BP likely to proceed with dividend payout

[Joanne98]

BP will likely proceed with a multibillion-dollar dividend payout to investors in spite of the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill resulting from the explosion of its leased Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20.

In a presentation to investors on Friday, BP chief executive Tony Hayward said that BP could “meet its obligations to all stakeholders,” adding that shareholders “depend on BP for part of their financial security.” The Board of Directors has put off making a final decision until July 27, likely hoping that public anger will somehow have been attenuated by then.

Hayward assured investors that the oil giant has more than enough resources to absorb costs stemming from the disaster, though he was described as “coy” over whether or not dividends would be distributed in their full. Most British analysts believe the dividend will be distributed in full, but some believe that it may be reduced in some degree.

Hayward’s comments highlight the socially destructive character of capitalism. The oil giant’s profit drive has created an unprecedented environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. An enormous amount of evidence demonstrates that it skipped over important safety and environmental considerations in the drilling of the well in order to save money. As a result, much of the Gulf is ruined, and tens of thousands of workers in the region’s tourism and fishing industries will lose their jobs.

By all rights, the executives and top shareholders of BP should be under criminal indictment, company assets and personal fortunes seized. Instead, the debate that rages is over whether BP will distribute $10.5 billion to its shareholders or somewhat less. Several US senators have called on BP to limit disbursements, at least while the oil continues to gush into the Gulf.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/divi-j05.shtml

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JBoy]

2. Why are you spamming the same stupid thing in multiple threads?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=533418#540328

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8491812#8492163

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JBoy]

4. Here's an avatar for you.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NAO]

7. Correction: Transocean is a SWISS company

and they have already paid out $1 billion in dividends. It seemed to me like they were cashing out so if any liability was assessed, they could say they have no cash.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NAO]

9. Their only physical office is in Switzerland, PO Box only in US, Cayman Islands

And they are referred to as a Swiss company, and listed on the Swiss Stock Exchange.

Here's a clip from one of their investor relations notices:

"INVITATION TO ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF TRANSOCEAN LTD.

Friday, May 14, 2010
4 p.m., Swiss time,
at the Parkhotel Zug, Industriestrasse 14, CH-6304 Zug, Switzerland"

link here: http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/SEC-Filings-57.html

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NAO]

5. BPs liquid assets need to be frozen immediately, until all costs are paid

There is no way they should be allowed to pay out dividends or bonuses or any kind of cash out until all the costs have been paid. Then if there is anything left over (doubtful) they can pay stock holders fractions of a penny on the dollar or whatever their remaining assets amount to.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

12. How nice.

The problem is that many of the largest shareholders are pensions, often state pensions.

Others are mutual funds, with significant portions of them held in IRAs.

But retired people don't need money.

And there's no legal way to distinguish between them and single investors. But who needs laws?

Of course, the counterclaim would be that this isn't what's meant. Just what's said. Meaning either they can't say what they mean or mean what they say. No matter. I know I'm outraged and ready to do something, if only somebody would tell me what to do.

Bleat. Bleat.

[glitch]

13. Stock ownership carries risks. Or should the taxpayers field that too?

Maybe some politicians wouldn't be so anxious to privatize Social Security if their constituents actually had to feel the pain of their irresponsible investments?

[Divine Discontent]

14. good heavens that's sick... do we even HAVE a gov't willing to stop corrupt corp's from doing as

they please, year after year....

[Festivito]

15. Not until we the people concur with your outlay projections.

AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT.