TPC Explosion and Fire - Q1 2025 Update
TPC Explosion and Fire - 02/05/25
Update - 01/17/25
Brent Coon sat down with Texas Lawyer magazine to help explain the recent TPC withdrawal from the plea agreement and what that means for the victims of the TPC Explosion.
READ MORE HERE - www.bcoonlaw.com/news/texas-lawyer-judge-spends-3-hours-explaining-his-decision/
READ MORE HERE - www.bcoonlaw.com/news/texas-lawyer-judge-spends-3-hours-explaining-his-decision/
Update - 01/10/25
Update 01/10/25
FEDERAL JUDGE LOWERS THE BOOM ON TPC FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE / TPC WALKS
On Friday, January 10, 2025, Federal Court Judge Michael Truncale called the attorneys representing the victims of the TPC refinery explosion case, TPC defense counsel and the Government prosecutors back to his courtroom so he could render his long anticipated opinion on whether to accept a plea agreement proposed by the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the TPC group related to criminal and civil violations of the law associated to the horrific plant explosions at their facility in Port Neches, Texas back in November of 2019. Under the proposed terms of the plea last year, TPC would agree to pay the DOJ $18 Million in criminal fines and agree to 1 year of probation, along with other remedial measures designed to better audit their operational integrity. The EPA was to be paid an additional $12 million for the civil violations of various environmental statutes, mostly associated to the release of tons of highly toxic carcinogens into the atmosphere as a result of the uncontrolled fires and explosions.
Neither TPC legal counsel nor the Government prosecutors were happy with the Court ruling. While Judge Truncale said he would ACCEPT the plea agreement, he then shifted to an hours long explanation of how and why he was going to set the terms of RESTITUTION to the victims, which was an issue contemplated within the agreement with no set amounts. Prior to the hearing, TPC and the Government had advised the Court that they did not believe restitution was appropriate in the case, citing numerous different factors. The Court went through an exhaustive explanation of his reasoning, recounting days of testimony provided by various counsel for the victims late last year, and his analysis of the law and the parameters of restitution he could consider.
At the conclusion of all the detailed explanations of his interpretation of the various laws involved and the evidence he had heard, he ordered that approximately $292 Million Dollars be included as the proper amount of restitution for the victims to add to the plea terms. TPC had argued that they had already made enough restitution in the past and shouldn’t pay any more. Moreover, they had reserved the right to walk away from the plea agreement if the Court awarded restitution, particularly if it was a substantial amount. The Government had previously joined TPC in the contentious hearings with victims counsel last year objecting to the need for any restitution. Not surprisingly, TPC advised the Court they would not accept those restitution terms and advised the Court they would exercise their right to opt out of the plea agreement. The Judge acknowledged the rejection, but not without some further warnings to TPC counsel that if there was an indictment next, that the case would come back to him, and that they already know where he stands. He also reminded them that at that point, the damages in restitution could be much higher. TPC counsel acknowledged those risks which then concluded the hearing.
What happens now that TPC has rejected the plea agreement?
The Feds and TPC had negotiated this deal behind closed doors and only announced it publicly last summer. Noteworthy is the fact that neither discussed any terms and conditions with victims nor their counsel before it was announced. The charges never went before a grand jury on an indictment. As a consequence, the Federal Government must now present the evidence forming the basis of the charges to a grand jury and seek a formal indictment. If and when that occurs, the Government would then proceed formally and seek a conviction of all charges before a Federal Court jury.
How long will the indictment process take?
Prosecutors for the DOJ advised the Court Friday that it would likely be on a roughly six-month timetable.
Assuming a formal indictment, when would a trial commence?
While the parties indicated in Court it would be less than a year to prepare, TPC made a point at the hearings that they would anticipate appealing some issues in the matter before the case were to proceed on the merits, which could result in dismissal of the charges or at the very least delay prosecution for months or longer.
Has TPC already made any “restitution”?
NO. While TPC said that they had already made over $200 million dollars in restitution as part of the plea agreement, the Court pointed out that was not true and that they had in fact made NO restitution. He pointed out that the payments made in the past that they claimed as restitution to victims in the plea agreement was done very early on after the explosions and were primarily payments made by their insurance company. He also pointed out those payments were made BEFORE any criminal charges were brought and were not to even be considered restitution as a consequence. He also pointed out that most of the rest of the millions they had allegedly paid in restitution was primarily for air monitoring after the incident, which was legally required anyway, and was to further comply with the law once the refinery began emitting thousands of tons of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere for weeks as a result of an uncontrolled fire resulting from the explosions and the extensive amount of combustible chemicals on the site. The amounts he added to the plea as restitution was for losses that had never been paid by TPC.
Where did the $292 Million dollar number come from that Judge Truncale ordered to be paid as part of the plea?
Judge Truncale spent a great deal of time recapping the testimony he heard from the victims' presentation in two rounds of evidentiary hearings late last year. This included testimony from Jeff Branick, the County Judge for Jefferson County who was also in charge of the Emergency Management Team for the County, victims of the explosion, various documents and videos, and then a great deal of evidence provided by Ed Gentile, who was the trustee approved by the Federal Bankruptcy Court to evaluate all of the damages associated to the explosion. Gentile had previously testified that his team had spent almost two years reviewing all the damage evidence associated to the case and provided the Court with specific numbers on the total damages for numerous losses. This included medical bills incurred by victims, property damages incurred as well as business damages.
The Court noted that the criminal restitution provisions do not allow for restitution for personal injuries, only medical bills for the treatment. The total amounts of the eligible areas of recovery added up to the $292 Million dollar figure. As none of this had been paid by TPC to date, that was the number the Court used as the restitution amount. He also stated that there were several “fence-line” refineries and facilities around the TPC plant at the time of the explosion that had claimed more than $300 Million dollars in damages as well. The Court stated that he did not include those in the restitution calculations because he did not think they had been sufficiently proven but did not rule out revisiting the issue if the case were to go to trial.
Does the prior bankruptcy filed by TPC release them from any of these restitution liabilities?
The Court acknowledged the argument made by TPC at the hearings last year that their prior bankruptcy filing had “discharged” their liabilities for restitution. The Court went through an analysis of that argument and determined it did not discharge the restitution claims for several reasons. A major factor in that consideration was due to the timeline, as TPC filed for and was discharged from the bankruptcy BEFORE the criminal charges and was thus exempted from discharge. Likewise, even though the Government prosecutors favored the plea agreement with no restitution included, they acknowledged that the bankruptcy did not release TPC from any future restitution obligations assessed by the Court.
Did TPC make other objections to restitution?
Yes. Both the Government and TPC told the Court that restitution can only be provided if the determination of that loss is not to “complex”. The Court pointed out that in this case complexity wasn’t an issue as a result of the fact that the Federal Bankruptcy Court Trustee had already done all that analysis and that his determinations of all the losses at issue was sufficiently reliable.
Did TPC have insurance on their property or for business interruption that could be used for restitution claims?
Yes. It was discussed in the civil litigation brought by the plaintiffs prior to the bankruptcy filing that TPC had close to $1 BILLION DOLLARS in reconstruction insurance and business interruption insurance. What was revealed in the bankruptcy proceedings is that TPC utilized those funds to pay off debt associated to the loans on the two refineries they operated, as well as major capital improvements to their Houston facility rather than rebuilding the Port Neches facility. In essence, rather than using some or all the money to pay the victims, they used 100% of the money to pay off bank loans to remove mortgage obligations and to expand the capacity of the Houston facility to increase production and make more revenue.
Why are personal injury claims excluded from restitution?
Unfortunately, restitution for criminal conduct under the statutes involved only provides for reimbursement of “hard” losses. That can be medical bills, home repairs or business damage. It was in those areas that the Court then focused to award 100 percent of the restitution that had been calculated and approved by the Bankruptcy Trustee that fell into those categories.
What happens now that TPC has revoked the plea agreement?
Hopefully the Federal prosecutors immediately prepare an indictment and present the evidence to a grand jury to move forward on the charges. Assuming that happens, there will eventually be a settlement or a trial. If there is a settlement, it may or may not include restitution. At this juncture the Court has already admonished the parties that it will if he has a say in it. There is some possibility that a trial could end up before another Judge with another outcome, and there is some possibility that TPC obtains some future rulings than narrows the charges brought and whether restitution can be considered.
In the interim, all of the stakeholders have the opportunity to discuss some resolution that takes away the uncertainties of a trial.
COMMENTS FROM BRENT COON as Co-lead Plaintiff counsel in the Civil lawsuits and as a victims’ counsel in Federal criminal proceedings with the DOJ and TPC.
"What happened Thanksgiving weekend of 2019, resulting in massive explosions and consuming infernos of fire at the TPC refinery in Port Neches, Texas, was all avoidable. TPC and their contractors were aware of the problems with the butadiene blend and the issues associated to the blend solidifying and expanding in the pipes when not sufficiently flowing. They were all aware of a section of the operation that had been closed off from flow which greatly increased the likelihood of this expansion and potential pipe rupture. Despite this knowledge, they allowed it to happen."
"The consequences were devastating. Homes suffered significant damages miles away from the plant. Parts of the plant were found in the backyards of adjacent counties. 25,000 people were ordered to evacuate from the area during the middle of a holiday weekend."
"Many were injured, and there were even some fatalities associated to the incident. It could have even been much worse. TPC had almost $1 Billion dollars in personal insurance coverage they said they would use to compensate victims and rebuild the plant. TPC lied. They didn’t spend a penny of their own insurance on claims. Instead, they secretly settled their policies and spent the money on paying off their creditors and reinvesting in their Houston facility. Then they filed for bankruptcy protection in an effort to dodge their moral, ethical, and legal obligations. They engaged in a shameful scheme to keep all that money for their own benefit, and then abandon the destruction and damage they caused to the community and its many citizens. That conduct is unconscionable. Even today, with a very profitable TPC running in Houston that COULD pay claims, they have chosen a path to continue to avoid it, even if it means going to trial on serous criminal charges brought by the Federal Government. It is shameful. Fortunately, after five years of frustrations, many of the victims have some glimmer of hope. Judge Truncale took it upon himself to roll up his sleeves and give the victims an opportunity to be heard before approving the plea agreement. In doing so, he has admitted to being truly enlightened as to the horrific extent of this tragedy and how deeply if affected thousands of families, individuals, homeowners and businesses."
"Judge Truncale has made clear what he believes to be the right thing for TPC do to now, and that if they don’t, he will be waiting for them on a trial. That took some courage, more than we have seen from any other government official to date. Hopefully by shining some light on what has been going on with this matter behind closed doors, everyone will better understand the issues, the stakes and what should be done for at least some justice to prevail."
On Friday, January 10, 2025, Federal Court Judge Michael Truncale called the attorneys representing the victims of the TPC refinery explosion case, TPC defense counsel and the Government prosecutors back to his courtroom so he could render his long anticipated opinion on whether to accept a plea agreement proposed by the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the TPC group related to criminal and civil violations of the law associated to the horrific plant explosions at their facility in Port Neches, Texas back in November of 2019. Under the proposed terms of the plea last year, TPC would agree to pay the DOJ $18 Million in criminal fines and agree to 1 year of probation, along with other remedial measures designed to better audit their operational integrity. The EPA was to be paid an additional $12 million for the civil violations of various environmental statutes, mostly associated to the release of tons of highly toxic carcinogens into the atmosphere as a result of the uncontrolled fires and explosions.
Neither TPC legal counsel nor the Government prosecutors were happy with the Court ruling. While Judge Truncale said he would ACCEPT the plea agreement, he then shifted to an hours long explanation of how and why he was going to set the terms of RESTITUTION to the victims, which was an issue contemplated within the agreement with no set amounts. Prior to the hearing, TPC and the Government had advised the Court that they did not believe restitution was appropriate in the case, citing numerous different factors. The Court went through an exhaustive explanation of his reasoning, recounting days of testimony provided by various counsel for the victims late last year, and his analysis of the law and the parameters of restitution he could consider.
At the conclusion of all the detailed explanations of his interpretation of the various laws involved and the evidence he had heard, he ordered that approximately $292 Million Dollars be included as the proper amount of restitution for the victims to add to the plea terms. TPC had argued that they had already made enough restitution in the past and shouldn’t pay any more. Moreover, they had reserved the right to walk away from the plea agreement if the Court awarded restitution, particularly if it was a substantial amount. The Government had previously joined TPC in the contentious hearings with victims counsel last year objecting to the need for any restitution. Not surprisingly, TPC advised the Court they would not accept those restitution terms and advised the Court they would exercise their right to opt out of the plea agreement. The Judge acknowledged the rejection, but not without some further warnings to TPC counsel that if there was an indictment next, that the case would come back to him, and that they already know where he stands. He also reminded them that at that point, the damages in restitution could be much higher. TPC counsel acknowledged those risks which then concluded the hearing.
What happens now that TPC has rejected the plea agreement?
The Feds and TPC had negotiated this deal behind closed doors and only announced it publicly last summer. Noteworthy is the fact that neither discussed any terms and conditions with victims nor their counsel before it was announced. The charges never went before a grand jury on an indictment. As a consequence, the Federal Government must now present the evidence forming the basis of the charges to a grand jury and seek a formal indictment. If and when that occurs, the Government would then proceed formally and seek a conviction of all charges before a Federal Court jury.
How long will the indictment process take?
Prosecutors for the DOJ advised the Court Friday that it would likely be on a roughly six-month timetable.
Assuming a formal indictment, when would a trial commence?
While the parties indicated in Court it would be less than a year to prepare, TPC made a point at the hearings that they would anticipate appealing some issues in the matter before the case were to proceed on the merits, which could result in dismissal of the charges or at the very least delay prosecution for months or longer.
Has TPC already made any “restitution”?
NO. While TPC said that they had already made over $200 million dollars in restitution as part of the plea agreement, the Court pointed out that was not true and that they had in fact made NO restitution. He pointed out that the payments made in the past that they claimed as restitution to victims in the plea agreement was done very early on after the explosions and were primarily payments made by their insurance company. He also pointed out those payments were made BEFORE any criminal charges were brought and were not to even be considered restitution as a consequence. He also pointed out that most of the rest of the millions they had allegedly paid in restitution was primarily for air monitoring after the incident, which was legally required anyway, and was to further comply with the law once the refinery began emitting thousands of tons of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere for weeks as a result of an uncontrolled fire resulting from the explosions and the extensive amount of combustible chemicals on the site. The amounts he added to the plea as restitution was for losses that had never been paid by TPC.
Where did the $292 Million dollar number come from that Judge Truncale ordered to be paid as part of the plea?
Judge Truncale spent a great deal of time recapping the testimony he heard from the victims' presentation in two rounds of evidentiary hearings late last year. This included testimony from Jeff Branick, the County Judge for Jefferson County who was also in charge of the Emergency Management Team for the County, victims of the explosion, various documents and videos, and then a great deal of evidence provided by Ed Gentile, who was the trustee approved by the Federal Bankruptcy Court to evaluate all of the damages associated to the explosion. Gentile had previously testified that his team had spent almost two years reviewing all the damage evidence associated to the case and provided the Court with specific numbers on the total damages for numerous losses. This included medical bills incurred by victims, property damages incurred as well as business damages.
The Court noted that the criminal restitution provisions do not allow for restitution for personal injuries, only medical bills for the treatment. The total amounts of the eligible areas of recovery added up to the $292 Million dollar figure. As none of this had been paid by TPC to date, that was the number the Court used as the restitution amount. He also stated that there were several “fence-line” refineries and facilities around the TPC plant at the time of the explosion that had claimed more than $300 Million dollars in damages as well. The Court stated that he did not include those in the restitution calculations because he did not think they had been sufficiently proven but did not rule out revisiting the issue if the case were to go to trial.
Does the prior bankruptcy filed by TPC release them from any of these restitution liabilities?
The Court acknowledged the argument made by TPC at the hearings last year that their prior bankruptcy filing had “discharged” their liabilities for restitution. The Court went through an analysis of that argument and determined it did not discharge the restitution claims for several reasons. A major factor in that consideration was due to the timeline, as TPC filed for and was discharged from the bankruptcy BEFORE the criminal charges and was thus exempted from discharge. Likewise, even though the Government prosecutors favored the plea agreement with no restitution included, they acknowledged that the bankruptcy did not release TPC from any future restitution obligations assessed by the Court.
Did TPC make other objections to restitution?
Yes. Both the Government and TPC told the Court that restitution can only be provided if the determination of that loss is not to “complex”. The Court pointed out that in this case complexity wasn’t an issue as a result of the fact that the Federal Bankruptcy Court Trustee had already done all that analysis and that his determinations of all the losses at issue was sufficiently reliable.
Did TPC have insurance on their property or for business interruption that could be used for restitution claims?
Yes. It was discussed in the civil litigation brought by the plaintiffs prior to the bankruptcy filing that TPC had close to $1 BILLION DOLLARS in reconstruction insurance and business interruption insurance. What was revealed in the bankruptcy proceedings is that TPC utilized those funds to pay off debt associated to the loans on the two refineries they operated, as well as major capital improvements to their Houston facility rather than rebuilding the Port Neches facility. In essence, rather than using some or all the money to pay the victims, they used 100% of the money to pay off bank loans to remove mortgage obligations and to expand the capacity of the Houston facility to increase production and make more revenue.
Why are personal injury claims excluded from restitution?
Unfortunately, restitution for criminal conduct under the statutes involved only provides for reimbursement of “hard” losses. That can be medical bills, home repairs or business damage. It was in those areas that the Court then focused to award 100 percent of the restitution that had been calculated and approved by the Bankruptcy Trustee that fell into those categories.
What happens now that TPC has revoked the plea agreement?
Hopefully the Federal prosecutors immediately prepare an indictment and present the evidence to a grand jury to move forward on the charges. Assuming that happens, there will eventually be a settlement or a trial. If there is a settlement, it may or may not include restitution. At this juncture the Court has already admonished the parties that it will if he has a say in it. There is some possibility that a trial could end up before another Judge with another outcome, and there is some possibility that TPC obtains some future rulings than narrows the charges brought and whether restitution can be considered.
In the interim, all of the stakeholders have the opportunity to discuss some resolution that takes away the uncertainties of a trial.
COMMENTS FROM BRENT COON as Co-lead Plaintiff counsel in the Civil lawsuits and as a victims’ counsel in Federal criminal proceedings with the DOJ and TPC.
"What happened Thanksgiving weekend of 2019, resulting in massive explosions and consuming infernos of fire at the TPC refinery in Port Neches, Texas, was all avoidable. TPC and their contractors were aware of the problems with the butadiene blend and the issues associated to the blend solidifying and expanding in the pipes when not sufficiently flowing. They were all aware of a section of the operation that had been closed off from flow which greatly increased the likelihood of this expansion and potential pipe rupture. Despite this knowledge, they allowed it to happen."
"The consequences were devastating. Homes suffered significant damages miles away from the plant. Parts of the plant were found in the backyards of adjacent counties. 25,000 people were ordered to evacuate from the area during the middle of a holiday weekend."
"Many were injured, and there were even some fatalities associated to the incident. It could have even been much worse. TPC had almost $1 Billion dollars in personal insurance coverage they said they would use to compensate victims and rebuild the plant. TPC lied. They didn’t spend a penny of their own insurance on claims. Instead, they secretly settled their policies and spent the money on paying off their creditors and reinvesting in their Houston facility. Then they filed for bankruptcy protection in an effort to dodge their moral, ethical, and legal obligations. They engaged in a shameful scheme to keep all that money for their own benefit, and then abandon the destruction and damage they caused to the community and its many citizens. That conduct is unconscionable. Even today, with a very profitable TPC running in Houston that COULD pay claims, they have chosen a path to continue to avoid it, even if it means going to trial on serous criminal charges brought by the Federal Government. It is shameful. Fortunately, after five years of frustrations, many of the victims have some glimmer of hope. Judge Truncale took it upon himself to roll up his sleeves and give the victims an opportunity to be heard before approving the plea agreement. In doing so, he has admitted to being truly enlightened as to the horrific extent of this tragedy and how deeply if affected thousands of families, individuals, homeowners and businesses."
"Judge Truncale has made clear what he believes to be the right thing for TPC do to now, and that if they don’t, he will be waiting for them on a trial. That took some courage, more than we have seen from any other government official to date. Hopefully by shining some light on what has been going on with this matter behind closed doors, everyone will better understand the issues, the stakes and what should be done for at least some justice to prevail."
TPC Explosion and Fire - Urgent Update - 12/09/24
TPC Explosion and Fire - General Update - 12/09/24
Update 10/31/24
Update 10/21/24
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR CLIENTS WHO HAVE NOT SENT US THEIR FACT SHEETS
We are reaching out to you today regarding your filed case in the TPC Explosion Litigation. We do not show we have received your TPC Fact Sheet requested several times in the past. We are asking you to get this filled out and back to us as soon as possible. The Court is requesting this on every client to be considered for any type of settlement in the future.
URGENT-Please note the links below will assist you in opening the document and filling this out and back to us quickly.
TPC Plaintiff Fact Sheets –
https://na2.documents.adobe.com/public/esignWidget?wid=CBFCIBAA3AAABLblqZhDxQK1amalKFH9fr2SOKUAael3dNbb7-wddceLm3SjFFpez2JQNFOaBuvmKjMjL6AY*
Business Fact Sheet
https://na2.documents.adobe.com/public/esignWidget?wid=CBFCIBAA3AAABLblqZhA1P2nUrpS0qRXCfFK3S9rFvmXW4_U9U9PBYhIQkVJYSj6LI5ytMoCAv3zElbOodfQ*
We will be having a team member from BCA contacting you regarding your claim and assist if needed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send any questions to [email protected].
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
URGENT-Please note the links below will assist you in opening the document and filling this out and back to us quickly.
TPC Plaintiff Fact Sheets –
https://na2.documents.adobe.com/public/esignWidget?wid=CBFCIBAA3AAABLblqZhDxQK1amalKFH9fr2SOKUAael3dNbb7-wddceLm3SjFFpez2JQNFOaBuvmKjMjL6AY*
Business Fact Sheet
https://na2.documents.adobe.com/public/esignWidget?wid=CBFCIBAA3AAABLblqZhA1P2nUrpS0qRXCfFK3S9rFvmXW4_U9U9PBYhIQkVJYSj6LI5ytMoCAv3zElbOodfQ*
We will be having a team member from BCA contacting you regarding your claim and assist if needed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send any questions to [email protected].
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
TPC Explosion and Fire - Q3 2024 Update
TPC Explosion and Fire - Q2 2024 Update
TPC Explosion and Fire - 06/06/24 Update
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States of America v. TPC Group LLC, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1– 12550. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice (May 31, 2024).
Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
By email: pubcomment-ees.enrd@ usdoj.gov.
By mail: Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611.
Any comments submitted in writing or at a public meeting may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
By email: pubcomment-ees.enrd@ usdoj.gov.
By mail: Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611.
Any comments submitted in writing or at a public meeting may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
06/05/24 - BCA Discusses the TPC Litigation with The Beaumont Enterprise
‘Pennies on the dollar’
Port Neches residents, local lawyers say TPC plea deal doesn’t add up
By Courtney Pedersen
Staff writer
TPC Group’s agreement to pay $30 million in penalties for violating the Clean Air Act could limit the money available for residents still caught up in legal limbo as a result of the company’s explosion in Jefferson County in 2019, according to two local attorneys representing local residents.
On Tuesday, more than four years after the explosions, the TPC Group pleaded guilty to Clean Air Act violations and agreed to pay over $30 million in criminal fees. The group also has pledged to spend $80 million in bettering its facilities in Houston and Port Neches.
Brent Coon, a court liaison for the case, said the plea and fine in the case means nothing to community members. He pointed to another case involving a BP plant that experienced an explosion in 2005. At the time, BP was fined $50 million — over $80 million today, with inflation.
“TPC had a bigger explosion, burned the whole plant to ground, evacuated an entire city and only pays $30 million,” Coon said. “On top of that, the $30 million isn’t even paid out of their pocket. A lot of is paid out of a bankruptcy trust that’s going to dilute the value of it.”
The TPC explosions in 2019 prompted the evacuation of more than 50,000 people from the area. More than 11 million pounds of extremely hazardous substances were released into the air during the event, causing more than $130 million in offsite property damage and other impacts to human health and the environment, according to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice earlier this month.
“The Company has been charged in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of the incident and has entered a plea for failure to properly implement an operating procedure, which if accepted by the Court, will resolve the matter,” a statement from the TPC Group reads. “The plea agreement includes compliance with a Consent Decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that requires the implementation of certain risk management initiatives and process safety management measures at our Port Neches and Houston facilities.”
At that point, the company will begin to close another explosion-related chapter. But many residents involved, even those who have since moved away, still receive daily reminders of the damage left behind by the explosion.
READ MORE: eedition.beaumontenterprise.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=26ca91b3-be9b-47fd-9d12-9a80401b33ba&share=true
Staff writer
TPC Group’s agreement to pay $30 million in penalties for violating the Clean Air Act could limit the money available for residents still caught up in legal limbo as a result of the company’s explosion in Jefferson County in 2019, according to two local attorneys representing local residents.
On Tuesday, more than four years after the explosions, the TPC Group pleaded guilty to Clean Air Act violations and agreed to pay over $30 million in criminal fees. The group also has pledged to spend $80 million in bettering its facilities in Houston and Port Neches.
Brent Coon, a court liaison for the case, said the plea and fine in the case means nothing to community members. He pointed to another case involving a BP plant that experienced an explosion in 2005. At the time, BP was fined $50 million — over $80 million today, with inflation.
“TPC had a bigger explosion, burned the whole plant to ground, evacuated an entire city and only pays $30 million,” Coon said. “On top of that, the $30 million isn’t even paid out of their pocket. A lot of is paid out of a bankruptcy trust that’s going to dilute the value of it.”
The TPC explosions in 2019 prompted the evacuation of more than 50,000 people from the area. More than 11 million pounds of extremely hazardous substances were released into the air during the event, causing more than $130 million in offsite property damage and other impacts to human health and the environment, according to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice earlier this month.
“The Company has been charged in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of the incident and has entered a plea for failure to properly implement an operating procedure, which if accepted by the Court, will resolve the matter,” a statement from the TPC Group reads. “The plea agreement includes compliance with a Consent Decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that requires the implementation of certain risk management initiatives and process safety management measures at our Port Neches and Houston facilities.”
At that point, the company will begin to close another explosion-related chapter. But many residents involved, even those who have since moved away, still receive daily reminders of the damage left behind by the explosion.
READ MORE: eedition.beaumontenterprise.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=26ca91b3-be9b-47fd-9d12-9a80401b33ba&share=true
TPC Explosion and Fire - Q1 2024 Update
Update - 02/13/24
Update - 11/11/2023
Update 08/11/2023
To our TPC Clients:
We wanted to provide several more additional updates now that the final TPC bankruptcy submission deadlines have finally expired.
What do the TPC deadlines mean and will we ever get paid anything?
The bankruptcy court in Delaware overseeing the bankruptcy approved a final dissolution plan that transferred what was left of the TPC entity with remaining operations over to their creditors, which were essentially the companies that TPC owed a billion dollars in loans to. We also learned that prior to filing for bankruptcy protection, TTPC recovered many millions of dollars from their insurance carriers for business interruption and to replace damages to the plant. Decisions were made by TPC and/or their creditors to spend most of that money paying back notes owed on their loans and some reinvestment into the remaining plant still operating in Houston.
While we had retained highly qualified teams of bankruptcy counsel to help protect the interests of all TPC explosion victims, the companies who held the loans were “secured creditors” entitled to first monies back from all sources. Since the debt was larger than the value of the remaining assets of TPC, they transferred their ownership over, similar to getting a car repossessed by a bank for nonpayment of loan notes.
The legal team was able to cut a deal for $30 Million in cash to go to a special fund in the bankruptcy court to pay all of the unsecured claims, mostly from TPC explosion claimants. This then resulted in the creation of a special “trust” overseen by the court trustee. He in turn set up a plan to evaluate all the claims, which is the project we have been working on the last two months since it was announced. It required all claimants to fill additional claim forms along with any and all supporting documentation of any loss. We filed those before the deadline last Tuesday for all of clients who remitted the necessary paperwork back to us, which included our door to door campaign to assist many of you in the process.
Now the trustee will start evaluating the merits and values of all the claims and make final decisions over how much everyone gets out of that trust. While every nickel means something, we are not optimistic that there will be a significant payment to each claimant, as there appear to be many hundreds of millions of dollars claimed in losses and only $30 million to pay them. Regardless, some decision should be made by the end of the year for the trustee to make those determinations. He has not yet given a decision date, but we don’t see where it would take much longer than that do quantify the vast majority of the cases he is looking at, which we understand is in the general range of 10,000 total. Once those determinations are made it shouldn’t take long to cut checks, so again we would probably be looking at some time next year. Again, all of this is best guesses.
What is going on with the rest of the lawsuit?
As explained a few times before our trial court overseeing the TPC case and the claims made against TPC, their investment/owner groups and other parties, such as Nalco (the company that made the blend that expanded and caused the pipes to rupture) are all still on hold. The investment groups had appealed to the Texas Supreme Court their liability issues and the bankruptcy stayed TPC. Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that we can still make an argument against the ownership/investment group, we are asking the trial court to let us proceed again. We should now something there in the next few weeks. We are cautiously optimistic that we will make further and more significant recoveries against those remaining parties. Again the time line is very uncertain but we would not likely be able to get to trial for at least another year. The parties may be able to settle which could reduce that time line.
What is going on with the Department of Justice investigation into TPC?
The DOJ is conducting a criminal investigation into the explosion as a result of the report of the U.S. Chemical Hazards and Safety Board report. We have been in touch with the DOJ representatives and look forward to providing some level of assistance to their investigation. We were highly involved in working with the DOJ in the BP Texas City refinery explosions of 2005 and several other cases since then and hope that they will make some criminal charges out of their investigation as well. The DOJ has been posting notices of this in the local newspapers and there is nothing else you need to do at this time in that regard.
These are the basic updates for the time being. Again, one of the things we were very upset to find out in the TPC litigation is that they had all this additional insurance coverage and used it to add on to and repair their Houston plant and pay bank notes and not use any of it to pay claimants. We plan on a course of action to call more attention to our political branches about that and see if laws can be changed to reduce the ability of companies to do this in the future.
We will continue to keep you all informed of any additional developments.
Thanks and have a good day.
Brent Coon and Associates
We wanted to provide several more additional updates now that the final TPC bankruptcy submission deadlines have finally expired.
What do the TPC deadlines mean and will we ever get paid anything?
The bankruptcy court in Delaware overseeing the bankruptcy approved a final dissolution plan that transferred what was left of the TPC entity with remaining operations over to their creditors, which were essentially the companies that TPC owed a billion dollars in loans to. We also learned that prior to filing for bankruptcy protection, TTPC recovered many millions of dollars from their insurance carriers for business interruption and to replace damages to the plant. Decisions were made by TPC and/or their creditors to spend most of that money paying back notes owed on their loans and some reinvestment into the remaining plant still operating in Houston.
While we had retained highly qualified teams of bankruptcy counsel to help protect the interests of all TPC explosion victims, the companies who held the loans were “secured creditors” entitled to first monies back from all sources. Since the debt was larger than the value of the remaining assets of TPC, they transferred their ownership over, similar to getting a car repossessed by a bank for nonpayment of loan notes.
The legal team was able to cut a deal for $30 Million in cash to go to a special fund in the bankruptcy court to pay all of the unsecured claims, mostly from TPC explosion claimants. This then resulted in the creation of a special “trust” overseen by the court trustee. He in turn set up a plan to evaluate all the claims, which is the project we have been working on the last two months since it was announced. It required all claimants to fill additional claim forms along with any and all supporting documentation of any loss. We filed those before the deadline last Tuesday for all of clients who remitted the necessary paperwork back to us, which included our door to door campaign to assist many of you in the process.
Now the trustee will start evaluating the merits and values of all the claims and make final decisions over how much everyone gets out of that trust. While every nickel means something, we are not optimistic that there will be a significant payment to each claimant, as there appear to be many hundreds of millions of dollars claimed in losses and only $30 million to pay them. Regardless, some decision should be made by the end of the year for the trustee to make those determinations. He has not yet given a decision date, but we don’t see where it would take much longer than that do quantify the vast majority of the cases he is looking at, which we understand is in the general range of 10,000 total. Once those determinations are made it shouldn’t take long to cut checks, so again we would probably be looking at some time next year. Again, all of this is best guesses.
What is going on with the rest of the lawsuit?
As explained a few times before our trial court overseeing the TPC case and the claims made against TPC, their investment/owner groups and other parties, such as Nalco (the company that made the blend that expanded and caused the pipes to rupture) are all still on hold. The investment groups had appealed to the Texas Supreme Court their liability issues and the bankruptcy stayed TPC. Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that we can still make an argument against the ownership/investment group, we are asking the trial court to let us proceed again. We should now something there in the next few weeks. We are cautiously optimistic that we will make further and more significant recoveries against those remaining parties. Again the time line is very uncertain but we would not likely be able to get to trial for at least another year. The parties may be able to settle which could reduce that time line.
What is going on with the Department of Justice investigation into TPC?
The DOJ is conducting a criminal investigation into the explosion as a result of the report of the U.S. Chemical Hazards and Safety Board report. We have been in touch with the DOJ representatives and look forward to providing some level of assistance to their investigation. We were highly involved in working with the DOJ in the BP Texas City refinery explosions of 2005 and several other cases since then and hope that they will make some criminal charges out of their investigation as well. The DOJ has been posting notices of this in the local newspapers and there is nothing else you need to do at this time in that regard.
These are the basic updates for the time being. Again, one of the things we were very upset to find out in the TPC litigation is that they had all this additional insurance coverage and used it to add on to and repair their Houston plant and pay bank notes and not use any of it to pay claimants. We plan on a course of action to call more attention to our political branches about that and see if laws can be changed to reduce the ability of companies to do this in the future.
We will continue to keep you all informed of any additional developments.
Thanks and have a good day.
Brent Coon and Associates
Update 04/11/2023
TPC Explosion and Fire - Update 03/02/2023
Update 02/28/2023
Dear TPC client,
We wanted to give you another update on developments with the TPC litigation. As mentioned before, TPC filed bankruptcy last year and the Court has made a number of rulings that now resolve most of our issues with TPC, and unfortunately the news was not good. As stated before, TPC only had $100 Million in insurance for the claims, and the total amount of all damages probably exceeds a Billion Dollars. So they paid out what little coverage they had and then they stonewalled in the litigation for about another year and filed for bankruptcy protection. That effectively stayed any further prosecution of the cases in litigation.
The Bankruptcy Court in Delaware has approved a transfer of assets of the TPC entity back to the investors in the company, who were owed over a billion dollars in loans to the company for the initial purchase and capital improvements. That left nothing for claimants. To resolve the dispute without dragging the bankruptcy out further, the investor groups offered $30 million as a concession to release the case from bankruptcy. All the plaintiff firms had organized to hire bankruptcy counsel in Texas as well as Delaware to help assist through this process and it was their consensus that we could do no better than this at the end of the day so we accepted. All of that history was explained in the proof of claim process last year.
Now there will be a trust set up to disburse the $30 million to claimants. A copy of their letter explaining the role of the trustees and what their plans are is attached for your review. This process may take a year or longer, and frankly it will only pay a few pennies on the dollar on what TPC claimant damages really amount to. Basically do the math with a billion dollars in claims and $30 million in recovery.
The only good news is that the court now will allow us to proceed against Nalco and the engineering company, and we are cautiously optimistic that our ultimate recoveries against them and the initial ownership groups of TPC will far exceed the amounts paid into this trust. There are numerous appeals already in place with the 9th Circuit in Texas as well as the Texas Supreme Court on issues related to our efforts to hold these other entities accountable and we will provide another more detailed update as soon as we get rulings on these issues.
We understand that this has been a long and frustrating road for everyone involved. We have committed millions of dollars of firm capital and resources in pursuing recoveries for all of our clients in this matter and we will continue to pursue all avenues open to us so don’t give up hope.
Your continued patience and understanding is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Brent W. Coon
We wanted to give you another update on developments with the TPC litigation. As mentioned before, TPC filed bankruptcy last year and the Court has made a number of rulings that now resolve most of our issues with TPC, and unfortunately the news was not good. As stated before, TPC only had $100 Million in insurance for the claims, and the total amount of all damages probably exceeds a Billion Dollars. So they paid out what little coverage they had and then they stonewalled in the litigation for about another year and filed for bankruptcy protection. That effectively stayed any further prosecution of the cases in litigation.
The Bankruptcy Court in Delaware has approved a transfer of assets of the TPC entity back to the investors in the company, who were owed over a billion dollars in loans to the company for the initial purchase and capital improvements. That left nothing for claimants. To resolve the dispute without dragging the bankruptcy out further, the investor groups offered $30 million as a concession to release the case from bankruptcy. All the plaintiff firms had organized to hire bankruptcy counsel in Texas as well as Delaware to help assist through this process and it was their consensus that we could do no better than this at the end of the day so we accepted. All of that history was explained in the proof of claim process last year.
Now there will be a trust set up to disburse the $30 million to claimants. A copy of their letter explaining the role of the trustees and what their plans are is attached for your review. This process may take a year or longer, and frankly it will only pay a few pennies on the dollar on what TPC claimant damages really amount to. Basically do the math with a billion dollars in claims and $30 million in recovery.
The only good news is that the court now will allow us to proceed against Nalco and the engineering company, and we are cautiously optimistic that our ultimate recoveries against them and the initial ownership groups of TPC will far exceed the amounts paid into this trust. There are numerous appeals already in place with the 9th Circuit in Texas as well as the Texas Supreme Court on issues related to our efforts to hold these other entities accountable and we will provide another more detailed update as soon as we get rulings on these issues.
We understand that this has been a long and frustrating road for everyone involved. We have committed millions of dollars of firm capital and resources in pursuing recoveries for all of our clients in this matter and we will continue to pursue all avenues open to us so don’t give up hope.
Your continued patience and understanding is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Brent W. Coon
Read the letter explaining the role of the trustees and what their plans are by clicking the link below
| 2023.2.8.__news_release_notice_2.8.23_clean_copy.pdf |
TPC GUC Trust
C/O Ed Gentle, Trustee
501. Riverchase Pkwy East, Suite 100
Hoover, AL 35244
Tollfree - (800) 345-083 7
Main - (205) 716-3000
Email [email protected]
News Release
February 8, 2023
This is a news release by the TPC GUC Trust, that was formed on November 16, 2022, to
collect claims and to pay individuals and property holders in connection with the Port Neches TPC
plant explosion, chemical leak and fire that occurred on November 27, 2019.
The Trust received its initial. funding of the TPC bankruptcy settlement amount of
$30,000,000 on December 16, 2022, and is pursuing additional claims. A limited portion of those
funds will be spent on operating the TPC GUC Trust, as well as other operating expenses of the
Trust. The Delaware bankruptcy court ordered the creation of the GUC Trust, and that Court
retains oversight jurisdiction of it. Regardless, we will do everything we can to ensure these funds
are protected and preserved for disbursement to those with valid claims.
We estimate that, in addition to commercial claims, there are about 8,000 individuals and
3,500 residential 'properties that were impacted by the event. We recognize that, due to the
bankruptcy filing and lack of sufficient insurance, that these funds are limited and not likely to
make everyone whole--especially considering the size of the explosions and impacted areas.
However, it is our goal to administer the GUC Trust efficiently and swiftly so that those with valid
claims can receive some compensatio11 from this limited amount.
We have already visited the plant site and surrounding area and are discussing the impact
of the event with businesses, individuals,. and property owners. We are also planning an in-person
town-hall-type meeting where we will attend and answer questions after a brief presentation by us.
We will be drafting for the community's review a proposed initial funding compensation
program.
Note: we have not made any payments yet, and we won't until the payment program is designed,
and your claims are scored. Payments are expected to begin next year, and may be made in
installments, if the Trust obtains additional funding.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ed Gentle
TPC Trustee
C/O Ed Gentle, Trustee
501. Riverchase Pkwy East, Suite 100
Hoover, AL 35244
Tollfree - (800) 345-083 7
Main - (205) 716-3000
Email [email protected]
News Release
February 8, 2023
This is a news release by the TPC GUC Trust, that was formed on November 16, 2022, to
collect claims and to pay individuals and property holders in connection with the Port Neches TPC
plant explosion, chemical leak and fire that occurred on November 27, 2019.
The Trust received its initial. funding of the TPC bankruptcy settlement amount of
$30,000,000 on December 16, 2022, and is pursuing additional claims. A limited portion of those
funds will be spent on operating the TPC GUC Trust, as well as other operating expenses of the
Trust. The Delaware bankruptcy court ordered the creation of the GUC Trust, and that Court
retains oversight jurisdiction of it. Regardless, we will do everything we can to ensure these funds
are protected and preserved for disbursement to those with valid claims.
We estimate that, in addition to commercial claims, there are about 8,000 individuals and
3,500 residential 'properties that were impacted by the event. We recognize that, due to the
bankruptcy filing and lack of sufficient insurance, that these funds are limited and not likely to
make everyone whole--especially considering the size of the explosions and impacted areas.
However, it is our goal to administer the GUC Trust efficiently and swiftly so that those with valid
claims can receive some compensatio11 from this limited amount.
We have already visited the plant site and surrounding area and are discussing the impact
of the event with businesses, individuals,. and property owners. We are also planning an in-person
town-hall-type meeting where we will attend and answer questions after a brief presentation by us.
We will be drafting for the community's review a proposed initial funding compensation
program.
Note: we have not made any payments yet, and we won't until the payment program is designed,
and your claims are scored. Payments are expected to begin next year, and may be made in
installments, if the Trust obtains additional funding.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ed Gentle
TPC Trustee
Update 12/14/2022
Update 11/16/2022
The TPC facility in Port Neches Texas sustained major explosions and fires on November 27, 2019, and essentially the entire facility burned to the ground. It caused extensive damage to the surrounding neighborhoods, serious damage to homes, buildings, and businesses in the area, and disrupting and harming the lives of innocent neighbors. A mandatory evacuation was in place for several days. The company maintained that they had intensions to rebuild the plant with insurance coverage, but we now believe that those funds were used mostly for other purposes and that the TPC plant will not be reconstructed.
As we mentioned in the last newsletter, we were disappointed but not surprised that TPC filed for bankruptcy relief in Delaware. We had determined that TPC had limited liability insurance coverage, and spent most of it very early on in an attempt to settle some claims outside of litigation and pay something as reimbursement for evacuation costs. As mentioned in the last newsletter, we also found out through the litigation that TPC had business interruption coverage and property damage insurance coverage to get paid back for their own losses, and they spent the majority of those recoveries on repairs and upgrades to their plant in Houston, to cover operational losses, and to pay monthly notes owed to their bondholder financiers so they did not go into default on their mortgage payments.
As stated before, The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDLP), under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants and several dozen other plaintiff firms involved.
What we were able to find out in the litigation is not only was TPC underinsured for this tragic incident, but that there were several “investor groups” that were created as part of the TPC acquisition and we believe they may have contingent liability so we included them in the litigation. Presently they too are trying to obtain protections from the bankruptcy court. We will supplement the status of these fast developing issues as soon as we know more by separate communications directly to all TPC clients.
The bankruptcy proceedings have caused our MDL judge to “Stand Down” with any further proceedings against the non-bankrupt defendants until further notice. We had included several other companies in the litigation as defendants based on our discovery and depositions taken in the case before TPC filed bankruptcy. One of these added defendants is an engineering firm and the other was a company, Nalco, we believe to have been in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. While we also believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by the “shell corporations” mentioned before that may try to shield TPC assets, we may be prohibited from continuing to pursue resolution of their role due to the “related to” claims they will make with TPC in bankruptcy court. Our MDL court has already overruled their objections to being a party to the lawsuits and those defendants are concurrently to the bankruptcy filing also appealing those rulings to our appellate court.
We have had dozens of meetings with the bondholders and their legal counsel now that TPC is in default on the monies owned to these lenders. These bondholders get preferred status as “secured creditors” to TPC, so their claims take precedence over our claims. Because TPC owed the bondholders more money back than their remaining plant is even worth, there will be very little money available in the bankruptcy proceeding to compensate the claimants who were injured and/or suffered property damage from the explosions.
Again, with over 5,000 cases involved in this litigation these issues take some time to work through, but at least we are finally in some stage of formal discussions with some of these parties. In the meantime, while we completed our preliminary damage evaluation information on the majority of our cases, our office may still need some information if we were not able to get a property assessment from an appraiser or if we have not been provided with any of your medical records and billings for any treatment associated to the explosions. Our office has been reaching out to many of you with these additional requests so please try to timely respond. This information will be needed for any distribution coming out of the TPC bankruptcy, and will also be needed to evaluate each case on individual values down the road with the remaining defendants.
As we mentioned in the last newsletter, we were disappointed but not surprised that TPC filed for bankruptcy relief in Delaware. We had determined that TPC had limited liability insurance coverage, and spent most of it very early on in an attempt to settle some claims outside of litigation and pay something as reimbursement for evacuation costs. As mentioned in the last newsletter, we also found out through the litigation that TPC had business interruption coverage and property damage insurance coverage to get paid back for their own losses, and they spent the majority of those recoveries on repairs and upgrades to their plant in Houston, to cover operational losses, and to pay monthly notes owed to their bondholder financiers so they did not go into default on their mortgage payments.
