Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a one-quarter partner in BP plc’s ill-fated Macondo well, has to face a lawsuit claiming it misled investors, a Houston district judge as ruled.

U.S. District Judge Keith P Ellison dismissed most of the investor allegations but found that there was reason to proceed with the lawsuit because of one statement made in May 2010, shortly after the well blowout, by Anadarko Senior Vice President Robert Daniels (In re Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Class Action Litigation, 12-cv-00900, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas). Lead plaintiffs are the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands and the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers in Alameda, CA.

On a conference call to discuss 1Q2010 performance, Daniels said the Macondo well’s design and procedures were completed before Anadarko became involved in the project. The comments originally had been attributed by several organizations, including NGI, to Executive Chairman Jim Hackett (see Daily GPI, May 5, 2010).

An analyst asked executives during the quarterly conference call how, as a nonoperator of Macondo, “how passive” it had been on the well design.

“I can take a shot at that,” said Daniels. “In that, on traditionally, you actually do know what targets you’re going after and remembering we had firmed into these after the well have already spud. So the well design and procedures, operating procedures, were all done before we actually firmed in.

“When you typically approve these as a nonoperator, you basically approve just the capital spending level and the targeted zones from a geological perspective as opposed to looking at the detail, well design or procedures. So we were not involved with that in that or all in this well.”

Ellison said Daniels’ statements could be considered misleading.

“Viewing the statement in isolation, the inference that Daniels spoke with knowledge that his statement was misleading, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true, is ‘cogent and compelling,’ particularly because he spoke so directly and did not use any qualifying or hedging words,” Ellison wrote.

Although the statements were “actionable,” they were “apparently an isolated occurrence, not repeated by Daniels or any other Anadarko executive.”

The judge found no merit in other investor claims, including allegations that Anadarko had misrepresented its commitment to safety and risk management practices and that it was responsible for any misstatements by BP executives. He also rejected a claim that Anadarko had misstated insurance coverage for the disaster.

Anadarko had disputed the claims and had asked Ellison to reject the case. The company now is “reviewing the ruling to determine the appropriate steps,” said spokesman John Christiansen. Anadarko was given 30 days to respond.

©Copyright 2013Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.