(Adds BP statement)
July 15 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reviveda lawsuit in which participants in four BP Plc employeeretirement savings plans claimed they were deceived into buyingand holding BP stock before and after the 2010 Deepwater Horizondisaster.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans saidthat a ruling last month from the U.S. Supreme Court upended thereasoning applied by a lower court that had dismissed the classaction suit two years ago.
A unanimous three-judge panel ordered U.S. District JudgeKeith Ellison in Houston to take another look at the claims ofparticipants in the retirement savings plans.
The participants said the value of a BP stock fund in whichtheir money was invested fell by $1.85 billion in the monthsafter the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.The explosion killed 11 workers and caused the worst ever U.S.offshore oil spill.
The participants alleged that BP misled them, as investors,and as early as 2007 overstated the safety controls the companyhad in place.
They also alleged that fiduciaries who were charged withmanaging the retirement savings plans breached their duties byfailing to sell off BP stock and take other actions to protectinvestors.
Ellison dismissed the lawsuit in March 2012, finding thatplan fiduciaries enjoyed a legal presumption that they actedprudently.
The U.S. Supreme Court, though, did away with thepresumption last month in a different case, and the appealscourt said the development meant Ellison should reconsider thesuit.
In May, Ellison ruled in a separate shareholder suit thatanother set of investors who bought BP's American depositoryshares soon after the explosion may pursue claims as a group.
"The Fifth Circuit today remanded the ERISA case to thedistrict court in light of new pleading standards set forth bythe Supreme Court," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in astatement. "BP does not believe the plaintiffs satisfy these newstandards and intends to renew its motion to dismiss in thedistrict court."
An attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond.
The case is Whitley, et al, v. BP Plc, et al, 5th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-20670. (Reporting by David Ingram in New York; Editing by NoeleenWalder and Jonathan Oatis)
BP (BP.)