As stated before, The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDLP), under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants and several dozen other plaintiff firms involved.
What we were able to find out in the litigation is not only was TPC underinsured for this tragic incident, but that there were several “investor groups” that were created as part of the TPC acquisition and we believe they may have contingent liability so we included them in the litigation. Presently they too are trying to obtain protections from the bankruptcy court. We will supplement the status of these fast developing issues as soon as we know more by separate communications directly to all TPC clients.
The bankruptcy proceedings have caused our MDL judge to “Stand Down” with any further proceedings against the non-bankrupt defendants until further notice. We had included several other companies in the litigation as defendants based on our discovery and depositions taken in the case before TPC filed bankruptcy. One of these added defendants is an engineering firm and the other was a company, Nalco, we believe to have been in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. While we also believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by the “shell corporations” mentioned before that may try to shield TPC assets, we may be prohibited from continuing to pursue resolution of their role due to the “related to” claims they will make with TPC in bankruptcy court. Our MDL court has already overruled their objections to being a party to the lawsuits and those defendants are concurrently to the bankruptcy filing also appealing those rulings to our appellate court.
We have had dozens of meetings with the bondholders and their legal counsel now that TPC is in default on the monies owned to these lenders. These bondholders get preferred status as “secured creditors” to TPC, so their claims take precedence over our claims. Because TPC owed the bondholders more money back than their remaining plant is even worth, there will be very little money available in the bankruptcy proceeding to compensate the claimants who were injured and/or suffered property damage from the explosions.
Again, with over 5,000 cases involved in this litigation these issues take some time to work through, but at least we are finally in some stage of formal discussions with some of these parties. In the meantime, while we completed our preliminary damage evaluation information on the majority of our cases, our office may still need some information if we were not able to get a property assessment from an appraiser or if we have not been provided with any of your medical records and billings for any treatment associated to the explosions. Our office has been reaching out to many of you with these additional requests so please try to timely respond. This information will be needed for any distribution coming out of the TPC bankruptcy, and will also be needed to evaluate each case on individual values down the road with the remaining defendants.
Update 09/28/2022
Update 07/06/2022
Q3 2022 Update
The TPC facility in Port Neches Texas sustained major explosions and fires on November 27, 2019, and essentially the entire facility burned to the ground. It caused extensive damage to the surrounding neighborhoods, serious damage to homes, buildings, and businesses in the area, and disrupting and harming the lives of innocent neighbors. A mandatory evacuation was in place for several days. The company maintained that they had intensions to rebuild the plant with insurance coverage, but we now believe that those funds were used mostly for other purposes and that the TPC plant will not be reconstructed.
Now, after two years of intensive litigation, TPC is seeking relief with the bankruptcy courts and have filed for that relief in Delaware. We have found out that TPC had limited liability coverage, and spent most of it very early on in an attempt to settle some claims outside of litigation and pay something as reimbursement for evacuation costs. We have also found out through the litigation that TPC had business interruption coverage and property damage insurance coverage to get paid back for their own losses, and they spent the majority of those recoveries on repairs and upgrades to their plant in Houston, to cover operational losses, and to pay monthly notes owed to their bondholder financiers so they did not go into default on their mortgage payments.
As stated before, The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDLP), under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants and several dozen other plaintiff firms involved.
What we were able to find out in the litigation is not only was TPC underinsured for this tragic incident, but that there were several “investor groups” that were created as part of the TPC acquisition and we believe they may have contingent liability so we included them in the litigation. Presently they too are trying to obtain protections from the bankruptcy court. We will supplement the status of these fast developing issues as soon as we know more by separate communications directly to all TPC clients.
While the bankruptcy filing will derail our efforts to pin TPC down in the trial court, we were able to determine in this litigation that there were other parties who we believe were also at fault for this incident and we included them as additional defendants. They are not likely to obtain any relief as a result of TPC filing for bankruptcy protection and we plan to continue to pursue those other defendants in our MDL court. As stated in the last newsletter, one of these added defendants is an engineering firm and the other was a company, Nalco, we believe to have been in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. While we also believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by the “shell corporations” mentioned before that may try to shield TPC assets, we may be prohibited from continuing to pursue resolution of their role due to the “related to” claims they will make with TPC in bankruptcy court. Our MDL court has already overruled their objections to being a party to the lawsuits and those defendants are concurrently to the bankruptcy filing also appealing those rulings to our appellate court.
We have had several meetings with the bondholders who own the notes that TPC was not able to pay back. That failure will basically result in the bondholders taking over the company, but as “secured creditors” to TPC, their claims take precedence over our claims. Nonetheless, we are cautiously optimistic that we will be able to negotiate at least some value out of a formal settlement package directly with them in exchange for avoiding a protracted legal debate in the bankruptcy court.
Again, with over 5,000 cases involved in this litigation these issues take some time to work through, but at least we are finally in some stage of formal discussions with some of these parties. In the meantime, while we completed our preliminary damage evaluation information on all of our cases, our office may still need some information a few of our clients, so if our office has inquired of additional information in that regard, please try to timely respond.
Now, after two years of intensive litigation, TPC is seeking relief with the bankruptcy courts and have filed for that relief in Delaware. We have found out that TPC had limited liability coverage, and spent most of it very early on in an attempt to settle some claims outside of litigation and pay something as reimbursement for evacuation costs. We have also found out through the litigation that TPC had business interruption coverage and property damage insurance coverage to get paid back for their own losses, and they spent the majority of those recoveries on repairs and upgrades to their plant in Houston, to cover operational losses, and to pay monthly notes owed to their bondholder financiers so they did not go into default on their mortgage payments.
As stated before, The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDLP), under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants and several dozen other plaintiff firms involved.
What we were able to find out in the litigation is not only was TPC underinsured for this tragic incident, but that there were several “investor groups” that were created as part of the TPC acquisition and we believe they may have contingent liability so we included them in the litigation. Presently they too are trying to obtain protections from the bankruptcy court. We will supplement the status of these fast developing issues as soon as we know more by separate communications directly to all TPC clients.
While the bankruptcy filing will derail our efforts to pin TPC down in the trial court, we were able to determine in this litigation that there were other parties who we believe were also at fault for this incident and we included them as additional defendants. They are not likely to obtain any relief as a result of TPC filing for bankruptcy protection and we plan to continue to pursue those other defendants in our MDL court. As stated in the last newsletter, one of these added defendants is an engineering firm and the other was a company, Nalco, we believe to have been in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. While we also believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by the “shell corporations” mentioned before that may try to shield TPC assets, we may be prohibited from continuing to pursue resolution of their role due to the “related to” claims they will make with TPC in bankruptcy court. Our MDL court has already overruled their objections to being a party to the lawsuits and those defendants are concurrently to the bankruptcy filing also appealing those rulings to our appellate court.
We have had several meetings with the bondholders who own the notes that TPC was not able to pay back. That failure will basically result in the bondholders taking over the company, but as “secured creditors” to TPC, their claims take precedence over our claims. Nonetheless, we are cautiously optimistic that we will be able to negotiate at least some value out of a formal settlement package directly with them in exchange for avoiding a protracted legal debate in the bankruptcy court.
Again, with over 5,000 cases involved in this litigation these issues take some time to work through, but at least we are finally in some stage of formal discussions with some of these parties. In the meantime, while we completed our preliminary damage evaluation information on all of our cases, our office may still need some information a few of our clients, so if our office has inquired of additional information in that regard, please try to timely respond.
