Pomerantz LLP has filed actions against BP plc on behalf of both U.S. and foreign institutions for investment losses incurred as a result of BP’s fraudulent statements issued prior to, and after, the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. The actions assert state law claims for the pension funds individually based on purchases of BP ordinary shares on the London Stock Exchange during the period January 16, 2007 through May 28, 2010 (as well as federal law claims for BP ADSs purchased on the NYSE). Consistent with our commitment to find innovative ways to advance our clients’ interests, Pomerantz has developed a cutting-edge legal theory that that investors who purchase securities on foreign exchanges can pursue fraud and negligence claims under state law. At the vanguard of the litigation, we are currently advancing this legal theory on behalf of four U.S. institutions and seven foreign institutions. On May 10, 2013, Judge Keith Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held oral argument on BP’s motion to dismiss our claims. As we expected, much of the argument focused on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a Supreme Court doctrine which says that state statutes or regulations may not “clearly discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce”; “impose a burden on interstate commerce in-commensurate with the local benefits secured;” or “have the practical effect of ‘extraterritorial’ control of commerce occurring entirely outside the boundaries of the state in question.” BP argued that this doctrine prevented Texas state common law from reaching BP’s misconduct. In response, Pomerantz pointed out that the doctrine did not apply to common law claims and that those claims targeted BP’s misstatements, not the underlying securities transactions on the London Stock Exchange. We also advanced a variety of policy-based arguments in support of our position. Although it is impossible to predict how the Court will come out on this issue, we believe that the oral argument advanced our cause. The Judge complemented our presentation and called our arguments helpful and informative. We expect the Court to issue a decision on the motion shortly.