I believe that the Clean Air Act trial is deserving of a separate section, given the potential enormous exposure that BP has and the fact that this trial will be ongoing, generating headlines, through next year. Some editors have stated in edit summaries that this paragraph is "soapboxing," but I don't think that it is. The trial, which has received extensive cover in the media, deals with issues for which BP has already pleaded guilty, and faces fine of up to $20 billion. The presence of other articles is immaterial. This is a very serious trial, and it behooves us to mention it to readers, and state what is at stake. Failure to do so would be a serious NPOV violation, as is the fact that the legal jeopardy that BP faces is not mentioned in the article thanks to the recent edits, an I have so tagged the article.

On the figure, the BP Corporate editor monitoring the article on the talk page here has indicated that other sourcing states that the actual figure of BP's exposure from this trial is really $17 billion, not $ 20 billion. If that can be verified, the figure can be adjusted, but first we need to deal with whether we are going to deal with this in the article at all. Right now we are in the extraordinary position of an article on BP not stating that the U.S. Justice Department is seeking maximal penalties in the billions concerning an issue in which BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges.