very cautious

standing behind a 5,000 BOPD figure as our modeling shows that this well could be making

anything up to ~ 100,000 BOPD . . . .” ¶ 299. Suttles received at least some of these reports and

thus knew or recklessly disregarded the foregoing estimates when he reiterated publicly on May

17, 2010 that 5,000 barrels per day remained the Company’s “best estimate” of the oil spill flow

rate.

HH. May 21, 2010 Statements [Not Pled in the NY/OH Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

232. On May 21, 2010, Defendant Suttles gave an interview on ABC’s Good Morning

America , during which he again reiterated that the 5,000 estimate of the oil spill rate was “the

best estimate we have.”

233. Similarly, during a Unified Command press briefing that same day, Suttles stated,

in relevant part, “we’ve said since quite early on in this that our best estimate was around 5,000

barrels a day but with a wide range” and that, “at the moment, that’s our best estimate.”


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading because Suttles knew of or recklessly






90














(13) a May 16, 2010 BP analysis estimating the flow rate to be 86,600 barrels per day; and (14)

an analysis of oil collected from the riser pipe leak between May 19 and 20, 2010, which showed

a collection rate of 5,000 barrels during a 12-hour period, indicating that the total oil spill rate

was much higher than publicly reported, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92, 294, 296, 299, 301.

Further, an e-mail sent by a senior BP engineer on May 14, 2010 informed Defendant Inglis and

another executive that BP “should be very cautious standing behind a 5,000 BOPD figure as our

modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to ~ 100,000 BOPD . . . .” ¶ 299.

Suttles received at least some of these reports and thus knew or recklessly disregarded the

foregoing estimates when he reiterated publicly on May 21, 2010 that 5,000 barrels per day

remained the Company’s “best estimate” of the oil spill flow rate.

91


II. May 22, 2010 Statement [Not Pled in the NY/Ohio Consolidated Class Action Complaint]

235. On May 22, 2010, during an interview with NPR’s Weekend Edition , Defendant

Suttles responded to the question, “how much oil is billowing into the Gulf right now,” stating,

in relevant part, that there are “techniques we use to give an estimate, and 5,000 barrels a day

was the best estimate we could do, but we’ve also stressed since the beginning that that number

is very uncertain because we can’t meter it.”

236. In addition, in response to the comment that independent scientists who calculated

their own estimates at NPR’s request, which were as high as 70,000 barrels per day, Suttles

stated that “I’ve heard those [70,000 barrels per day] estimates and seen them and I don’t believe

it’s possible that it’s anywhere near that number . . . since I can’t meter it, I can’t actually say it

couldn’t be. But all of our techniques would say that that’s highly unlikely.”

237. Finally, during the interview, when asked, even if one were to “split the difference

[and] let’s say that it’s 30,000 barrels a day that are spilling – if you try to top kill . . . do you risk

using a technique that could make the spill even worse,” Suttles responded stating, “No, I don’t

believe that’s the case, Scott, and we don’t think the rate’s anywhere near that high.”


inflated prices, were materially false and misleading because Suttles knew of or recklessly



April 22, 2010 BP report estimating the spill rate to be as high as 64,000 to146,000 barrels per




92













(13) a May 16, 2010 BP analysis estimating the flow rate to be 86,600 barrels per day; (14) an

analysis of oil collected from the riser pipe leak between May 19 and 20, 2010, which showed a

collection rate of 5,000 barrels during a 12-hour period, indicating that the total oil spill rate was

much higher than publicly reported; and (15) a May 22, 2010 surface expression analysis

estimating the flow rate to be 6,154 to 11,609 barrels per day, as detailed below at ¶¶ 291-92,

294, 296, 299, 301. Further, an e-mail sent by a senior BP engineer on May 14, 2010 informed

Defendant Inglis and other executives that BP “should be very cautious standing behind a 5,000

BOPD figure as our modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to ~ 100,000

BOPD . . . .” ¶ 299. Suttles received at least some of these reports and thus knew or recklessly

disregarded the foregoing estimates when he reiterated publicly on May 22, 2010 that 5,000

barrels per day remained the “best estimate” BP had of the oil spill flow rate, and dismissed

suggestions that the rate was “anywhere near” as high as 30,000 barrels per day.

93

JJ.


239.

240.

94


241.

242.

243.

244.

95


245.

246.

247.

96


VI. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ SCIENTER

A. The Orange Book Reports Disclosed Process Safety Related Information to GORC and SEEAC Members and Board Members

248. As discussed above (at ¶ 66-69, 73-75), BP used the Orange Book reports to

provide information regarding safety and risk information to GORC and SEEAC members and

members of the Board of Directors. During the Relevant Period, Hayward was a member of both

GORC and SEEAC, and Inglis was a member of GORC and attended meetings of SEEAC to

report on issues germane to BP Exploration. The Orange Book was intended to serve as a

compilation of safety data from across BP’s various units and “had the same level of standing in

the firm as financial information.” The reports were provided to both GORC and SEEAC on a

quarterly basis. Armstrong Dep. at 86:4-11.

249.

97


250.

.

98

S

S

S

S

S


B. Minutes Demonstrate that SEEAC and the Board Reviewed and Discussed the Content of BP’s Safety Related Publications

251. As discussed above, SEEAC was tasked with “[r]eviewing material to be placed

before shareholders that addresses environmental, safety and ethical performance” and making

“recommendations to the board about their adoption and publication.”

99


S

252.

C. The Defendants Consciously Limited the Applicability and Scope of the S&O Audit Function so as to Exclude BP’s Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Wells

253. The Safety & Operations (“S&O”) segment was a component of OMS that

allowed BP’s Board to monitor process safety through reporting mechanisms, progress updates

and other metrics.

254. S&O audits tested the compliance of rigs and rig personnel with safety standards

and risk management policies, such as those established by OMS.

255. Despite the intended scope and essential function of the S&O audits, the GORC

members, including Hayward and Inglis, opted to limit the applicability of the audits so as to

exclude some of the riskiest aspects of BP’s operations.

100


256.

Inglis and Hayward knowingly excluded these areas of BP’s

operations, which included the majority of BP’s deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, from the

S&O audit function. If the S&O audit function had applied to these areas, both SEEAC and

GORC would have received data regarding the numerous process safety failures on the

Deepwater Horizon . The decision to exclude these areas from the audit program contradicted

the Company’s professed commitment to the implementation of a systemic framework to

improve process safety.

257.

D. Defendants Failed to Disclose and Address Process Safety and Operational Risk Issues

258. GORC members, including Inglis and Hayward, received numerous documents

detailing myriad process safety risks and deficiencies but failed to disclose and adequately

address these issues.

259.

101


260.

261.

262. Defendants were also aware of process-safety risks specific to the Gulf of

Mexico. A Fortune Magazine article titled “BP: ‘An Accident Waiting to Happen,’” which was

published on January 24, 2011, revealed that BP executives were previously warned about

process safety “gaps” in the Gulf of Mexico. The internal document, which was dated December

2008 and had not been previously released, stated:

It’s become apparent that process-safety major hazards and risks are not fully understood by engineering or line operating personnel. Insufficient awareness is leading to missed signals that precede incidents and response after incidents, both of which increases the potential for and severity of process-safety related incidents.”

This internal document also called for stronger “major hazard awareness.”

102


E. Defendants Were Aware of or Recklessly Disregarded Heightened Process Safety Risks and Deficiencies With Third-Party Rigs

263. Defendants were aware of, or recklessly disregarded, substantial process safety

deficiencies and issues with rigs that were owned or operated by third parties, especially those

rigs owned and operated by Transocean.

264.

265. BP experienced a high-potential incident (“HiPo”) in the Gulf of Mexico on July

21, 2007 during which Transocean rig operators dragged the BOP along the ocean floor, almost

severing underground pipelines.

266.

103


267.

These

incidents resulted in a joint safety improvement plan that would address rig-safety culture and

standardization across the two companies when implemented.

268. In an email sent to the Upstream Senior Leadership Team, dated July 13, 2009,

Inglis expressed concerns about Control of Work practices on third party operated rigs, stating:

One of the emerging findings from our analysis of incidents is that conformance with Control of Work (CoW) practices, on many of our contractor operated drilling rigs, falls short of BP expectations. I have asked Barbara [Yilmaz] to clarify the expectations that we have of our contractors in the matter of CoW and the bridging requirements between contractor practice and BP’s CoW Standard.

269.

270.

F. BP Received Numerous Safety Warnings for Deficiencies in the Company’s North Sea Operations

271. During the Relevant Period, Defendants were aware of pervasive safety issues

across the Company’s deepwater drilling operations. The U.K. Health and Safety Executive

(“HSE”), which operates as a national independent watchdog for work-related health, safety and

illness, issued at least 100 letters or notices to BP between 2006 and 2010 and levied severe fines

against the Company. These letters, which were not disclosed to the public, cited BP for various

safety and environmental violations in connection with the Company’s exploration and

production rigs, pipelines, and other facilities. A number of the citations concerned to BP’s

104


deepwater drilling rigs located in the North Sea and faulted the Company for failing to properly

maintain and inspect equipment.

272. In a February 2, 2007 letter to BP, which was prompted by BP’s refusal to dry

dock a drilling rig for repairs, the HSE criticized the Company’s deficient safety culture.

Similarly, in a 2009 letter to BP, the HSE attributed a “Hydrocarbon Release” on BP’s

Schiehallion rig, located in the North Sea, to the Company’s “failure to comply” with its own

process safety practices.

G. BP Retaliated Against Workers Who Raised Safety Concerns

273. The CSB’s findings that BP maintained a culture where employees were

discouraged from raising problems with managers, as noted above, persisted during the Relevant

Period.

274. For example, a former BP employee, Kenneth Abbott, filed a lawsuit in federal

court seeking to shutdown BP’s Atlantis platform for operating without properly approved plans.

Atlantis is a deepwater platform operating in the Gulf of Mexico and is responsible for

approximately 14% (or 54,000 barrels per day) of BP’s deepwater output from the Gulf. Abbott

alleges that BP wrongfully terminated his employment after he alerted senior managers in 2008

about Atlantis operating without proper plans.

275. According to Abbott’s lawsuit, “hundreds if not thousands” of documents relating

to Atlantis’ construction and operation were not approved by regulators, as required. Abbott

claims that “BP management . . . recognized the gravity of this problem” because “using the

incomplete, unapproved drawings, ‘could lead to catastrophic Operator errors due to their

assuming that the drawing is correct. Turning over incomplete drawing to the Operator for their

use is a fundamental violation of basic Document Control, the IM Standard[,] and Process Safety

Regulations .’”

105


276. As noted in a May 17, 2010 article in ProPublica, Abbott alleges that BP willfully

ignored his warnings “and instead emphasized saving money.” Congress ordered the MMS to

investigate Mr. Abbott’s allegations.

277. Separately, “[a]n independent firm hired by BP wrote in an April [13, 2010] letter

that it had substantiated” Abbott’s allegations. See Juliet Eilperin, “Substantial safety concerns

raised about the Atlantis , another BP oil rig,” Washington Post (May 15, 2010). Billie Pirner

Garde, a deputy ombudsman, wrote to Abbott and stated that “The concerns that you expressed

regarding the status of the drawings upgrade project were not unique to you . . . It was a

challenge to the Project and of concern to others who raised the concern before you worked

there, while you were there and after you left.” Id.

278. BP’s wrongful retaliation against workers who raised safety concerns evidences

Defendants’ knowledge of such concerns and their intent to mislead the public regarding the true

state of the Company’s attention and commitment to drilling safety.

H. The Defendants Falsely Assured Investors That BP Was Implementing OMS Across All Operations and the Baker Report’s Recommendations

279. Throughout the Relevant Period, Hayward and Inglis were aware or recklessly

disregarded that their statements regarding BP’s implementation of process safety improvements,

including OMS, were untrue and that they omitted material information concerning BP’s failure

to make adequate progress toward satisfying the recommendations set forth in the Baker Report

and to implement OMS across all of BP’s operations. Indeed, Hayward’s self-proclaimed

personal involvement in the Company’s prioritization of safety since the beginning of his tenure

as CEO establishes that he knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that BP was failing to

implement the recommendations in the Baker Report.

106


280. Hayward’s succession as BP’s CEO in May 2007 was touted as an opportunity for

BP to make significant progress toward improving process safety within the Company’s

operations. In fact, following the release of the Baker Report in January 2007, BP held a press

conference on January 16, 2007 to discuss the Baker Report’s recommendations. During the

press conference, Browne assured investors that:

If I had to say one thing which I hope you will all hear today it is this ‘BP gets it.’ And I get it too. This happened on my watch and, as Chief Executive, I have a responsibility to learn from what has occurred. I recognise the need for improvement and that my successor, Tony Hayward, and I need to take a lead in putting that right by championing process safety as a foundation of BP’s operations.

* * *

The list of what we have done since the accident shows how seriously we take process safety .

281. Upon assuming the role of Company CEO in May 2007, Hayward vowed to focus

“like a laser” on safety. To this end, Hayward and the Company repeatedly assured investors,

through BP’s statements and public filings with the SEC, that BP was committed to improving

process safety within the Company’s operations, including the critically important oil operations

in the Gulf.

282. Indeed, after his first year as the Company’s CEO, Hayward assured investors that

when he took over as CEO, “the immediate task was to restore the integrity and the efficiency of

BP’s operations” and that he “set out three priorities: safety, people and performance.”

283. As discussed above, Hayward’s involvement in improving companywide process

safety included chairing GORC and serving as executive liaison to SEEAC.

284. Separately, Hayward implemented a safety course for BP executives known as the

BP “Operations Academy.” The Operations Academy, which Hayward himself attended,

consisted of three two-week sessions at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in which BP

107


executives focused on process safety. As explained in the Fortune article entitled “‘BP: An

Accident Waiting to Happen,’” the course taught universal process-safety lessons including that:

“Critical procedures should be formalized and carried out with rigor; it’s essential to maintain

multiple safeguards against an accident; it is dangerous to change operating plans on the fly;

anomalies need to be clearly resolved; small incidents are warning signs that conditions are ripe

for a disaster.”

285. Another critical component of Hayward’s plans for improving process safety was

the implementation of BP’s OMS which was touted as having “an increased focus on process

safety and continuous improvement.” Indeed, in a speech delivered at the Company’s 2008

Annual General Meeting, Hayward stated that the OMS was “aimed at ensuring that our

operations across the world look and feel the same everywhere – and perform to the same high

standard.”

286. Hayward’s plans to improve process safety also included the reorganization of the

Company to achieve “increased efficiencies.” According to Byron Grote, Chief Financial

Officer, the reorganization efforts were “designed to simplify the organization and improve

productivity and accountability, freeing up operating units to enable them to focus on safe,

reliable, and profitable operations.”

287. While touting his commitment to improving process safety, Hayward knew that

drilling the Gulf of Mexico was inherently risky and that a deepwater blowout was one of the

largest risks confronting BP’s Gulf operations. As he stated during his deposition, “[a deepwater

blowout] was certainly one of the highest risks for the corporation. It was the highest risk in the

Gulf of Mexico and one of the highest risks for the Ex – for the Exploration and Production

Unit.” Hayward Dep. at 196:10-18.

108


288. In the aftermath of the Macondo spill, Hayward effectively admitted that the

implementation of process safety improvements during the Relevant Period had failed. As

discussed above, Hayward stated during his deposition that if OMS had been implemented in the

Gulf of Mexico, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy could have potentially been avoided. (¶ 90).

On May 3, 2010, Hayward acknowledged that BP was fully responsible for the spill and stated

that “It is indeed BP’s responsibility to deal with this, and we are dealing with it . . . . We will

absolutely be paying for the cleanup operation. There is no doubt about that. It’s our

responsibility – we accept it fully.”

289. Similarly, in a June 2, 2010 article entitled “BP ‘not prepared’ for deep-water

spill,” the Financial Times reported that Hayward “accepted it was ‘an entirely fair criticism’ to

say the company had not been fully prepared for a deep-water oil leak” and acknowledged that it

“is undoubtedly true [] that we did not have the tools you would want in your tool-kit.”

290. Then, in a November 9, 2010 interview with BBC , Hayward confessed that BP

had failed to develop adequate emergency response plans for oil spills and admitted that the

Company was “making it up day to day .”

I. Defendants’ Public Estimates Of Oil Spilling Into The Gulf Were Contradicted By Contemporaneous Internal BP Documents

291. Throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants were aware or recklessly disregarded

that their statements regarding estimates of the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf following the

Deepwater Horizon explosion were false and/or omitted material information concerning the true

magnitude of the Macondo well oil spill. Specifically, Defendants’ public statements were

directly contradicted by internal reports which estimated the oil spill rate far in excess of the

range of 1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day that Defendants reiterated publicly for weeks following

the explosion.

109


292. For example, according to the SEC Complaint and/or the Rainey Indictment:

a) by April 22, 2010, a BP engineer estimated the oil spill rate to be between

64,000 and 146,000 barrels per day based on different oil flow paths

within the well. Defendant Rainey received this estimate on or about this

date;

b) on or before April 24, 2010, BP was aware of an estimate that showed the

oil spill rate to be approximately 100,000 barrels per day;

c) by April 25, 2010, BP engineers were also told of an external analysis that

estimated the oil spill rate to be as high as 10,000 barrels per day;

d) on or about April 26, 2010, a scientist with the NOAA prepared an

estimate that calculated oil spill rate at 5,000 barrels per day. The

estimate, which was received by Defendant Rainey and other BP

employees, cautioned that the methodologies used were “highly

unreliable” and that the actual flow rate could be as high as 50,000 barrels

per day;

e) between April 26 and April 30, 2010, Defendant Rainey prepared his own

flow rate estimates, purportedly based on generally accepted methods,

including the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) and

the European “Bonn” methods. Rainey’s “Bonn” estimates well exceeded

5,000 barrels per day, including one as high as 92,000 barrels per day;

f) another report dated April 27, 2010, prepared by a BP engineer, estimated

the oil spill rate to be between 5,000 and 22,000 barrels per day, based

upon temperature readings and other factors;

110


g) on April 28, 2010, BP also learned that oil was leaking from a “kink” in

the riser pipe where it had bent when it came to rest on the ocean floor.

This new leak resulted in additional amounts of oil spilling into the Gulf.

293. As Chief Operating Officer for BP Exploration and BP’s officer in charge of co-

managing the spill response with the U.S. Coast Guard, Defendant Suttles knew or recklessly

disregarded the Company’s internal estimates of the spill rate from the Macondo well.

Nonetheless, on April 28, 2010, as reported by the Huffington Post , Suttles reiterated earlier

estimates that 1,000 barrels of oil from the Macondo well were spilling into the Gulf of Mexico

each day. Then, on April 29, 2010, Suttles falsely stated in an interview on CBS’s the Early

Show that “I think that somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels a day is probably the best

estimate we have today” of the Macondo well spill rate.

294. According to the SEC Complaint, an internal analysis dated April 30, 2010

estimated the oil spill rate to now be between 5,000 and 40,000 barrels per day. Further, in early

May 2010, a BP engineer estimated that the leak stemming from the riser pipe was contributing

to 20,000 barrels of spillage per day.

295. Defendants knew of these estimates at the time BP filed its Form 6-K with the

SEC on May 4, 2010, which falsely stated that “current [estimates are] 5,000 barrels (210,000

US gallons) of oil per day are escaping from the well.” Moreover, Hayward, as BP’s CEO, knew

or was reckless in not knowing of the foregoing internal estimates of the spill rate. Nevertheless,

during a May 5, 2010 Houston Chronicle interview, Hayward falsely stated that “the

[Company’s] guesstimate remains 5,000 barrels a day.”

296. As the oil spill ensued, BP continued to estimate the spillage internally in amounts

well in excess of Defendants’ publicly reported figures. For example, according to the SEC

111


Complaint, on May 9, 2010, a BP contractor generated flow rate estimates ranging from 37,000

to 87,000 barrels per day. A May 10, 2010 analysis performed by a BP contractor further

concluded that it could not be “ruled out” that the oil leaking from the riser pipe alone was “in

the order of 40,000” barrels per day. Defendant McKay knew or was reckless or negligent in not

knowing of these estimates at the time he publicly stated on May 10, 2010 that 5,000 barrels per

day was BP’s “best estimate” of the spill rate.

297. According to the SEC Complaint, on or about May 10 or May 11, 2010, a senior

BP engineer estimated the oil spill rate to be between 14,000 and 96,000 barrels per day. The

senior engineer shared his work with senior BP executives during the second week of May 2010.

In addition, according to the Rainey Indictment, on or about May 11, 2010, a team of BP

engineers working under a senior engineer also generated estimates ranging from 14,000 to

82,000 barrels per day. Defendant Rainey received the latter of these two estimates no later than

May 17, 2010.

298. In addition, according to the SEC Complaint and the Rainey Indictment, on May

13, 2010, a Purdue University professor, Steven Wereley, with expertise in fluid mechanics

measurement publicly estimated the oil spill rate from the Macondo well to be approximately

70,000 barrels per day, based on his review of video footage of the leak. These estimates were

corroborated by Defendant Rainey’s “Bonn” estimates which calculated oil spill rates as high as

92,000 barrels per day. Nevertheless, on May 14, 2010, BP publicly rejected the professor’s

analysis and Suttles stated that 5,000 barrels per day remained BP’s “best estimate” during an

interview with ABC’s Good Morning America .

299. After reading about BP’s rejection of the Purdue University professor’s estimates,

the BP senior engineer who generated the 14,000 to 96,000 barrels per day estimates referred to

112


in ¶ 297 e-mailed Defendant Inglis and a junior executive working with him on May 14, 2010,

stating:

I just read an article in CNN (May 14, 2010 1:00pm) stating that a researcher at Purdue believes that the Macondo well is leaking up to 70,000 bopd and that BP stands by a 5,000 bopd figure. With the data and knowledge we currently have available we cannot definitively state the oil rate from this well. We should be very cautious standing behind a 5,000 bopd figure as our modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to ~100,000 bopd depending on a number of unknown variables , such as: flow path either through the annulus behind the production casing or through the production casing float shoe, the height of reservoir exposed, if drill pipe is suspended in the [blow out preventer] and sealed by [variable bore] rams, reservoir skin damage, choking effects and etcetera. We can make the case for 5,000 bopd only based on certain assumptions and in the absence of other information, such as a well test.

According to the Rainey Indictment, this e-mail raised concern within BP. On or about May 17,

2010, Defendant Rainey received a copy of this e-mail and was directed to prepare a

memorandum to address the concerns raised therein. Rainey’s memorandum, also dated May 17,

2010, purported to justify the 5,000 barrel per day estimate being publicly reported. However,

the memorandum contained several misstatements and omitted, inter alia: (1) the myriad internal

BP estimates that exceeded the 5,000 barrel per day public estimate, including an additional

estimate formulated just one day earlier, on May 16, 2010, estimating the spill rate to be 86,600

barrels per day; and (2) Rainey’s own “Bonn” estimates, which estimated the spill rate to be as

high as 92,000 barrels per day. Rainey’s false memorandum was ultimately submitted by BP to

Congress in connection with its investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

300. As reported by the Times-Picayune on May 19, 2010, “[a]n engineering professor

[Wereley] who has been monitoring the Deepwater Horizon disaster said . . . that ' there is

scientifically no chance’ that BP’s estimate of a discharge of about 5,000 barrels of oil per day

into the Gulf of Mexico is anything close to the actual number . Professor Wereley told the

House Energy and Environment Subcommittee that his own review indicates that a 1.2-inch hole

113


is producing about 25,000 barrels of oil a day by itself, and overall the daily spill could amount

to something ‘short of 70,000 barrels to as high as 115,000 barrels.’”

301. Subsequent estimates continued to demonstrate the implausibility of BP’s 5,000

barrels per day estimate. For example, according to the SEC Complaint:

a) between May 19 and 20, 2010, BP was able to collect a portion of the oil

spilling from the riser pipe, which resulted in an average collection rate of

5,000 barrels per 12-hour period. Not only was this average collection rate

only for a half-day period, it also reflected only the estimated spillage leaking

from the “kink” in the riser pipe, indicating that the total daily spill rate was

much higher than 5,000 barrels per day. Despite this new data, Suttles

continued to reiterate BP’s 5,000 barrel per day estimate during an interview

with ABC’s Good Morning America and a Unified Command press briefing

on May 21, 2010.

b) an analysis dated May 22, 2010 estimated the spill rate to be between 6,154

and 11,609 barrels per day. Suttles, however, continued to misrepresent that

5,000 barrels per day was BP’s “best estimate” during an interview with

NPR’s Weekend Edition .

c) a May 23, 2010 analysis performed by a BP engineer estimated that the spill

rate attributable to the “kink” in the riser pipe, alone, was 11,600 barrels per

day. Further, BP measured a collection rate of 6,100 barrels spilling from the

riser pipe leak during the 24-hour period between midnight and midnight on

May 24, 2010.

114


302. According to the SEC Complaint, Defendant Suttles (referred to as Executive B

therein) received at least six of the foregoing estimates generated between April 30 and May 24,

2010, and Defendant Rainey (referred to as Executive A therein) received at least four of these

estimates.

303. In light of the internal BP estimates, Defendants knew, or at a minimum were

reckless in not knowing, that their public statements minimizing the spill rate were materially

false and misleading.

304. Certain of the facts alleged herein have been previously found to support an

inference of scienter as to Defendants Hayward and Suttles. See BP I, 843 F. Supp. 2d at 782-84

(“Hayward acknowledged his failures following the spill. In November 2010, Hayward

confirmed that BP was ‘making it up day to day’ following the Deepwater Horizon spill and had

failed to draw up sufficiency emergency plans. . . . Further, with respect to the post-spill

estimates, Hayward later acknowledged, about a month after he provided public estimates, that

the volume of oil spilling into the Gulf was far greater than BP’s initial statements indicated.”);

id. at 786-88 (crediting the class action plaintiffs’ allegations that Suttles possessed internal

reports undermining his public statements regarding BP’s flow rate estimates after the spill).