Q1 2022 Update
The TPC facility suffered a terrible explosion, two in fact, on November 27, 2019, causing serious damage to homes, buildings, and businesses in the surrounding area, and disrupting lives of innocent neighbors. The plant was essentially destroyed. A mandatory evacuation was in place for several days. To date, the company has not committed to any formal plan to rebuild the facility although they did have insurance coverage for such damage.
As stated before, The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDLP), under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there last fall appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants and several dozen other plaintiff firms involved. As also mentioned before, we retained highly qualified experts and have reviewed thousands of corporate documents. We continue to have a monthly status conference with the Court on case development issues and meet with all of the co-counsel regularly through the month and co-ordinate case development issues with the 50 other law firms involved on both sides of the case. This MDL will remain in the discovery process through 2022 as we complete the discovery and document review process with continued investigations into the causes of the explosion. We have also initiated the “fact sheet” forms completion process with our 1000 clients in the case. Concurrently, a special master has been retained with the Court’s approval to start looking at mechanisms to create a “master settlement”.
Most recently, we have uncovered conduct of other parties working for TPC that we believe contributed to the incident. Accordingly, we have added them as parties to the litigation. One was an engineering firm and the other was a company, Nalco, we believe to have been in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. In addition, we believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by “shell corporations” that may try to shield TPC assets, so we have added them as defendants to the case as well. This has already generated a great deal of additional motion and discovery practice and numerous disputes between the lawyers on both sides, but our Court is still setting hearings every month to resolve these disputes and keep the cases headed towards an ultimate resolution.
The issue of whether the shell companies can be named as additional defendants is a hotly contested legal issue and will result in some additional interlocutory appeals once we have final rulings from the MDL court. TPC delayed any willingness and/or ability to entertain serious settlement discussions the last two years but as also stated before we have a special master approved by the court working on that situation. All of that is starting to come to a head and we hope to be meeting with the bond holders of the company and other investors in TPC to see if we can work out some formal settlement package. Again, with over 5,000 cases involved in this litigation these issues take some time to work through, but at least we are finally in some stage of formal discussions. In the meantime, we completed our damage evaluation information to TPC on all of our cases. Our office may still need some information a few of our clients, so if our office has inquired of additional information in that regard, please try to timely respond.
As stated before, The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDLP), under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there last fall appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants and several dozen other plaintiff firms involved. As also mentioned before, we retained highly qualified experts and have reviewed thousands of corporate documents. We continue to have a monthly status conference with the Court on case development issues and meet with all of the co-counsel regularly through the month and co-ordinate case development issues with the 50 other law firms involved on both sides of the case. This MDL will remain in the discovery process through 2022 as we complete the discovery and document review process with continued investigations into the causes of the explosion. We have also initiated the “fact sheet” forms completion process with our 1000 clients in the case. Concurrently, a special master has been retained with the Court’s approval to start looking at mechanisms to create a “master settlement”.
Most recently, we have uncovered conduct of other parties working for TPC that we believe contributed to the incident. Accordingly, we have added them as parties to the litigation. One was an engineering firm and the other was a company, Nalco, we believe to have been in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. In addition, we believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by “shell corporations” that may try to shield TPC assets, so we have added them as defendants to the case as well. This has already generated a great deal of additional motion and discovery practice and numerous disputes between the lawyers on both sides, but our Court is still setting hearings every month to resolve these disputes and keep the cases headed towards an ultimate resolution.
The issue of whether the shell companies can be named as additional defendants is a hotly contested legal issue and will result in some additional interlocutory appeals once we have final rulings from the MDL court. TPC delayed any willingness and/or ability to entertain serious settlement discussions the last two years but as also stated before we have a special master approved by the court working on that situation. All of that is starting to come to a head and we hope to be meeting with the bond holders of the company and other investors in TPC to see if we can work out some formal settlement package. Again, with over 5,000 cases involved in this litigation these issues take some time to work through, but at least we are finally in some stage of formal discussions. In the meantime, we completed our damage evaluation information to TPC on all of our cases. Our office may still need some information a few of our clients, so if our office has inquired of additional information in that regard, please try to timely respond.
Q4 2021 Update
The TPC facility suffered a terrible explosion, two in fact, on November 27, 2019, causing serious damage to homes, buildings, and businesses in the surrounding area, and disrupting lives of innocent neighbors. The plant was essentially destroyed. A mandatory evacuation was in place for several days.
The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel, under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there last fall appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants involved. As mentioned before, we retained highly qualified experts and have reviewed thousands of corporate documents. We have a monthly status conference with the Court on case development issues and meet with all of the co-counsel regularly through the month and co-ordinate case development issues with the 50 other law firms involved on both sides of the case. This MDL will remain in the discovery process for most of this year as we complete the discovery and document review process with continued investigations into the causes of the explosion. We have also initiated the “fact sheet” forms completion process with our 1000 clients in the case. Concurrently, a special master has been retained with the Court’s approval to start looking at mechanisms to create a “master settlement”.
Most recently, we have uncovered conduct of other parties working for TPC that we believe contributed to the incident. Accordingly, we have added them as parties to the litigation. One was an engineering firm and the other was a company in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. In addition, we believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by “shell corporations” that may try to shield TPC assets, so we have added them as defendants to the case as well. This has already generated a great deal of additional motion and discovery practice and numerous disputes between the lawyers on both sides, but our Court is still setting hearings every month to resolve these disputes and keep the cases headed towards an ultimate resolution. TPC has not yet indicated a willingness and/or ability to entertain serious settlement discussions but as also stated before we have a special master approved by the court working on that situation and hope to have better news in the next few months. In the meantime, we are still submitting damage evaluation information to TPC on all of our cases, so if our office has inquired of additional information in that regard, please try to timely respond.
IMPORTANT: The deadline for filing a TPC claim may be looming later this year so it will be important for anyone else you know to retain counsel by that time. We are happy to answer their questions.
The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel, under orders from the Texas Supreme Court, consolidated all cases involving the explosion into the 128th District Court in Orange County and the trial judge there last fall appointed Brent Coon as one of 3 liaison lawyers for the Plaintiffs to work up the case on behalf of the more than 5,000 claimants involved. As mentioned before, we retained highly qualified experts and have reviewed thousands of corporate documents. We have a monthly status conference with the Court on case development issues and meet with all of the co-counsel regularly through the month and co-ordinate case development issues with the 50 other law firms involved on both sides of the case. This MDL will remain in the discovery process for most of this year as we complete the discovery and document review process with continued investigations into the causes of the explosion. We have also initiated the “fact sheet” forms completion process with our 1000 clients in the case. Concurrently, a special master has been retained with the Court’s approval to start looking at mechanisms to create a “master settlement”.
Most recently, we have uncovered conduct of other parties working for TPC that we believe contributed to the incident. Accordingly, we have added them as parties to the litigation. One was an engineering firm and the other was a company in charge of the “mix” used to make the butadiene at the plant. In addition, we believe that TPC is actually owned and operated to some degree by “shell corporations” that may try to shield TPC assets, so we have added them as defendants to the case as well. This has already generated a great deal of additional motion and discovery practice and numerous disputes between the lawyers on both sides, but our Court is still setting hearings every month to resolve these disputes and keep the cases headed towards an ultimate resolution. TPC has not yet indicated a willingness and/or ability to entertain serious settlement discussions but as also stated before we have a special master approved by the court working on that situation and hope to have better news in the next few months. In the meantime, we are still submitting damage evaluation information to TPC on all of our cases, so if our office has inquired of additional information in that regard, please try to timely respond.
IMPORTANT: The deadline for filing a TPC claim may be looming later this year so it will be important for anyone else you know to retain counsel by that time. We are happy to answer their questions.