News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
In 2006, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Shell guilty of intentional fraud and concealment, awarding Atallah $1.65 million in compensatory damages, Gwire said, who added that the jury also found that Shell had acted with “oppression, malice or fraud”, clearing the way for the jury to award punitive damages.
Click to continue reading “Shell Guilty of Fraud to Pay $50 million in Punitive Damages”
In 2006, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Shell guilty of intentional fraud and concealment, awarding Mr. Atallah $1.65 million in compensatory damages. The jury also found that Shell had acted with “oppression, malice or fraud”, clearing the way for the jury to award punitive damages.
Click to continue reading “Jury Awards $50 Million in Punitive Damages Against Shell Oil Subsidiary”
March 02, 2010, 10:34 AM EST
By Greg Stohr
March 2 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Supreme Court bolstered the ability of oil companies to change their leases with independent service station owners, blocking a Massachusetts lawsuit against Shell Oil Co. and Motiva Enterprises LLC.
The Supreme Court today unanimously said the suit by a group of station owners can’t go forward under the U.S. Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, a 1978 law that gave independent station owners more power in their dealings with oil companies.
The station owners said Shell and Motiva used rent increases to try to end their franchise arrangements so the companies could take over operation of the stations.
The station owners at one point won a $3.3 million jury verdict. A federal appeals court upheld part of the award and both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.
The cases are Mac’s Shell Service v. Shell Oil Products, 08-240, and Shell Oil Products v. Mac’s Shell Service, 08-372.
–Editors: Jim Rubin, Laurie Asseo.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jim Kirk at 1-202-654-4315 or jkirk12@bloomberg.net
By Alfred Donovan
Appeal: Peter Sutcliffe, shown here after an attack in prison, has launched a High Court bid to be released.
EXTRACT FROM A DAILY MAIL ARTICLE PUBLISHED 2 MARCH 2010:
The Yorkshire Ripper is using taxpayers’ money in an attempt to win his freedom.
Peter Sutcliffe, who murdered 13 women and tried to kill seven more, claims doctors believe he is ‘on the way to being cured’ and no longer poses a risk to the public.
Now 63, he has received legal aid to fund a team of leading barristers in his High Court battle to be released from the secure Broadmoor Hospital. This is likely to run up a bill of £200,000.
In June 1999, at the age 82, I was a defendant in the High Court action brought against me by Shell for alleged breach of contract. I had no legal representation. I had already sold my home to pay my lawyers. After my funds evaporated completely, I applied for Legal Aid which was granted, then mysteriously withdrawn without explanation. My son’s Legal Aid was also revoked. He discovered that this was due to a letter Shell (Mr Richard Wiseman?) had sent to the Legal Aid Board making an allegation which was without foundation. I assume that Shell also sent a similar letter to the Legal Aid Board about me.
John and I both appealed against the revocation decisions. In my case, a member of the Legal Aid appeal panel said that as far as he could see, I had “nothing to lose”.
My own war record in fighting the Japanese in Burma, the fact that three of my brothers had also fought for Britain (Jack, a paratrooper broke his ankle landing during Operation Market Garden at Arnhem), was of no account. My mother drove a London ambulance during the Blitz. After the war I worked in the civil service for 14 years, started my own business, employed many people over the years and had always lived a blemish free life. Again, this all counted for nothing. Basically, my background, dignity, reputation, health and financial independence, were all of no account.
After receiving notifications that our appeals had been rejected, we each filed for Judicial Review armed with evidence that the allegation made by Shell was completely false, but the trial date arrived before either of us could get a hearing.
I was left in the unbelievable position at the age of 82, with a war disability, of having to personally defend myself in the High Court before a Judge and an array of high-powered barristers and solicitors acting for Shell.
John gave a legal charge on his house to his lawyers, or otherwise he too would have had no legal representation in court. Having no legal aid weakened his position and piled on more pressure. We had already endured a deluge of threats by Shell plus uncover activity directed against us.
Hence we were at a great disadvantage and reluctantly accepted the second compromise settlement offer put by Shell.
What a screwed up Country when a horrific serial killer is granted Legal Aid, while a then 82 year old 2nd World War veteran was left abandoned with no Legal Aid and NO legal representation.
Shell is well aware of what happened. A Shell internal email dated 11 May 2006 raised the question:-
“Mr. Donovan alleges that Shell had (his) legal aid cut off (during the SMART case). Is this the case?”
No answer was provided.
REDLANDS – City attorneys entered into a jury trial in early February in an attempt to get Shell Oil Company to clean up a mess the city says Shell made. The city launched a lawsuit against Shell in 2004 over contaminated ground water. The lawsuit began a jury trial Feb. 4.
“The city brought the lawsuit to be proactive,” said Chris Diggs, the city’s water resources manager. “We want to ensure the sufficient supply of safe drinking water.”
Shell manufactured the chemical product D-D that farmers injected into the soil to kill nematodes – tiny worms that can attack root systems and kill crops. The use of D-D is common by farmers, but Diggs said Shell included an uncommon – and unnecessary – chemical.
Shell put another chemical called Trichloropropane, or TCP – a chemical leftover in the manufacturing process – into the D-D compound, Diggs said. Chemical manufacturers are required to incinerate the chemical to dispose of it. But Shell instead hid the TCP in the D-D, Diggs said.
“They would add the TCP to the D-D to get rid of it,” he said.
And the farmers injected the D-D into the ground.
Diggs said city staffers noticed traces of TCP in its groundwater a few years before the city launched its 2004 lawsuit. The city shut down its groundwater wells where the TCP was detected.
Diggs could not be specific on how many groundwater wells have been shut down because of the way the contamination works.
And the city wants Shell to pay for the construction and maintenance of treatment facilities that would allow the city to use the groundwater wells shut down by the contamination.
“We are looking to restore those (water) supplies back to where we can use them,” Diggs said. “We pay for those assets, we should be able to use them.”
TCP is carcinogenic in humans, Diggs said.
City spokesman Carl Baker said city staff is sure that the water Redlanders are drinking does not contain TCP.
“The water that we are delivering to customers is not contaminated and it is safe to drink,” he said.
Redlands is now getting its drinking water from 21 groundwater wells the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health has approved for use, Baker said.
The city has retained the services of attorneys to represent its interests in court, Baker said.
The Shell Oil Company is represented in court by Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, and international law firm.
News articles generated by royaldutchshellplc.com and its Shell insider sources in 2009
Click to continue reading “News generated by royaldutchshellplc.com Shell leaks in 2009″
Multinational Shell “colluded” with Austrian oil company OMV by restricting the gas and oil they allowed to be produced from the Pohokura gas field in competition with gas from the Maui field, in which Shell holds a major stake, the Todd family claimed on Monday.
Click to continue reading “Todd alleges Shell, OMV colluded”
A lobby group that includes BP and Shell in its membership has launched a legal challenge against low-carbon legislation in California that in effect rules out the use of oil from Canadian tar sands. The action by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) comes amid growing political, investor and consumer pressure on US oil companies not to participate in the carbon-intensive tar sands of Alberta.
Click to continue reading “Oil groups mount legal challenge to Schwarzenegger’s tar sands ban”
AMSTERDAM -(Dow Jones)- A lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) over oil leaks in Nigeria has been adjourned by a Dutch court, one of the plaintiffs said Wednesday, adding that the hearing should start this summer.
Click to continue reading “Dutch Court Adjourns Shell Nigeria Lawsuit Until Summer”
The Bureau of Customs (BoC) threatened to file criminal charges against officials of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. (PSPC) for their “no intent” to pay the P7.3-billion back excise taxes even as the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Court of Tax Appeals will lapse on February 9.
Customs Commissioner Napoleon Morales said BoC plans to sue Pilipinas Shell’s officers because they have committed fraud for the oil firm’s importation of catalytic cracked gasoline (CCG) and Light CCG from 2004 to October, 2009.
“When Shell fails to pay Customs, we will be forced to file a criminal case against them. This is our remedy under the law. As we have said, Shell has committed fraud because there is an issue of misclassification,” Morales said.
Under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), the PSPC placed the CCG and Light CCG under the category of tetrapropylene that only has a one percent rate of duty, when it should have been considered as a premium unleaded that has a three percent rate of duty, he reiterated.