J. The DOJ Has Charged Former BP Engineers for Deleting Text Messages About the Amount of Oil Spewing Into the Gulf, and is Investigating Whether BP Representatives Lied to Congress About the Extent of the Spill

305. Defendants’ scienter is also demonstrated by evidence unearthed as a result of the

United States Department of Justice’s investigation into whether BP representatives lied to

Congress about the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf. On April 23, 2012, federal prosecutors

filed criminal charges against BP engineer Kurt Mix for obstruction of justice. According to a

DOJ press release, “Mix worked on internal BP efforts to estimate the amount of oil leaking

115


from the well and was involved in various efforts to stop the leak. Those efforts included,

among others, Top Kill. . . .” The DOJ press release further states that Mix:

deleted on his iPhone a text string containing more than 200 text messages with a BP supervisor. The deleted texts, some of which were recovered forensically, included sensitive internal BP information collected in real-time as the Top Kill operation was occurring, which indicated that Top Kill was failing. . . . .Mix deleted a text he had sent on the evening of May 26, 2010, at the end of the first day of Top Kill. In the text, Mix stated, among other things, “Too much flowrate – over 15,000.“ Before Top Kill commenced, Mix and other engineers had concluded internally that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed if the flow rate was greater than 15,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). At the time, BP’s public estimate of the flow rate was 5,000 BOPD – three times lower than the minimum flow rate indicated in Mix’s text.”

. . . . Mix [also] deleted a text string containing more than 100 text messages with a BP contractor with whom Mix had worked on various issues concerning how much oil was flowing from the Macondo well after the blowout.

See April 24, 2012 Department of Justice Press Release, “Former BP Engineer Arrested for

Obstruction of Justice in Connection with the Deepwater Horizon Criminal Investigation: First

Criminal Charges to Result from the Deepwater Horizon Task Force Investigation.”

306. According to the Wall Street Journal, a May 27, 2010 e-mail from senior BP

engineer Rupen Doshi to BP workers and two other firms working to stop the leak also stated,

“NO ONE is to get the data files from the Top Kill method that is being pumped from yesterday

or today except for Paul Toom’s group.” Paul Tooms was then head of upstream engineering at

BP. The Wall Street Journal further reported that in an e-mail sent later that day, Tooms stated,

“The purpose of the note was meant to put a limit on the people outside the circle of trust getting

the data.”

K. BP Exploration & Production Inc. Has Pled Guilty to Felony Manslaughter, Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Congress

307. On November 15, 2012, BP Exploration agreed to plead guilty to eleven counts

for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1115 (Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers), one count for a

116


violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of Congress), one count for a violation of 33 U.S.C.

§§ 1319(c)(1)(A) and 1321(b)(3) (Clean Water Act), and one count for a violation of 16 U.S.C.

§§ 703 and 707(a) (Migratory Bird Treaty Act), and to pay a record $4 billion in criminal fines

and penalties for the Company’s conduct leading to the Deepwater Horizon accident that killed

11 people. Among other things, the Information and Guilty Plea charging BP details that the

Company, through Defendant Rainey, obstructed a Congressional inquiry into the amount of oil

spilling into the Gulf following the accident. Further, as part of its guilty plea agreement, BP

Exploration admitted the following facts:

On or about May 24, 2010, in the Eastern District of Louisiana and elsewhere, BP did corruptly, that is, with an improper purpose, endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which an inquiry and investigation was being had by a Committee of the United States House of Representatives into the amount of oil flowing from the Macondo Well (“flow rate”) through the following omissions and false and misleading statements in its May 24, 2010 response (“Markey Response”) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce:

1. BP, through a former vice president, withheld information and documents relating to multiple flow-rate estimates prepared by BP engineers that showed flow rates far higher than 5,000 BOPD, including as high as 96,000 BOPD.

2. BP, through a former vice president, withheld information and documents relating to internal flow-rate estimates he prepared using the Bonn Agreement analysis that showed flow rates far higher than 5,000 BOPD, and that went as high as 92,000 BOPD.

3. BP, through a former vice president, falsely represented that the flow-rate estimates included in the Response were the product of the generally-accepted ASTM methodology. At the time that this false representation was made, BP’s former vice president knew that those estimates were the product of a methodology he devised after, among other things, a review of a Wikipedia entry about oil spill estimation.

4. BP, through a former vice president, falsely represented that the flow-rate estimates included in the Markey Response had played “an important part” in Unified Command’s decision on April 28, 2010, to raise its own flow-rate estimate to 5,000 BOPD. At the time this false representation was made, BP’s former vice president knew that those flow-rate estimates had not played “an important part” in Unified Command’s decision to raise its flow-rate estimate and had not even been distributed outside of BP prior to that decision.

117


5. BP falsely suggested, in its May 24, 2010 letter, that the Unified Command’s flow rate estimate of 5,000 barrels of oil per day (“BOPD”) was the “most scientifically informed judgment” and that subsequent flow rate estimates had “yielded consistent results.” In fact, as set forth above, BP had multiple internal documents with flow rate estimates that were significantly greater than 5,000 BOPD that it did not share with the Unified Command.

6. On or about June 25, 2010, in a BP letter to Congressman Markey, BP’s former vice president inserted language that falsely stated that BP’s worst case discharge estimate was raised from 60,000 BOPD to 100,000 BOPD after subsequent “pressure data was obtained from the BOP stack.” At the time this false representation was made, BP’s former vice president knew that the 100,000 BOPD figure was not first derived after subsequent pressure data had been obtained, but instead, he had been aware of a 100,000 BOPD worst case discharge since as early as on or about April 21, 2010.

308. BP further admitted that its “former vice president’s [i.e., Rainey] knowledge and

actions are attributable to BP.”

309. Also on November 15, 2012, the DOJ unsealed the Rainey Indictment filed the

previous day, charging Defendant Rainey with one count of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1505

(Obstruction of Congress) and one count of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) (False

Statements). The Rainey Indictment is predicated upon similar facts as those to which BP pled

guilty, which are detailed in part in Section VI.I above.

L. BP Has Agreed to Pay $525 Million to Settle the SEC’s Charges That the Company Misled Investors Regarding the Oil Spill Flow-Rate

310. On November 15, 2012, the SEC announced that BP agreed to pay a $525 million

penalty into a fair fund for the benefit of investors damaged by the Company’s

misrepresentations concerning the oil spill flow rate in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon

blowout. The penalty is the third largest in SEC history.

311. As alleged herein, the SEC Complaint alleged that BP made false or misleading

statements in Forms 6-K filed with the SEC on April 29, April 30, and May 4, 2010 that the

estimated flow rate was up to 5,000 barrels per day. In addition, the SEC Complaint alleged that

118


Defendant Suttles (referred to as Executive B therein) made materially false and misleading

statements between April 29 and May 22, 2010 on ABC’s Good Morning America , NBC’s

Today Show and CBS’s the Early Show , on NPR’s Weekend Edition , and at Unified Command

press briefings reiterating BP’s 5,000 barrels per day estimate. According to the SEC Complaint,

contrary to these representations, Defendant Rainey (referred to as Executive A therein) and BP

engineers and contractors prepared numerous analyses and estimates during this time period

estimating the oil spill flow rate to be as high as 146,000 barrels per day, with many other

estimates coming in well above the 5,000 barrel per day number reiterated publicly by

Defendants.

M. Defendants Were Motivated to Conceal the Amount of Oil Spewing Into the Gulf to Reduce Fines and Penalties by Billions of Dollars

312. Defendants were motivated to lie about the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf

following the Macondo well explosion to reduce the amount of civil fines and penalties owed as

a result of BP’s gross negligence. Civil fines under the U.S. Clean Water Act are based on the

number of barrels spilled. According to the Wall Street Journal, the final government estimate

of the amount of oil spilled was between 53,000 and 62,000 barrels of oil per day, or 4.9 million

barrels spilled, which translates to $5.4 to $21 billion in fines depending on whether investigators

find that the company was grossly negligent.

VII. LOSS CAUSATION/ECONOMIC LOSS

313. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, directly and proximately caused

the economic loss suffered by Plaintiffs. The price of BP ADS and ordinary shares significantly

declined when the misrepresentations made to the market, and/or the information and risks

alleged herein to have been concealed from the market were corrected and/or the effects thereof,

materialized, causing a correction in the price of BP ADS and ordinary shares resulting in

119


Plaintiffs suffering losses. As a result of transactions in BP’s securities during the Relevant

Period, Plaintiffs suffered damages under the federal securities laws and Texas, California,

Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina common and/or statutory law.

314. The relevant truth about BP’s operations slowly emerged following the April 20,

2010 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon and BP’s failed efforts to control the resulting oil

spill. Immediately prior to the explosion, BP’s ADS traded at approximately $60.48 per ADS,

and its ordinary shares traded at 655.4 pence per share on the LSE. Following the explosion, BP

ADS and ordinary shares began a nearly continuous decline as the artificial inflation created by

the Defendants’ misrepresentations and material omissions dissipated from the price of the

securities.

315. Specifically, on April 26, 2010, government officials announced that attempts to

stop the spill had failed and that oil was flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. This news caused BP

the price of BP securities to plummet. Specifically, BP’s ADS declined $1.97 per ADS, from

$59.88 per ADS on Friday, April 23, 2010 to close at $57.91 per ADS on Monday, April 26,

2010, while BP’s ordinary shares fell from 639.7 pence per share on the LSE on April 23, 2010,

to close at 626.8 pence per share on April 26, 2010, a decline of 12.9 pence per share. The

declines are directly related to the market absorbing information revealing risks BP concealed

throughout the Relevant Period, specifically, that the Company conducted its operations in the

Gulf without a legitimate spill response plan and that the Company’s statements about reforming

BP’s safety profile were false.

316. After the market closed on April 28, 2010, NOAA held a press conference during

which it increased its estimate of the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico from 1,000

to 5,000 barrels per day – five-times greater than that previously estimated by BP. On April 29,

120


2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared the spill a crisis of “national

significance.” This news caused the price of BP securities to fall again. Specifically, BP ADS

fell from a closing price of $57.34 per ADS on April 28, 2010 to close at $52.56 per ADS on

April 29, 2010, a decline of $4.78 per ADS or more than 8%, while BP ordinary shares fell from

625.0 pence per share on the LSE on April 28, 2010, to 584.2 pence per share on April 29, 2010,

a decline of 40.8 pence per share. The declines are directly related to the market absorbing

information revealing risks BP concealed throughout the Relevant Period, specifically, that the

Company conducted its operations in the Gulf without a legitimate spill response plan, that the

Company’s statements about reforming BP’s safety profile were false, and about the amount of

oil believed to be spilling into the Gulf on a daily basis.

317. On April 30, 2010, when it was reported that the oil slick caused by the disaster

reached Louisiana’s coastline, BP ADS closed at $52.15 per ADS, a decline of over $8.00 per

ADS since April 20, 2010. BP’s ordinary shares had declined nearly 80 pence per share over

this same period. The declines are directly related to the market absorbing information revealing

risks BP concealed throughout the Relevant Period, specifically, that the Company conducted its

operations in the Gulf without a legitimate spill response plan and that the Company’s statements

about reforming BP’s safety profile were false.

318. In the days and weeks that followed, additional news and information emerged on

a seemingly continuous basis further revealing BP’s wanton disregard for conducting its

operations in a safe manner and the lack of any legitimate spill response plan by BP. These

revelations caused BP’s ADS and ordinary shares to plummet further.

319. On May 3, 2010, BP claimed responsibility for the cleanup efforts related to the

spill, Hayward stated, “This is not our accident, but it’s our responsibility.” The Company’s

121


ADS fell from $52.15 to $50.19, a decline of 3.8%. The Company’s ordinary shares were not

traded on the LSE on May 3rd, due to a holiday, but closed at 575.5 pence per share on April 30,

2010, and opened at 546 pence per share on May 4, 2010, representing a decline of 5.1%. The

decline is directly related to the market absorbing information revealing risks concealed by BP

throughout the Relevant Period, specifically, that the Company conducted its operations in the

Gulf without a legitimate spill response plan and that the Company’s statements about reforming

BP’s safety profile were false.

320. On May 6, 2010, BP commenced its attempt to contain the spill with a large

dome-like structure, to be placed over the Macondo well. On May 8, 2010, BP disclosed that the

containment dome efforts had failed. At this time, tar had begun to wash up on the Alabama

coast. On May 10, 2010, BP released a statement updating the public on the Gulf of Mexico oil

spill response and revealed that oil spill costs to date had reached $350 million. In reaction to

this news, BP’s ADS fell from $49.06 per ADS on Friday, May 7, 2010 to close at $48.75 on

Monday, May 10, 2010, a decline of $0.31 per ADS; BP’s ordinary shares fell from 553.9 pence

per share to 549.2 pence per share over the same period. The decline is directly related to the

market absorbing information revealing risks concealed by BP throughout the Relevant Period,

specifically, that the Company conducted its operations in the Gulf without a legitimate spill

response plan and that the Company’s statements about reforming BP’s safety profile were false.

