Securities law and spill news

“Given recent volatility in BP share price, I’m told that information related to top kill is now considered stock-market sensitive, which means it has to be managed under disclosure rules for the London and N.Y. stock exchanges,” the BP media official said in an e-mail message. “In a nutshell, that means all investors must be provided information on an equal basis. That precludes me from sending you updates as various aspects of the operation unfold.” — today’s New York Times. Readers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe securities law itself, and not merely private exchange rules, currently constrains companies’ release of stock-market-sensitive information.

P.S.: Ira Stoll, better informed than I about the background, makes the same point: “I agree with Mr. Carr that this is a problem, but his quarrel should be with the SEC and Reg FD, not with BP.”

June 14 roundup

  • Study: Lawyers overestimate their chance of prevailing in litigation [Post, Volokh]
  • Novell court victory might spell end to SCO Linux-infringement claims [GrokLaw, earlier]
  • “Law firms violating copyrights?” [Mister Thorne]
  • Lawyers say New Jersey money-laundering statute “uniquely criminalizes the mere possession of U.S. currency” [NJLJ]
  • Ted Frank vs. critic on $28 million Sacramento nursing home award [PoL]
  • Advocates push “right to development” for developing countries [Kelly, Global Governance Watch]
  • For once Connecticut AG Blumenthal wants a damage award reduced [Hartford Courant, earlier at PoL]
  • “Did You Know That the Real World Has an STD Waiver?” [Mystal, AtL]

“Academic Battle Delays Publication by 3 Years”

“The paper [published this week by the American Psychological Association] is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence.” [Benedict Carey, New York Times]

“The BP oil spill legal primer”

Roger Parloff at Fortune answers some frequently asked questions. Last week he wrote about the supposed, but largely irrelevant, $75 million “cap,” in actuality, according to one expert, a provision of a law “designed to expand liability.” Earlier here.

P.S. From the WSJ (paywall):

Under all but the most dire situations, BP should have little trouble servicing its debts. The biggest risk to the company is a government-driven collapse, but experts doubt the U.S. government can carry out its harshest threats, such as forcing BP to pay the salaries of workers laid off because of the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling. “I cannot imagine that the U.S. government has anything close to the authority to do that” says Jim Langdon, executive partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

June 11 roundup