The BoC sent a letter to Royal Dutch Shell Plc. chief executive Joroen can der Veer, who is based in its main office in Netherlands, that they are resorting to such legal action following its continued stance not to settle its financial obligation to the government. (Raymund F. Antonio)
: Dear IMBer, or IBMer, or whatever - if you can explain to me the difference between the two quoted press release examples of geophysical applications in reasoned scientific terms, I shall be more than happy to admit to being a amateur geophysicist (not geologist). Perhaps it is you who is confused. Geophysics and Geology are not the same - close bed fellows, yes - but not the same. If so, then it is you who should get out your needles, wool and get on with "one plain, two purl" rather than embarking on such a commentary.
: Shellwaarbenjijnu has no clue what he/she is talking about. Probably some amateur geologist who wants to be important on the blog. Try to stick to your knitting!
: Paying over 7 mln $ to get rid of this monster of a woman shows how deeply Shell has sunk. She was a stealer of ideas. She was the ultimate token woman, a disgrace to her gender and it has put off many high quality women to pursue a career in Shell. Her disgusting behaviour of being the slave of Watts was evident to all. This latest scandal makes it clear she should never have been promoted to were she ended up. Another costly mistake of Shell. And the top echelon? They know no shame anymore and carry on with more spin stories as usual.
: Perhaps Voser will pull the same trick on Brinded as Watts did on v.d.Vijver. Watts announced that reserves would grow by 5% and that Walter would explain how.... The rest is history. I can only hope that history will repeat itself and Brinded finally gets fired for his gross underperformance and sustained bullshit. Perhaps I have said so before: never trust a man with facial hair.... I shall be watching the announcements how they will increase production with great interest.
: THE ARTICLE "Donovan email to Gavin White, Shell International Limited: 10 March 2010" has been updated with a self-explanatory email reply received on 11 March from Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
: The Forbes article implies that by stopping sales of gasoline to Iran, Shell is complying with US sanctions. Shell's investments in the upstream sector in Iran are not mentioned, even though these are of far greater significance for both Shell and the Iranians.
: Amnesty International has been an informed and courageous critic of Human Rights abuses around the world for many decades and they are certainly not adverse to criticising governments in Nigeria, Burma, Zimbabwe and all around the world. The point about international companies like Shell is that they have a choice. They are not obliged to operate anywhere if they find that the local conditions are in conflict with their principles. Amnesty’s recent criticisms of Shell have certainly been strong and I am aware that in Shell there is a feeling that they have been unfair and to some extent uninformed. So a dialogue between Amnesty and Shell is very much to be welcomed. Amnesty is a highly respected organisation – indeed a former top executive of Shell, Sir Geoffrey Chandler, was a senior officer of Amnesty in his post Shell years.
: Same old, same old. Amnesty International and their human rights again go for the soft underbelly of the international companies rather than the real problem in Nigeia which is their corrupt Government. Good on Shell for attending and agrreing to being questioned. BUT, surprise, surprise nobody from the Nigerian Government (perhaps they didn't get enough of a bribe to appear or perhaps Amnesty knew they would get nowhere with them). Pollution in the Niger Delta remains a problem, albeit that conditions are slowly improving. Living conditions, infrastructure and most other normal day-to-day things should be the responsibility of the corrupt Government not international oil companies. These evil governments such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Burma need to be bought down by the UN so that their people might have a better chance of a reasonable life.
: Very polite correspondence between Wiseman and the Donovans. I estimate Wiseman's hourly internal tariff at around 500 U$ per hour (his salary plus support plus extensive overheads). Over the years Shell must have spent a fortune discussing the Donovans, putting the most expensive lawyers on the case, and developing policy how to battle them. It becomes Churchillian: 'we will fight them on the web, and in the courtrooms, and in their own offices and on the streets. But we wil NEVER surrender. With unlimited funds this maybe so, but it is wasting shareholders money and it solves nothing. I do not see the Donovans give up anytime soon. So perhaps a new paradigm needs to be developed? Any ordinary man or woman at the coalface would solve this problem within minutes and for less money than what is being burned now. But the Shell kings are no ordinary people, they live in cloud cuckoo land. I will keep following with great interest how all this develops, it is even better than the daily Dilbert!!!
: W.E. Pratt knew it already a hundred years ago when he said "Oil is found in the minds of men" But he was one of the founders of the Standard Oil company, whereas the people who try to make us believe that IBM can come to the rescue of Shell appear to be only good at getting rid of their most experienced minds.
Shell Blog RSS Feed