321. On May 12, 2010, Bloomberg published an article entitled “BP Tells Congress

Gulf Well Failed Tests Before Blast.” The article stated, in relevant part:

A Gulf of Mexico oil well failed a pressure test hours before a drilling rig exploded last month, an executive for well owner BP Plc told the U.S. House Energy Committee that’s investigating the incident.

Such pressure tests are aimed at ensuring the integrity of cement poured into the well to keep out natural gas, said Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, citing a report to the panel from James Dupree, BP senior

122


vice president for the Gulf. The tests before the April 20 blast showed “discrepancies” in pressure levels, Waxman said.

* * *

“BP, one of the largest oil companies, assured Congress and the public that it could operate safely in deep water and that a major oil spill was next to impossible,” Waxman said. “We now know those assurances were wrong.”

* * *

‘Serious Questions’

“BP promised to make safety its number one priority,” Stupak said. “This hearing will raise serious questions about whether BP and its partners fulfilled this commitment. The safety of its entire operations rested on the performance of a leaking and apparently defective blowout preventer.”

322. These revelations caused BP ADS to close at $48.50 per share on May 12, 2010, a

decline of $0.24 per ADS from the previous day’s closing price and approximately $11.98 per

ADS since April 20, 2010. Similarly, BP’s ordinary shares in London closed at 541.6 pence per

share that day—down 3.9 pence from the previous day and 113.8 pence per share (-17.4%) in

comparison to April 20, 2010.

323. On May 13, 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Red

Flags Were Ignored Aboard Doomed Rig.” This article stated, in relevant part:

Managers at oil giant BP PLC decided to forge ahead in finishing work on the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig despite some tests suggesting that highly combustible gas had seeped into the well, according to testimony released by congressional investigators and documents seen by The Wall Street Journal .

324. On May 13, 2010, as a result of these continuing revelations about BP’s

operations, BP ADS closed at $48.10 per ADS, $0.40 per share below the previous day’s closing

price. This decline is directly related to the market learning of BP’s process safety deficiencies.

325. On May 14, 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “BP

Wasn’t Prepared for Leak, CEO Says.” This article stated, in relevant part:

123


BP has been particularly vulnerable to criticism because among the large oil companies it is by far the biggest player in deepwater oil exploration. Some in the industry have said a company with such a strong focus on deepwater drilling should have had much better contingency plans for dealing with an underwater oil leak at this depth.

Mr. Hayward, speaking to a small group of journalists Wednesday night in Houston, admitted the oil giant had not had the technology available to stop the leak. He also said in hindsight it was “probably true” that BP should have done more to prepare for such an emergency of this kind.

“It’s clear that we will find things we can do differently, capability that we could have available to deploy instantly, rather than be creating it as we go,” he said.

326. On May 14, 2010, due to these revelations, BP’s shares dropped $1.23 per ADS

from the previous day’s closing price to close at $46.87 per share; BP ordinary shares dropped

17.40 pence per share to close at 530.20 per share over this same period. The decline is directly

related to the market absorbing information revealing risks concealed by BP throughout the

Relevant Period, specifically, that the Company conducted its operations in the Gulf without a

legitimate spill response plan and that the Company’s statements about reforming BP’s safety

profile were false.

327. On May 24, 2010, BP announced that the costs for addressing the Gulf oil spill

had more than doubled, from $350 million to $760 million. Additionally, BP announced that it

was recovering less oil than it expected. Finally, pressure on BP continued to grow because the

U.S. government threatened to take over the oil spill response effort because of BP’s lack of

progress. On this news, the Company’s ADS fell from $43.86 per ADS on Friday, May 21, 2010

to close at $41.86 per ADS on Monday, May 24, 2010, a decline of $2.00 per ADS; BP’s

ordinary shares fell from 506.7 pence per share to close at 493 pence per share on May, 24, 2010.

328. On May 26, 2010, BP began its “top kill” efforts, the goal being to put heavy kill

mud into the well so that it reduced the pressure and then the flow from the well.

124


329. On May 27, 2010, the Flow Rate Technical Group, a group comprised of

engineers and scientists from various federal agencies and universities that was tasked with

creating its own estimate of the oil spill rate from Deepwater Horizon, issued a public report

estimating the oil spill flow rate to be between 11,000 and 25,000 barrels per day. This

statement corrected BP’s prior statements which knowingly or recklessly underestimated the oil

spill rate to be only 5,000 barrels per day. In response to this news, the price of BP ADRs fell

$1.74 per ADS in after-hours trading, from a closing price of $45.38 on May 27, 2010, to open at

$43.64 per ADS on May 28, 2010. The stock fell throughout the day on May 28, 2010 as the

market continued to digest this information, closing at $42.95 per ADS, for a total loss of $2.43

per ADS or 5.35%. Similarly, BP’s ordinary shares fell in after-market trading from a closing

price of 520.80 pence per share on May 27, 2010 to open at 517.00 pence per share on May 28,

2010, and continued to fall throughout the day on May 28, 2010, to close at 494.80 pence per

share, for a total loss of 26 pence per share or 4.99%.

330. On May 29, 2010 (a Saturday), BP revealed that its “top kill” efforts had failed.

331. Also on May 29, 2010, The New York Times published an article entitled

“Documents Show Early Worries About Safety of Rig.” This article stated, in relevant part:

Internal documents from BP show that there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig far earlier than those the company described to Congress last week.

* * *

The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of “well control.” And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer.

332. On June 1, 2010 (the first trading day since the failure of the “top kill” effort),

United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reported that the DOJ opened formal criminal and

civil probes of BP. News of the Attorney General’s action and BP’s inability to cap the well

125


with its “top kill” procedure sent its ADS tumbling nearly 15%, to close on June 1, 2010 at

$36.52 per ADS, on heavy trading volume. Likewise, the Company’s ordinary shares fell 64.8

pence over the period to close at 430 pence. This closing price on June 1, 2010 represents a

cumulative decline in the value of BP’s ADS of nearly $24.00 per ADS since April 20, 2010, or

approximately 40%. Moreover, the decline over this period in BP’s ordinary shares was more

than 225 pence, representing a decline of more than 34% since the closing price on April 20,

2010. These declines are directly related to the market absorbing information revealing risks

concealed by BP throughout the Relevant Period, specifically that the Company conducted its

operations in the Gulf without a legitimate spill response plan and that the Company’s statements

about reforming BP’s safety profile were false.

333. Governmental investigations following the oil spill have primarily blamed BP for

the initial explosion and the ensuing oil spill. For example, the Interior Department Report

(dated September 14, 2011) states:

The loss of life at the Macondo site on April 20, 2010, and the subsequent pollution of the Gulf of Mexico through the summer of 2010 were the result of poor risk management , last-minute changes to plans, failure to observe and respond to critical indicators, inadequate well control response, and insufficient emergency bridge response training by companies and individuals responsible for drilling at the Macondo well and for the operation of the Deepwater Horizon.

BP, as the designated operator under BOEMRE regulations, was ultimately responsible for conducting operations at Macondo in a way that ensured the safety and protection of personnel, equipment, natural resources, and the environment.

334. The cost of the spill has been highly material. To date, BP has set aside $37.2

billion to pay spill-related expenses.

VIII. RELIANCE

335. Plaintiffs, acting in and from their respective home states, by and through their

investment advisers, justifiably and reasonably relied on some or all of the alleged false and

126


misleading statements and omissions described above in purchasing, selling and holding BP

securities during the Relevant Period by, among other things: (1) reading the statements made by

Defendants in BP’s SEC filings, press releases and other public sources by BP executives; (2)

reviewing analyst reports and news articles about BP; and (3) relying on the assumption that

BP’s stock price reflected truthful and accurate information disseminated by or on behalf of the

Company and had not been impacted by false or misleading information. Neither Plaintiffs nor

their investment advisers knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of

Defendants’ false and misleading statements and omissions when transacting in BP securities


A. Connecticut Retirement Funds

336. Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Funds, acting in and from the State of

Connecticut, authorized the following parties, among others, to act as its agent and investment

adviser and manager and in that capacity to make investment decisions on its behalf during the

Relevant Period:

(collectively, the “Connecticut Retirement Funds Investment Advisers”).

337.

127


338. The Connecticut Retirement Funds Investment Advisers read and reasonably and

justifiably relied upon some or all of the material misrepresentations and omissions of fact

alleged herein and, on that basis, purchased BP securities on behalf of Plaintiff Connecticut

Retirement Funds during the Relevant Period.

339. Some of the Connecticut Retirement Funds Investment Advisers also purchased

or received shares of BP securities on behalf of Connecticut Retirement Funds prior to the start

of the Relevant Period,

340.

341. The Connecticut Retirement Funds Investment Advisers did not, and in the

exercise of reasonable diligence could not, have known of Defendants’ false and misleading

statements and omissions set forth herein, when transacting in BP securities on behalf of

Connecticut Retirement Funds during the Relevant Period.

342.

128


B. North Carolina DST

343. Plaintiff North Carolina DST, acting in and from the State of North Carolina,

authorized the following parties, among others, to act as its agent and investment adviser and

manager, and in that capacity to make investment decisions on its behalf during the Relevant

Period:

(collectively, the “North Carolina

DST Investment Advisers”)

344.

129


345. The North Carolina DST Investment Advisers read and reasonably and justifiably

relied upon some or all of the material misrepresentations and omissions of fact alleged herein

and, on that basis, purchased BP securities on behalf of Plaintiff North Carolina DST during the

Relevant Period.

346. Some of the North Carolina DST Investment Advisers also purchased or received

shares of BP securities on behalf of North Carolina DST prior to the start of the Relevant Period,

347.

348. The North Carolina DST Investment Advisers did not, and in the exercise of

reasonable diligence could not, have known of Defendants’ false and misleading statements and

omissions set forth herein, when transacting in BP securities on behalf of North Carolina DST


130


349.

C. Colorado PERA

350. Plaintiff Colorado PERA, acting in and from the State of Colorado, authorized the

following parties, among others, to act as its agent and investment adviser and manager, and in

that capacity to make investment decisions on its behalf during the Relevant Period:

(collectively, the

“Colorado PERA Investment Advisers”).

351.

131


352. The Colorado PERA Investment Advisers read and reasonably and justifiably


and, on that basis, purchased BP securities on behalf of Plaintiff Colorado PERA during the

Relevant Period.

353. Some of the Colorado PERA Investment Advisers also purchased or received

shares of BP securities on behalf of Colorado PERA prior to the start of the Relevant Period,

354.

355. The Colorado PERA Investment Advisers did not, and in the exercise of


omissions set forth herein, when transacting in BP securities on behalf of Colorado PERA during

the Relevant Period.

132


356.

D. City of Philadelphia

357. Plaintiff City of Philadelphia, acting in and from the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, authorized the following parties, among others, to act as its agent and investment

adviser and manager, and in that capacity to make investment decisions on its behalf during the

Relevant Period:

(collectively, the “City of Philadelphia Investment Advisers”)

358.

133


359. The City of Philadelphia Investment Advisers read and reasonably and justifiably


and, on that basis, purchased BP securities on behalf of Plaintiff City of Philadelphia during the

Relevant Period.

360. Some of the City of Philadelphia Investment Advisers also purchased or received

shares of BP securities on behalf of City of Philadelphia prior to the start of the Relevant Period,

361.

362. The City of Philadelphia Investment Advisers did not, and in the exercise of


omissions set forth herein, when transacting in BP securities on behalf of City of Philadelphia


363.

134


E. LACERA

364. Plaintiff LACERA, acting in and from the State of California, authorized the



(the “LACERA Investment Advisers”).

365.

366. The LACERA Investment Advisers read and reasonably and justifiably relied

upon some or all of the material misrepresentations and omissions of fact alleged herein and, on

that basis, purchased BP securities on behalf of Plaintiff LACERA during the Relevant Period.

367. The LACERA Investment Advisers also purchased or received shares of BP

securities on behalf of LACERA prior to the start of the Relevant Period,

368.

135


369. The LACERA Investment Advisers did not, and in the exercise of reasonable

diligence, could not, have known of Defendants’ false and misleading statements and omissions

set forth herein, when transacting in BP securities on behalf of LACERA during the Relevant

Period.

370.

F. SDCERS

371. Plaintiff SDCERS, acting in and from the State of California, authorized the



(the “SDCERS Investment Advisers”).

372.

136


373. The SDCERS Investment Advisers read and reasonably and justifiably relied

upon some or all of the material misrepresentations and omissions of fact alleged herein and, on

that basis, purchased BP securities on behalf of Plaintiff SDCERS during the Relevant Period.

374. The SDCERS Investment Advisers also purchased or received shares of BP

securities on behalf of SDCERS prior to the start of the Relevant Period,

375.

376. The SDCERS Investment Advisers did not, and in the exercise of reasonable

diligence could not, have known of Defendants’ false and misleading statements and omissions

set forth herein, when transacting in BP securities on behalf of SDCERS during the Relevant

Period.

377.

137


378. Plaintiffs, through the Investment Advisers identified above and other investment

advisers, also relied upon in making investment decisions with

respect to these securities during the Relevant Period

379. As a publicly-traded company Defendants knew, understood and had reason to

expect that: (1) investors would rely on the price of BP securities as reflecting accurate

information known to the company and its principals; and (2) their misstatements would

artificially inflate the price of BP securities and cause Plaintiffs and/or their agents to purchase

BP securities at such artificially inflated prices.

380. Plaintiffs will also rely upon the presumption of reliance established by the fraud-

on-the-market doctrine in that, among other things:

(a) Defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts during the Relevant Period;

(b) The omissions and misrepresentations were material;

(c) The Company’s securities traded in efficient markets;

(d) The misrepresentations alleged would induce a reasonable investor to misjudge the value of the Company’s securities; and

(e) Plaintiffs, through their investment advisers, purchased BP securities during the Relevant Period without knowledge of the misrepresented or omitted facts.

138


381. At all relevant times, the market for BP securities was efficient for the following

reasons, among others: (a) BP filed periodic public reports with the SEC; and (b) BP regularly

communicated with public investors via established market communication mechanisms,

including through regular disseminations of press releases on the major news wire services and

through other wide-ranging public disclosures, such as communications with the financial press,

securities analysts and other similar reporting services.

IX. NO SAFE HARBOR

382. Defendants’ “Safe Harbor” warnings accompanying their forward-looking

statements (“FLS”) issued during the Relevant Period were ineffective to shield those statements

from liability.

383. The Defendants are also liable for any false or misleading FLS pleaded because,

at the time each FLS was made, the speaker knew the FLS was false or misleading and the FLS

was authorized and/or approved by an executive officer of BP who knew that the FLS was false.

None of the historic or present tense statements made by Defendants were assumptions

underlying or relating to any plan, projection or statement of future economic performance, as

they were not stated to be such assumptions underlying or relating to any projection or statement

of future economic performance when made, nor were any of the projections or forecasts made

by Defendants expressly related to or stated to be dependent on those historic or present tense

statements when made.

X. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIMELY

384. Plaintiffs’ claims are filed within the applicable statutes of limitations and/or are

otherwise subject to tolling. Plaintiffs did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable diligence

could not have known, of Defendants’ fraud and negligence prior to April 20, 2010 when it

began to be revealed.

139


XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

385. The common law claims set forth below arising under Colorado, Connecticut,

North Carolina, Pennsylvania and California law (Claims 3 through 5), are brought in the

alternative to the Texas common law claims set forth below (Claims 3 through 5).

386. The federal law Claims set forth below (Claims 1 and 2) relate exclusively to

Plaintiffs’ purchases of BP ADS and are not brought in the alternative to any other Claims.

FIRST CLAIM Violation of Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder

Against BP, BP Exploration, Hayward, Suttles and Inglis (the “Section 10(b) Defendants”)

(RELATING TO ADS PURCHASES)

387. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained above as if

fully set forth herein.

388. During the Relevant Period, the Section 10(b) Defendants disseminated or

approved the false statements specified herein (as attributed to them above), which they knew or

recklessly disregarded were false and misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and

failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

389. The Section 10(b) Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and

Rule 10b-5 in that they: (i) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue

statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading;

and/or (iii) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit

upon Plaintiffs and in connection with their purchases or acquisitions of BP ADS during the

Relevant Period. As detailed herein, the misrepresentations contained in Defendants’ public

statements included statements relating to BP’s integration of the recommendations set forth in

140


the Baker Report, the scope and progress of BP’s OMS implementation, the Company’s (and its

divisions’) statements about their ability to respond to a “worst case” spill in the Gulf far in

excess of the amount of oil leaking from the Macondo well, and statements relating to the

amount of oil leaking into the Gulf from the Macondo well during the Relevant Period.

390. The Section 10(b) Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly,

by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails, engaged and

participated in a continuous course of conduct that operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiffs;

made various false and/or misleading statements of material facts; made the above statements

with knowledge or a reckless disregard for the truth; and employed devices, schemes, and

artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase or sale of BP ADS, which were intended to,

and did deceive Plaintiffs, for the reasons set forth above.

391. The Section 10(b) Defendants are liable for the materially false and misleading

statements attributed to them as set forth above.

392. As described above, the Section 10(b) Defendants acted with scienter in that they

either had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations set forth herein, or acted with reckless

disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and disclose the true facts, even though such

facts were available to them. Specifically, the Section 10(b) Defendants knew or were reckless

in not knowing that BP was not, contrary to its public statements, implementing the

recommendations set forth in the Baker Report, that OMS did not apply to all of BP’s operations,

that the Company’s (and its divisions’) statements about their ability to respond to a “worst case”

spill in the Gulf far in excess of the amount of oil leaking from the Macondo well overstated

BP’s capabilities, and statements relating to the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf from the

Macondo well during the Relevant Period were contradicted by BP’s internal documents.

141


393. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in that, in direct reliance on the market price for

BP ADS, and integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for BP ADS. Plaintiffs

would not have purchased or otherwise acquired these ADS at the prices they paid, or at all, if

they had been aware that the market price had been artificially and falsely inflated by the Section

10(b) Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements.

394. As a direct and proximate result of the Section 10(b) Defendants’ wrongful

conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchases or acquisitions of BP

ADS during the Relevant Period.

SECOND CLAIM Violation of Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act Against Hayward,

Suttles, Inglis, BP, and BP America (collectively, the “Section 20(a) Defendants”)

(RELATING TO ADS PURCHASES)

395. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained above as if


396. The Section 20(a) Defendants acted as controlling persons of BP and BP

Exploration within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By

virtue of their high-level positions, and their ownership and contractual rights, participation in

and/or awareness of BP, BP America and BP Exploration’s operations and/or intimate

knowledge of the false and misleading statements disseminated by BP and BP Exploration and

their officers to the investing public, the Section 20(a) Defendants had the power to influence

and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of BP and

BP Exploration, including the content and dissemination of the various statements which

Plaintiffs contend are false and misleading and/or omitted material information. The Section

20(a) Defendants were provided with or had unlimited access to copies of BP’s and BP

Exploration’s reports, press releases, public filings, oil spill response capabilities and other

142


statements alleged by Plaintiffs to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements

were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements

to be corrected.

397. In particular, each of the Section 20(a) Defendants either owned, or had direct and

supervisory involvement, in the day-to-day operations of BP and BP Exploration and, therefore,

are presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise

to the securities violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same.

398. As set forth above, the Section 10(b) Defendants each violated Section 10(b) and

Rule 10b-5 by their acts and omissions as alleged in this Complaint. By virtue of their positions

as controlling persons, the Section 20(a) Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the

Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of the Section 20(a) Defendants’ wrongful

conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchases of the Company’s ADS


THIRD CLAIM Common Law Fraud, Deceit and Fraudulent Concealment Against BP, BP Exploration,

Hayward, Suttles and Inglis (collectively, the “Common Law Fraud Defendants”) (RELATING TO ADS AND ORDINARY SHARE TRANSACTIONS)

399. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if


400. During the Relevant Period, the Common Law Fraud Defendants, individually

and in concert with others, participated in the fraudulent scheme set forth herein and made (as

attributed to them above), or caused BP or BP Exploration to make, statements which, at the time

and in light of the circumstances in which they were made, were materially false and misleading

representations of fact, or omitted to state material facts which they had a duty to disclose to

Plaintiffs and the investing public.

143


401. When making the false and misleading representations, the Common Law Fraud

Defendants knew they were false or made them with reckless disregard for their truth.

402. Because, among other reasons, BP is a public company which is required by law

to make certain filings and statements regarding its operational and financial health for purposes

of public transparency, the Common Law Fraud Defendants knew, understood and had reason to

expect that their statements would be distributed to or available to Plaintiffs and the investing

public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs, and/or their investment advisers, would rely and had

a right to rely on such statements. The Common Law Fraud Defendants were required to present

BP’s and BP Exploration’s operations and oil spill response capabilities in a fair and accurate

manner in, among other documents, reports that the Common Law Fraud Defendants were

required to file with regulators (including the MMS), SEC filings, press releases and other public

statements. Moreover, because BP and BP Exploration were involved in drilling for oil in the

Gulf, the Common Law Fraud Defendants knew, understood and had reason to expect that

statements regarding BP’s and BP Exploration’s oil spill response capabilities would be available

to Plaintiffs and the investing public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment

advisers, would rely and had a right to rely on such statements. In addition, Defendants were

required to file Forms 20-F, Forms 6-K and other reports with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq ., which was enacted to protect investors such as Plaintiffs from

misrepresentations by public companies. Thus, Defendants had reason to expect that Plaintiffs

and other members of the investing public would be influenced by and rely upon the statements

in BP’s SEC filings, as the class of persons intended by Congress to be protected by the

Exchange Act.

144


403. The Common Law Fraud Defendants made (as attributed to them above), or

caused BP or BP Exploration to make, the false and misleading representations with the intent

that they be acted upon by others, including investors and prospective investors in BP securities,

such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers.

404. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, relying upon the Common Law Fraud

Defendants’ statements containing the false and misleading information, the market price for BP

securities and/or the integrity of the market, purchased BP securities at artificially inflated prices


405. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers acted in reasonable and justifiable

reliance on the Common Law Fraud Defendants’ false and misleading statements, the market

price for BP securities and/or the integrity of the market, without knowing that the Common Law

Fraud Defendants’ statements were false, when making investment decisions regarding BP

securities. The Common Law Fraud Defendants’ false and misleading statements also induced

Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers to retain Plaintiffs’ holdings in BP securities during


406. As a direct and proximate result of the Common Law Fraud Defendants’

misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchases

of BP securities during the Relevant Period.

407. The Common Law Fraud Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, as set

forth herein, constitute fraud, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent concealment

under Texas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina common law.

145


FOURTH CLAIM Common Law Aiding and Abetting Fraud Against BP Exploration, BP America, Hayward,

Suttles and Inglis (the “Aiding and Abetting Defendants”)

(RELATING TO ADS AND ORDINARY SHARE TRANSACTIONS)



409. The Aiding and Abetting Defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance to

BP in perpetrating the fraud set forth herein. The Aiding and Abetting Defendants were

generally aware of their role as part of the overall fraudulent scheme perpetrated by BP. These

Defendants had first-hand knowledge of the material facts that were misrepresented or omitted,

as alleged herein, but were nonetheless complicit in BP’s issuance of these materially misleading

statements to the public and/or drafted, participated in the drafting, or had the opportunity to

preview those misstatements and failed to prevent the issuance of those misstatements.

410. The Aiding and Abetting Defendants owed Plaintiffs, as investors and prospective

investors in BP securities, the duty of presenting BP’s operations and oil spill response plans in a

fair and accurate manner.

411. As a direct and natural result of the fraud committed by BP, and the knowing and

active participation by the Aiding and Abetting Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages in

connection with their purchases of BP securities during the Relevant Period.

412. The Aiding and Abetting Defendants’ substantial participation in BP’s fraud, as

set forth herein, constitute aiding and abetting fraud under Texas, California, Colorado,

Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina common law.

146


FIFTH CLAIM Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Against All Defendants (the “Common Law

Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants”)



fully set forth herein, except those sounding in fraud. This Count is brought for breaches of

duties owed to Plaintiffs by the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants and is

not based on the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants defrauding Plaintiffs.

414. During the Relevant Period, the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendants made (as attributed to them above), or caused BP, BP Exploration and/or BP

America to make, statements which, at the time and in light of the circumstances under which

they were made, were materially false and misleading, or omitted to state material facts which

they had a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and the investing public.

415. The Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants’ misrepresentations

and omissions were made in the course of the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendants’ business, profession, and/or employment for their own financial benefit and for the

guidance of BP’s investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, in making

investment decisions with respect to BP securities.

416. The Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants owed Plaintiffs, as

investors and prospective investors in BP securities, the duty of presenting BP’s, BP

Exploration’s and/or BP America’s operations and oil spill response plans in a fair and accurate

manner.


and omissions were the result of negligence in breach of the Common Law Negligent

Misrepresentation Defendants’ duty to exercise reasonable care or competence in making

147


accurate representations to BP shareholders and prospective investors, when issuing false and

misleading statements during the Relevant Period. The Common Law Negligent

Misrepresentation Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in

communicating information regarding BP’s operations to Plaintiffs, their investment advisers

and/or the investing public.



of public transparency, the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants knew,

understood and had reason to expect that their statements would be distributed to or available to

Plaintiffs and the investing public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment

advisers, would rely and had a right to rely on such statements. The Common Law Negligent

Misrepresentation Defendants were required to present BP’s and BP Exploration’s operations

and oil spill response capabilities in a fair and accurate manner in, among other documents,

reports that the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants were required to file with

regulators (including the MMS), SEC filings, press releases and other public statements.

Moreover, because BP and BP Exploration were involved in drilling for oil in the Gulf, the

Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants knew, understood and had reason to

expect that statements regarding BP’s and BP Exploration’s oil spill response capabilities would

be available to Plaintiffs and the investing public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or

their investment advisers, would rely and had a right to rely on such statements. In addition,

Defendants were required to file Forms 20-F, Forms 6-K and other reports with the SEC

pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq ., which was enacted to protect investors

such as Plaintiffs from misrepresentations by public companies. Thus, Defendants had reason to

148


expect that Plaintiffs and other members of the investing public would be influenced by and rely

upon the statements in BP’s SEC filings, as the class of persons intended by Congress to be

protected by the Exchange Act.

419. Each of the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants negligently

made (as attributed to them above), or caused BP or BP Exploration to negligently make, the

false and misleading representations set forth herein with the intent that they be acted upon by

others, including investors and potential investors in BP securities, such as Plaintiffs and/or their

investment advisers.

420. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, relying upon the Common Law

Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants’ statements containing the false and misleading

information, the market price for BP securities and/or the integrity of the market, purchased BP

securities at artificially inflated prices during the Relevant Period.

421. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers acted in reasonable and justifiable

reliance on the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants’ false and misleading

statements, the market price for BP securities and/or the integrity of the market, without knowing

the Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants’ statements were false, when making

investment decisions regarding BP securities. The Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendants’ false and misleading statements also induced Plaintiffs, and/or their investment

advisers, to retain Plaintiffs’ holdings in BP securities during the Relevant Period.

422. As a direct and proximate result of the Common Law Negligent

Misrepresentation Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered damages in

connection with their purchases of BP securities during the Relevant Period.

149



and omissions, as set forth herein, constitute negligent misrepresentations and omissions under

Texas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina common law.

SIXTH CLAIM Texas Statutory Fraud – Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 27.01 (“Section 27.01”) – Against All

Defendants (the “Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants”) (RELATING TO ADS AND ORDINARY SHARE TRANSACTIONS)



425. During the Relevant Period, the Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants, individually

and in concert with others, participated in the fraudulent scheme set forth herein and made (as


and in light of the circumstances they were made, were materially false and misleading





of public transparency, the Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants knew, understood and had reason

to expect that their statements would be distributed to or available to Plaintiffs and the investing

public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs, and/or their investment advisers, would rely and had

a right to rely on such statements. The Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants were required to

present BP’s and BP Exploration’s operations and oil spill response capabilities in a fair and

accurate manner in, among other documents, reports that the Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants

were required to file with regulators (including the MMS), SEC filings, press releases and other

public statements. Moreover, because BP and BP Exploration were involved in drilling for oil in

150


the Gulf, the Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants knew, understood and had reason to expect that


to Plaintiffs and the investing public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs, and/or their

investment advisers, would rely and had a right to rely on such statements. In addition,

Defendants were required to file Forms 20-F, Forms 6-K and other reports with the SEC

pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq ., which was enacted to protect investors

such as Plaintiffs from misrepresentations by public companies. Thus, Defendants had reason to

expect that Plaintiffs and other members of the investing public would be influenced by and rely

upon the statements in BP’s SEC filings, as the class of persons intended by Congress to be

protected by the Exchange Act.

427. The Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants made (as attributed to them above), or

caused BP or BP Exploration to make, the false and misleading representations with the intent

that they be acted upon by others, including investors and prospective investors in BP securities,

such as Plaintiffs and their investment advisers.

428. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, relying upon the Texas Statutory Fraud

Defendants’ statements containing the false and misleading information, the market price of BP



429. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers acted in justifiable and reasonable

reliance on the Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants’ false and misleading statements, the market

price of BP securities and/or the integrity of the market, without knowing the Texas Statutory


securities. The Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants’ false and misleading statements also induced

151


Plaintiffs, and/or their investment advisers, to retain Plaintiffs’ holdings in BP securities during


430. As a direct and proximate result of the Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants’



431. The Texas Statutory Fraud Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, as set

forth herein, constitute violations of Section 27.01.

SEVENTH CLAIM Colorado Securities Act – Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-51-501(1), 11-51-604(3)(5) – Against BP,

BP Exploration, Hayward, Suttles, Inglis (the “CSA Defendants”) and BP America




433. During the Relevant Period, the CSA Defendants sold or offered BP securities for

sale in Colorado to members and prospective members of the investing public, including

Plaintiffs and their investment advisers, by making (as attributed to them above) or causing to be

made the materially false and misleading statements and omissions set forth above, which the

CSA Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, were materially false and misleading.

434. During the Relevant Period, the CSA Defendants also, individually and in concert

with others, participated in the fraudulent scheme set forth herein and made (as attributed to them

above), or caused BP or BP Exploration to make, statements which, at the time and in light of the

circumstances they were made, were materially false and misleading representations of fact, or

omitted to state material facts which they had a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and the investing

public.

152




of public transparency, the CSA Defendants knew, understood and had reason to expect that their

statements would be distributed to or available to Plaintiffs and the investing public, and that

investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, would rely and had a right to rely

on such statements. The CSA Defendants were required to present BP’s and BP Exploration’s

operations and oil spill response capabilities in a fair and accurate manner in, among other

documents, reports that the CSA Defendants were required to file with regulators (including the

MMS), SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. Moreover, because BP and BP

Exploration were involved in drilling for oil in the Gulf, the CSA Defendants knew, understood

and had reason to expect that statements regarding BP’s and BP Exploration’s oil spill response

capabilities would be available to Plaintiffs and the investing public and that investors, such as

Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, would rely and had a right to rely on such statements.

In addition, Defendants were required to file Forms 20-F, Forms 6-K and other reports with the

SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq ., which was enacted to protect

investors such as Plaintiffs from misrepresentations by public companies. Thus, Defendants had

reason to expect that Plaintiffs and other members of the investing public would be influenced by

and rely upon the statements in BP’s SEC filings, as the class of persons intended by Congress to

be protected by the Exchange Act.

436. The CSA Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements and omissions

had the effect of artificially inflating the market price for BP securities during the Relevant

Period.

153


437. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers purchased BP securities at these

artificially inflated prices during the Relevant Period, acting in justifiable and reasonable reliance

upon the CSA Defendants’ false and misleading statements and omissions set forth above, the

market price for BP securities and/or the integrity of the market. Plaintiffs, through their

investment advisers, purchased BP securities from BP during the Relevant Period.

438. As a direct and proximate result of the CSA Defendants’ misrepresentations and

omissions, Plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchases of BP securities during


439. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, as set forth herein, constitute

violations under Sections 11-51-501 and 11-51-604(3).

440. Hayward, Suttles and Inglis are also liable under Section 11-51-604(5) because

they were the principal executives of and, thus, controlled BP and BP Exploration during the

Relevant Period. In addition, BP America is liable under Section 11-51-604(3) because, as the

parent entity of BP Exploration and through its ownership of BP Exploration, BP America

controlled BP Exploration during the Relevant Period, including the content and dissemination

of the various statements which Plaintiffs contend are false and misleading and/or omitted

material information.

EIGHTH CLAIM California Statutory Deceit – Cal. Civil Code § 1709 – Against BP, BP Exploration,

Hayward, Suttles and Inglis (the “CA Statutory Fraud Defendants”)




442. During the Relevant Period, the CA Statutory Fraud Defendants, individually and

in concert with others, participated in the fraudulent scheme set forth herein and made (as

154



and in light of the circumstances they were made, were materially false and misleading



443. When making the false and misleading representations, the CA Statutory Fraud

Defendants knew they were false or made them with reckless disregard for their truth.



of public transparency, the CA Statutory Fraud Defendants knew, understood and had reason to

expect that their statements would be distributed to or available to Plaintiffs and the investing

public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, would rely and had

a right to rely on such statements. The CA Statutory Fraud Defendants were required to present

BP’s and BP Exploration’s operations and oil spill response capabilities in a fair and accurate

manner in, among other documents, reports that the CA Statutory Fraud Defendants were

required to file with regulators (including the MMS), SEC filings, press releases and other public

statements. Moreover, because BP and BP Exploration were involved in drilling for oil in the

Gulf, the CA Statutory Fraud Defendants knew, understood and had reason to expect that


to Plaintiffs and the investing public, and that investors, such as Plaintiffs and/or their investment

advisers, would rely and had a right to rely on such statements. In addition, Defendants were

required to file Forms 20-F, Forms 6-K and other reports with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq ., which was enacted to protect investors such as Plaintiffs from

misrepresentations by public companies. Thus, Defendants had reason to expect that Plaintiffs

155


and other members of the investing public would be influenced by and rely upon the statements

in BP’s SEC filings, as the class of persons intended by Congress to be protected by the

Exchange Act.

445. The CA Statutory Fraud Defendants made (as attributed to them above), or caused

BP or BP Exploration to make, the false and misleading representations with the intent that they

be acted upon by others, including investors and prospective investors in BP securities, such as

Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers.

446. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers, relying upon the CA Statutory Fraud

Defendants’ statements containing the false and misleading information, the market price for BP



447. Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers acted in justifiable and reasonable

reliance on the CA Statutory Fraud Defendants’ false and misleading statements, the market

price for BP securities and/or the integrity of the market, without knowing that the CA Statutory


securities. The CA Statutory Fraud Defendants’ false and misleading statements also induced

Plaintiffs and/or their investment advisers to retain Plaintiffs’ holdings in BP securities during


448. As a direct and proximate result of the CA Statutory Fraud Defendants’



449. The CA Statutory Fraud Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, as set

forth herein, constitute violations under Section 1709.

156


XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE , Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows:

a. Awarding compensatory damages and equitable relief in favor of Plaintiffs

against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of

Defendants’ wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon;

b. Awarding exemplary damages in favor of Plaintiffs against all Defendants;

c. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,

including counsel fees and expert fees; and

d. Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and

proper.

Dated: November 30, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

CALLIER & GARZA, L.L.P.

/s/ Bernardo S. Garza BERNARDO S. GARZA SDT Bar No. 4779 State Bar No. 03663500 4900 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77056 (713) 439-0248 (713) 439-1908 (fax)

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs

KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

/s/ Matthew L. Mustokoff MATTHEW L. MUSTOKOFF DARREN J. CHECK GREGORY M. CASTALDO MICHELLE M. NEWCOMER MARGARET E. ONASCH

157


Appendix A

Statements/

Third Misrepresentation Held OMS Omissions Misrepresentation li Baker OMS Ability to Oil Spill Retaliation

Complaint ¶ Orders Misleading? Progress

Operations COM to Spills Roles Workers

Statement Dote and Amended Number from Materially Sdeuder

Report Applies to Letter in Amended

Speaker Complaint Court's Prior False ssi;d Found? All Complete Respond Flow Against

Jars 6,2007 N/A

A 153 N/A (New) N/A (New) X B? already his taken a number of actions Which align with the recommendations of'te h BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel and will, after a more thorough (New) review, develop plans for additional action at its U.S. refineries and for applying lessons learned elsewhere. tsp

During 2006, we undertook specific investments and targeted programmes in response to the Texas City incident as well as building more comprehensive systems for managing process safety across the group.

During 2006, we built on the learning from more recent incidents and industry best practice to develop a new operating management system (OMS) to achieve further improvements and reductions in risk Our goals remain unchanged: no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment. The OMS is a comprehensive system that corers all aspects ofour operations, including three dimensions of safety personal safety, process safety and the environment .4,

However, we recognize that we have more to do to achieve excellence in prod v s.' ich includes preventing accidental releases of hazardous materials from industrial processes that can have catastrophic ell'ects, such as fires, which may result ilities, injuries or environmental damage, This was one ofthe main findings of the BP US

May 9, 2007 N/A Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel under former US Secretary on state Jam ss A Baker, lii, which reported in January 2007, The panel made 10 recommendations, all

B BP (New)

155 N/A (New) N/A (New) X of which EP will implement, in areas ranging from leadership to performance it lie ts[.] ens

The new OMS will apply to all operations by the end of 2010 and includes safety, integrity, environmental management and health,,..

Each site will have its own local OMS, based on a consistent group-wide framework, . , , The aim of the OMS is to have consistent standards of design, construction, operating procedures and maintenance that help to ensure the reliability and integrity of our plants. *4,

In 2006, this approach was approved as a group practice, part of the new OMS, defining the environmental impact management processes and requirements to which BP will operate. We intend that all new projects in BP will use the practice (of assessing 'environmental requirements for new projects"] by the end of 2007. The practice was developed primarily for major projects where the potential for environmental impact is often the greatest. However, it also applies to smaller projects that may have the potential for similar levels of impart in environmentally sensitive areas.

May 16, 1 continue to meat with employees to reinforce my expectations of them: that they mast ensure that our operations are safe, that they understand they have both a right and 2007 responsibility to shut down any process they feel is unsafe or operationally unsound, and that they are encouraged to raise concerns on any issue. C 157 8 (NY/OH Order) Yen No X * * *

Malone BP does not tolerate retaliation against workers who raise safety concerns.

July 24,20(17 N/A

Hayward 1) 159 N/A (New) N/A (New) X First, safety. We are ensuring that we have consistent, safe, reliable operations across B?. We are implementing the Baker Panel recommendations. We are also in the early days

(New) ofestablishing a new way of operating in B? -. .eith the progressive rolloul of a common group wide Operating Management System.

Sept. 25,

E 2007

161 9(NY/OH Order) No No X One aspect of our focus on safe and reliance operations that I mentioned earlier, is our new standardised Operating Management System (OMS). This will provide a blueprint or safely and all aspects of operations throughout B?, making sure operations are undertaken ton consistently high standard worldwide,

Inglis

Oct. 25, 2007 F 163 10 (NY/OH Order) Yes No X In the months and years since these violations occurred, see have made renal progress in the areas ofprocess safely performance and risk management.

Malone


_

Statements/

__-

Third Misrepresentation Held 1 OHS Omissions 1 Misrepresentation Baker OHS Ability to Oil SpillRetaliation Date and Amended Number from Materially Scienter Applies to

Letter in Amended Complaint Progress in COM to Spills Rates Workers

Speaker Complaint Coon's Prior False and Found? Report , Complete Respond Flow Against Statement

¶ Orders Misleading? Operations

Nov. 8, 2007 C 165 II (NY/OH Order) Yes Yes >

We continue to implement the roadmap provided to ourselves and the industry by the excellent work of the Baker Panel. B? remains absdatdy cantmitted to faking these

Hayward lessons and becoming a world leader in process safe(y

Feb. 22, 2008 N/A

H 167 N/A (New) N/A (New) x Throughout 2007, HP continued to progress the process safety enhancement programme initiated in response to the March 2005 incidental the Texas City refinery. We hare

(New) made progress across the group on all the recom,nenda lions.

Notwithstanding this track record, our lotensefocus on process safety continues We are making good progress in addressing the recommendations of the Baker Panel and Feb. 27, 2008 have begun to implement anew Operating Management System across all of HP e operations. Integrity related incidents have fallen significantly over the last three years and

169 14 (NY/OH Order) y05uu Yet X X oil spills of more than one barrel continue a strong downward trend, Hayward

Safe and reliable operations remain our number one priority.

Mar. 4, 2008

Hayward Throughout 2007, HP continued to progress the process safety enhancenientpragransnse initiated in response lathe March 2005 incident at the Texas City refinery We

J (signed 171 N/A (New) NIA (New) X worked to implement the recommendations of the 51' US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel (the panel), which issued its report on the incident in January 2007 (see Annual www.bp.com/bakerpanelreport) . We have made material progress throughout the group across all of the panel's 10 recommendations

Report on Form 20-F)

When I took over as chief executive last May, I said that we would focus on three basic priorities: safety, people, and performance. Everyone at SF understands those priorities. And while I am in this role they will remain the priorities.

Apr. 17, 2008

Safety is our number one priority and in 2007 our overall safety record continued to improve. Over the last eight years our safety performance according to the standard industry K 173 16 (NY/OH Order) Yes** Yes X X measure has improved threefold and is now among the best in our industry.

Hayward Our intensefocus on process safety continues, We are making good progre,ss in addressing the recommendations of the Baiter Pond and have began to im,olementanew

Operating Management System across all of Bu°'s operations This it aimed at ensuring that our operations across the world look and feel the same everywhere - and perform

to the same high standard.

BP had a number of high-profile safety lapses in recent years, notably in our Texas City refinery, where there was tragic and unacceptable loss of life.

Dec. 17, These lapses exposed shortcomings - but they also gave us huge opportunity to learn and improve the way we operate. We opened ourselves up to scrutiny - and we listened

2008 L 175 18 (NY/OH Order) Yea Yes X

more to our front-Brie operations people - who, of cows4 really know what is going on on the grounet And we continuously reported progress against a response plan and against an independent external report

Hayward One of the many consequences for us has been to develop and embed anew Operating Management System sight across SF - and we operate in 100 countries - so that is no

mean feat.


Misrepresentation Third Misrepresentation Held OMS

Date and Amended Number from Materially Scienler I Baker A1iilics

OMS Ability to Oil Spill Retaliation Omissions Letter in Amended

Orders Misleading?

Progress Ope

C,OM to Spills RulesWorkers Complaint Speaker Complaint Courts Prior False and Found? Report AU

c.'oniptete 1 Respond Flow Against Statement

UT

24,

BP, Hayward

177-78 21 and 22(NY/OH No Order) I

No X x

(Hayward) (BP)

BP: Safety, both personal and process, remains our highest priority, 2008 scas one of our best ever years for personal safety, with our performance expected to remain among the best in the industry. During the year we began migrating to the new lip OMS, ir'hich has mu, increasedf-oats on process safely and continuous inrproeenremrr The majority of our operations in North America Gas, the Gulf of Mexico, Colombia and the Endicott field in Alaska all completed the immigration to the OMS in 2809

Hayward (in Group chief executive's review):

At the start of the year what priorities did you set out for 81'?

Safety, people and performance, and these remain our priorities. Our number one priority was to do everything possible to achieve safe, compliant and reliable operations.

od policies and processes are essential but, ultimately, safety is about how people think and act That's critical at the front line but it is also true for the entire group. Safety st inform every decision and every action. The lIP operating management system (OMS) turns the prindple of safe and, ellarbk operations into reality by governing how try lIP project, site, operation andfacility is managed

non

Q: How did Exploration and Production perform?

A: It was an excellent year, with major projects such as Thunder Horse in the Gulf of Mexico and Deepswiter Gunashli in Azerbaijan coming onstrearn. That, together with safe

and reliable performance from our existing operations, contributed to underlying production growth - in contrast to the failing output of our major competitors and more than compensated for the effects of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav and other operational issues,

represented, in part, that 8 sites, including the Gulf ofMexico, had 'completed the transition to OMS in 2008.'

continue to implement our new operating management system (OM), aframework for operations across BP that is integral to improving safely and operating rornwflce in every Site

Mar, 4,2009 Hayward (signed Annual

Report on Form 20-F)

I 25 (NY/OH Order) I yes..* ISO-El

13 (Ludlow Order) (Ludlow) No

When filly implemented, OMS will be the single framework within which we will operate, consolidating Bp's requirements relating to process safety, environmental performance, legal compliance in operations, and personal, marine and driving safety....

The OMS establishes a set of requirements, and provides sites with a systematic way to improve operating performance on a continuous basis. HP businesses implementing OMS must work to integrate group requirements within their local system to most legal obligations, address local stakeholder needs, reduce risk and improve efficiency and reliability. A number of mandatory operating and engineering technical requirements have been defined within the OMS, to address process safety and related risks.

All operated businesses plan to transition to OMS by the end of 201 0, Eight sites completed the transition to OMS in 2008, two petrochemicals plants, Cooper River and Decatur, two refineries, Ungen and Gelsenkirchen and four Exploration and Production sites, North America Gas, the Gulf of Mexico, Colombia and the Endicott field in

For the sites already involved, implementing OMS has involved detailed planning, including gap assessments supported by external facilitators. A core aspect of OMS implementation is that each site produces its own 'local OMS', which takes account of relevant risks at the site and details the site's approach to managing those risks. As part its transition to OMS, a site issues its local OMS handbook, and this summarizes its approach to risk management. Each site also develops a plan to close gaps that is reviewed annually. The transition to OMS, at local and group level, has been handled in a formal and systematic way, to ensure the change is managed safely and comprehensively. 0+0

Executive management has taken a range of actions; to demonstrate their leadership and commitment to safety. The group chief executive has consistently emphasized that safety, people, and performance are our top priority, a belief made clear in his 2007 announcement ofa forward agenda for simplification and cultural change in HP. Safety performance has been scrutinized by the Group Operations Risk Committee (the GORC), chaired by the group chief executive and tasked with assuring the group chief executive that group operational risks are identified and managed appropriately.


Statements/

Misrepresentation Third Misrepresentation Held OMS Omissions

De Amended Number from Materially Scentcr OMS Ability o O Spill Retaliation

Speaker Complaint Court's Prior Filscand Found? All COflPkt ks1orn1 Flow Against Statement

Progress Applies to Letter o Amended

Complaint ¶ Orders Misleading?

in MM to Spills Rates Workers Operations

=

I hereby certify that 8P Exploration & Production Inch" the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, too worst-ease disclu'rge, or a substantial threat of

such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed In our Exploration Plan. 0$t

An accidental oil spill that might occur as a result of tile proposed operation in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to firdieries.

However, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill sv0uld occur from the proposed activities If suck a spill were to occur in open ,eaters of the OCS

proximate to mobile adnitfinfish at shellfish, the effects would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage would be reduced to the capability of adult fish and shellfish to

Mar. IC, avoid a spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. No adverse activities to fisheries are anticipated as a result of the proposed

2009 activities.

(submitted u * *

Feb 23, 26 (NY/OH Order) In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and

0 2009) 18346 Yes Yes X technology for such responses, intplententatiun of liP's Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment

lb (Ludlow Order) and recovery and removal of the oil spill

BP

Exploration An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to beaches, However, due to the distance to share (48 ntilcs) and the response capabilities that ,vu,tld

& Production be implemented, no significant adusa-se impacts are espectetk Both the historical spill data and the combined trajectory/risk calculations referenced in the publication OCS

EIA/EA MMS 2002-052 indicate there in little risk of contact or impact to the coastline and associated environmental resources.

The 151' also made identical statements to those above concerning oil spill response capabilities as they relate to protecting wetlands, coastal wildlife, refuges, and wilderness areas.

The Macado ISP included misleading estimates of a worst-case discharge scenario of 162,000 barrels per day andfatnely stated that PP was prepared to respond to such a

spill.

Apr, 16,

P 2009

189 N/A (New) N/A (New) N/A

X You can see similar balanced approach in our new operating management system (0/ifS), which is tube implemented at each liP site, It covers everything from compliance

(New) and risk management through to governance and measuring results. Hayward

The "TOTAL WORST CASE DISCHARGE" scenarios for the Gulf rangedfrom a release of 28,033 barrels of oil per day 10250,000 barrels of oil per day

June 30,

2009 With respect to that range, the Bps Regional 0811? stated: (a) an oil spill occurring less titan ten milesfrom the shoreline could create a worse case discharge of 28,033

barrels of oil per day; (1') an oil spill that occurred greater than ten miles front the shoreline could create a worse case discharge of 177,400 barrels of oil per day; and (c) an

Q B? 191-92 30 (NY/OH Order) Yes Yes X oil spill caused by a mobile drilling rig that is drilling an exploratory well could create a worst case discharge of 250,000 barrels ofoil per day.

Exploration

& Production B?, its subsidiaries and its subcontractors could recover approximately 491,721 barrels of oil per day (or more than 20.6 million gallons) in the event ofan oil spill in the

GulfofMe,sico, l/Pfrrther claimed in the Regional 0811? that the Company and its subcontractors "maintain the necessary spill containment and recovery equipment to respond effuzurtirely to spills."


Statements/

Third Misrepresentation Held OMS Omissions Misrepresentation Baker OMS Ability to Oil Spill Retaliation

Date and Amended Number from Materially Scicaler Applies to Letter in Amended -

Speaker Complaint Court's Prior False and Found? Report

All Complete Respond Flosv Against

Complaint Orders Misleading?

Irogress Operations

in GOM to Spills Rates Workers

Statement

Examples of the technologies ssliicli have helped to reduce accidental releases include:

• Down hole flow control salves that shut down the well automatically if damage to the surface equipment is detected; Nov. 19, • Blowout preveoler technology which includes redundant systems and controls;

2009 F 194 31 (NY/OH Order) Yes No X

• New and improved well control techniques which maintain constant control of the fluids in the welibore;

• Sensors which continually monitor the subsurface and seabed conditions for sudden changes in well pressures; and Rainey • BP's fiber optic network in the US Gulf of Mexico which allows us to monitor well pressures in real time, both at the facility and in our offices in Houston.

While our intent is to prevent all accidental discharges, we conduct regular emergency drills with local, state, and federal agencies. All of our production facilities have

contingency plans that identifj the procedures, response equipment, and key personnel neededfor responding to incidents.

Feb 26,2010 Safe, reliable and compliant operations remain the group's first priority. A key enabler for Ibis is the BP operating management system (OMS), which provides a common

5 197 18 (Ludlow Order) Yes No x ramework for all BP operations, designed to achieve consistency and continuous improvement in safety and efficiency. Alongside mandatory practices to address p art icular

BP risks, OMS enables each site to focus on tIme most important risks in its own operations and sets out procedures on how to manage them in accordance with the group-wide

framework.

Safe, reliable and compliant operations remain the group's first priority. A key enabler for this is the lip operating management system (OMS), which provides a common

rantework for all BP operations, designed to achieve consistency and continuous improvement in safety and efficiency. *0*

Mar. 5, 2010 Our OMS covers all areas from process safety to personal health, to environmental performance. son

Hayward This performance follows several years of intense focus on training and procedures across BP. lIP's operating management system (OMS), which provides a single operating

T (signed 199 35 (NY/OH Order) Yes** Yes X X rameworkfor all BPOperations, is a key pail of continuing to drive a rigorous approach to safe operations. 2009 marked an important year in the continuing implementation

Annual of OMS.

Report on

Form 20-F) Following the tragic incident at the Texas City refinery in 2005 the [Safety, Ethics, and Environment AssuranceJ committee has observed a number of key developments,

induding: the establishment of a safety & operations (S&O) function with the highest calibre of staff, development of a group-wide operating management system (OW

which is being progressively adopted by all operating sites; the establishment of training programmes in conjunction with MIT that are teaching project management and

operational excellence; the dissemination of standard engineering practices throughout the group; and the formation of a highly experienced S&O audit team formed to assess

the safety and efficiency of operations and recommend improvements. Throughout this time the group chief executive has made safety the number one priority.

We are currently planning to make final investment decisions for 24 new major projects in the next two years. Each project has been high-graded though our project selection

Mar. 22, and progression process. They are concentrated in the Gulfof Mexico, the North Sea, Azerbaijan and Angola - high margin production areas that improve the portfolio and

2010 enable profitable growth.

U 201 8 (Ludlow Order) Yes No X * * *

Inglis Safety and operational integrity underpins everything we do, and we are now in the final phase of rolling out our operating management system that pro vides a single,

consistentframework for our operations, covering all areas from personal and process safety to environmental performanoc And! am pleased to say that in 2009 we saw

continuing improvement in all aspects.


Statements!

Misrepresentation Third Misrepresentation Held OMS Omissions

Date and Amended Number from Materially Stienter Baker OMS Ability to Oil Spilt Retaliation

Letter in Amended Report Applies to

Speaker Complaint Court's Prior False and Found? MI Coutplete Respond Ftnsv Against

tiflft8 BP

complaint ¶ Orders Misleading?

Progress in GOM to Spills Rates Workers Z Statement

Operations

a =

Mar, 23, Five years ago on this day, fifteen people died and many more were injured, when an explosion tore through our Texas City refinery.

2010 V 203 38 (NY/OH Order) Yes Yes X

That tragic accident has changed in a profound andfundamental way our approach to safely and operations integrity proriding a safe worhing environment is it

Hayward paramount responsibility, and ourfiret andforemost priority.

Group Chief Executive's Review (Hayward):

Q: What progress has BP made on safety during 2009?

A: Safety is fundamental to our success as a company and 2009 was important because of the progress we made in implementing our operating management system (OMS). The

OMS contains rigorous and tested processes for reducing risks and driving continuous improvement 1 see it as the foundation for a safe, responsible and high-perlbsnning BP.

Apr. 15, llaeing been initially introduced at eight sites in 20118, the OMS rollout extended to 70 sites by the end of 2009, including all our operated refineries and petrochemicals plants.

2010 40 (NY/OH Order) Yes*** x X This means implementation is 80% complete

W 203,207 No (Hayward

Hayward,

(BP) LIP:

1w 5 (Ludlow Order)

(Ludlow)

Bp's operating management system (OMS) prodder a single fruntework for all B? operations tofolkne, covering all areas from process safety, to personal health, to

environmental performance.

Providing an integrated and consistent way of working, the OMS helps ensure that a rigorous approach to safe operations continues to be taken. Its principles and processes are

designed to simplify the organization, improve productivity, enable consistent execution and focus BP on performance.


Statements/ Third Misrepresentation Held OMS Onilssions Misrepresentation Baker

OMS Ability to Oil Spilt Retaliation

Letter in Amended Date trod Amended Number from Materially Scienter Applies to During RP Speaker Complaint Court's Prior False il

Pd' Report All

Complete Respond Flow Against complaint

I Orders Misleading? Operations Progress in GOM to Spills Rates Workers Z

Statement

Oil Spills }3P recognizes the risk posed to the environment from spills and takes a range of measure to prevent any loss of hydrocarbons

Our Approach Our Strategy to address spills has three components:

Prevention: we seek to assure the integrity of vessels and pipelines used to transport oil and other hydrocarbons.

Preparation: we seek to ensure an infrastrarctarr.r is in place to deal effeetir'eiy with spills and their impacts Our operatingfadhities have the capacity and resources to respond to spill incidents and tee participate in industry and internutionalforunre to coordinate contingency planning and emergency response.

Performance: we record incidents, learn lessons and aim to reduce the number of losses from primary containment.

Apr. IS, 2010

X 209-10 32 (Ludlow Order) Yes No X X Promoting Safe Operations

HP

We are carrying forward our efforts on process safety, which is an integral part afoot operating management system (OMS) and ingrained within our capability programmes. As participants in a second round of operations leadership sessions at MIT this year, the group chief executive and his executive leans were instrumental in establishing the concept of continuous improvement to help drive systematic safety and reliability in our operations Continuous improvement is a means of empowering our operations managers and supervisors, who are closest to our operational problems, to develop the necessary solutions. 4*,

Striving for Safe Operations: LIP continues to implement its operating management system (OHS), a cornerstone of achieving safe, reliable and responsible operations at every BPoperatiow

Taking a systematic approach is integral to improving safety and operating performance in HP operated sites. Our operating management system covers all areas from process

safety, to personal health, to environmental performance. 4*4

A Unifying Way of Operating We have successfully introduced OMS at every refinery worldwide in advance of the internal expectations. Hugh Parsons, Vice President with responsibility for management processes in refining slates that "the OMS framework has given us a common path, applicable across different sites and assets worldwide. It has provided a unifying way of operating. This is true not only for refining but across the whole of HP, where we have a much clearer definition of what 'good operations' looks and feels like, regardless of the business content"

Apr. 28, Softies reiterated that BP!Ls- best estimate oft/re amount ofoilflotvtngfrom the Macondtr well on cc/ally basis as 1,000 barrels of o//per day - 2010

V 214 42 (NY/OH Order) Yes Yes X Late this afternoon, while monitoring the blowout preventer area, which we have done continuously since the event began, we discovered a new point of leak. This leak is Just

Sorties beyond the top of the blowout preventer in the pipe work called the riser. Given the location, we do not be/ieee this changes the amount currently ezlintatrdto be released

Apr. 29, 2010

Z 216 43 (NY/OH Order) Yes Yes X I think that somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels a day is probably the best estimate we have today.

Sallies I


Third Misrepresentation Held OMS 1 Ontissioas

Misrepresentation Dive

Bakeroker OMS Ability to Oil Spill RetaliationApplies to and Amended Number from Materially Sienter Report

Letter in Amended Speaker omjt1oint Court's Prior False and Found?

Complete Respond Flow Against Statement

Complaint 11 Orders Misleading?

Progress ii. GOM to Spills Rates Workers Operations

Apr. 29,

AA 1 218 N/A (New) N/A (New) X Efforts continue to stem the flow of oil from the well, currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels a day.

2110 N/A

(New) BR

Ape. 30,

2010 N/A Efforts to stem the flow of oil from the well, currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels a day, are continuing with six remnotelyoperutcd vehicles (ROVs) continuing to attempt to BB 220 N/A (New) N/A (New) X

(New) activate the blowout preventer (SOP) on the sea bed.

BP

CC

May 4, 2010

222 N/A (New) N/A (New) X

N/A Accurate estimation of the rate of flow is difficult, but current estimates by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggests some 5,000 barrels

BR (New) (210,000 US gallons) of oil per day are escaping from the well-

May 5,2010

DD 224 45 (NY/OH Order) Yes Yes X A guesstimate is a guesstimate. And the guesstimate remains 5,000 barrels a day.

Hayward

That is our best estimate, Obviously, it's continually being looked at. As you may know, we've gotten this riser insertion tube to work, and we're getting increased volumes at the

surface where we can actually measure. And then, I believe therein a new small task force that has been put together under direction of Unified Command to get all the experts

together in a room and try to understand, with the latest available data., is there a more accurate estimate? But we do recognize there is range of uncertainty around the current

estimate.

The jbllo fling exchange ensued later during this some hearing: fRey. LAURA A. RICHARDSON]: . . . Why it there a disagreement between the total amount of oil that is leaking? BP has said 5,000, other reports are saying otherwise, Why

do you think there is disagreement, and do you standby your point that it is only 5,000?

May 10,

EE

2012 226 NIA (New) N/A ('New)

N/A X

Mr. McKay: I think there are a range ofeslimates and it is impossible to measure. That is the reality. What we have been doing with government officials, government experts,

(New) industry experts, is trying In come up with the best estimate, and that has been done essentially by understanding what is happening at the surface and trying to understand

McKay volume there, adding toil what we believe the oil properties, how it would disperse ins water column as it moves to the surface. And those two added together is the estimated

volume. It has been cleat from day one there is a large uncertainty range around that,

Ms. Richardson: Is it possible it could possibly be the larger number that has been reported?

Mr. McKay. It is theoreiically possible Idon't think anyone believer aix quite that high that has been working on this Ibelieve the uncertainly range is around that 5,000

number, and it could be higher, But V the number you are talking about is 70,000 barreLs a day, Idon't know this, but Idon't think people that are working with it believe

that that in aposxibilily.

May 14,

FR

2010 228 N/A (New) N/A (New)

N/A X

[O1ueselves (i.e., BPI and people from NOAA and others believe that something around 5,000, that's actually barrels a day, is the best estimate" ofthe then-currentJlotrspill

(New) rate. SallIes

May I?,

2011) N/A fiG 230 N/A (New) N/A (New)

(New) X Suitles reiterated that the 5,000 barrels per day estimate was "our beat estimate today,"

Suttles

232-33 1 N/A (New) N/A (New) N/A

(New)

235-37 N/A (New) N/A (New) N/A

I (New)

240 N/A (New) N/A (New) N/A

(New)

May 21,

2 HI-I

010

Suttles

May 22,

II 2010

Sutttet

11


Misrepresentation Third

Misrepresentation Held OMS

Letter in Amended Date and Amended Number from J Materially Scienter Baker

OMS Ability to Oil Spill Retaliation

Complaint Speaker omplaiut Court's Prior False and Found? Report

Ali

Complete Respond Flow Against

Orders Misleading? Progress 01

in GOM to Spills Rates Workers

Statement

Sut&'s reiterated i/rat the 5,000 estimate of the oil spill rate not "the best estimate we have"

X Suit/es stated, "we've said since quite early on in this that our best estimate was around 5,000 barrels a day but with a wide range" and that, "at the moment, that's our best

estimate,"

Suttles responded to the question, "how much oil is hi/lowing into the Cit/f rig/it tutu'," stating that there are 'techniques we use 10 give an esli male , and 5,000 barrels a day

was the best estimate we could do, but we've also stressed since the beginning that that number is very uncertain because we can't meter it."

In response to the comment that independent scientists who calculated their attn estimates at NPR 'a request, n/tic/i acre as high as 70.000 barrels per day. Settles stated that

"I've heard those [70,000 barrels per day] estimates and seen them and I don't believe it's possible that it's anywhere near that number, ., since I can't meter it, I can't actually

say it couldn't be. But all ofoar techniques would say that that's highly unlikely."

During the interview, when asked, even ifone were to "split the difference land] let's say that it's 30,000 barrels aday drat are spilling-- ifyou try to top kill.,, do you risk

using a technique that could make the spill even worse," Sttttk's responded stating, "No, I don't believe that's the case, Scott, and we don't think the rate's anywhere near that

I

Si 241

1W II 242

11 243

JJ 244

N/A (New) N/A (New) N/A

(New)

I N/A (New) N/A (New)

N/A

(New)

I N/A (New) N/A (New) N/A

(New)

N/A N/A (New) N/A (New) I I (New)

I

I

I

I

JJ 245 N/A (New) N/A (New) (New) I

*Although the plaintilTh in the NYIOH Class Action pled a false and misleading statement by the Company on this same date, which was among the statements the Court dismissed as too 'illusory' or "squishy,' (see Memorandum and Order on Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Dkt 324, 53-57) this dismissed statement was separate and distinct from the false and misleading statement pled herein.

"These statements were found materially false and misleading for misrepresenting lIP's progress in process safety improvements as measured against the recommendations set out in the Baker Report. Plaintiffs now allege that these statements are false and misleading for the additional reasons that they misrepresent that OMS applied to all BP operatioes.

'"These statements were found materially false and misleading for misrepresenting that BP completed the OMS implementation in the Gulf of Mexico, PlainlifI's now allege that these statements are false and misleading for the additional reason that they misrepresented that OMS applied to all lIP operations.