BP to appeal Gulf oil spill payment ruling to U.S. Supreme Court

[n2doc]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - BP Plc, seeking to limit costs related to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, said it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether it must pay some businesses for economic damages without proof that the spill caused such losses.

The British oil company will appeal Monday's decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans not to disturb a divided three-judge panel's March ruling over the payments. It will also ask the 5th Circuit not to require that it pay businesses for economic losses during the appeal.

BP has complained that the settlement it negotiated to cover business loss claims is being interpreted incorrectly by the businesses' lawyers and claims administrator Patrick Juneau. It said making payments unrelated to the spill could push the settlement's estimated $9.2 billion cost significantly higher.

"No company would agree to pay for losses that it did not cause, and BP certainly did not when it entered into this settlement," BP said.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/us-bp-lawsuit-idUSBREA4K0YO20140521

[gussmith]

1. They Must Be Kidding

I will never forget the oil mess they created. No amount of money can compensate but all their assets would be a start.

[underpants]

3. They are serious

Of course they should have been this serious when they signed this terrible agreement. Oh well lesson learned.

[billhicks76]

10. Overreach

Those scumbags got off easy because our government led by Obama made sure of it. This is what happens when you give an inch to evil and greed...it tries to get more. They think we forgot about them and they can slither back to their old ways. How about a permanent ban for them now that they are going for broke. It won't matter what the Supreme Jackasses do then will it?

[Dustlawyer]

12. You are right about Obama having a negative role in this!

In the summer of 2010, Obama had the mid-terms coming up and it didn't look good. The MSM were starting to whisper that the spill was Obama's Katrina. BP and "independent" Ken Feinberg came to Obama with their bull shit 20 billion dollar fund, Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF). They promised to make the media move on but they required his blessing as well as the Coast Guard. That's when they had the Coast Guard planes spray the Corexit that is killing the Gulf as we speak. Feinberg was later found by the Judge to have not been "independent", and that he had always been BP's agent. That did not invalidate the 250,000 claims he settled for dirt cheap because the people believed he was appointed by Obama and was independent. He offered $5,000 to Oysterman by the hundreds even though the only thing they knew to do was Oystering which was no longer an option. Not having any income and almost all had been denied monthly Interim payments, they felt they had no choice but to take the 5k to feed the family. Obama may have done a lot of good things for this country, but he has turned his back on the victims of the spill.

[Frustratedlady]

2. No surprise there!

They should hang their heads, shut their mouths and pay up.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

[underpants]

4. On what Constitutional grounds?

and yes I did read the article

The SCOTUS could deny hearing the case.

[leftyohiolib]

5. on the grounds that it's a company friendly court and they'll kiss his ass

[okaawhatever]

9. Do you think this SCOTUS will? If they don't hear the case it is only because it doesn't give them

the opening they want to rewrite the law (and by law I mean Constitution)

[mountain grammy]

6. I'll bet Scalia is licking his chops to render some batshit crazy judgement on this case..

Heaven help us if the Roberts court takes this case.

[The Stranger]

7. BP should have its corporate charter(s) revoked.

Eliminate it for its criminal activity much like what would happen to a natural person.

[RoccoR5955]

8. And with the current Supremes in Court

They will get off with paying nothing, and the Supremes singing "Baby Love."

[Dustlawyer]

11. K&R!!! The real truth is that BP wrote most of this deal and they love the "V" curve requirement.

This is what the business claim must have in order to get paid, an accounting graph that shows a drop in income in 2010 and a recovery in 2011. Many businesses did not see an uptick until 2012 or not at all and went out of business. BP knows that they avoid paying many more valid claims than they might have to pay ones without being able to prove causation. They want their cake and eat it too.
Another reason is that they have been able to stall already for 8 months on payments. They are dragging this out as long as the Courts will let them. We have several thousand clients that opted out of this Class Settlement. We filed suit, BP had the cases transferred to Judge Barbier in New Orleans, and the Judge has stated that these "Opted Out" case ses will not be dealt with at all until the Class Action settlement is completed. It is over 4 years and we haven't been able to do anything to advance their cases.
Poor BP, the victim!!!

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Oy vey

[poundstone]

14. BP Denies OPA

The Oil Polution Act enacted by the the US Congress after the Exxon Valdez oil spill determined that "regional economies" ARE affected by oil spills and as such any business within those area are eligible to file for compensation. The issue of the majority of the claims that BP is disputing related to "causal nexus"...or finding a direct relationship between BP's actions and the losses that business suffered. The location, type of business activities and detailed financial records of up to 5 years are required for a claim to succeed. These details are then put through a specific analytical set of calculations that BP itself suggested and signed off on. BP admitted in more than 40 documents and additional testimony in open court in July 2013 that they agreed to these "objective" methods to determine if a business was affected by the oil spill and specified that these methodologies would constitute the causation testing for all business claimants. These tests are thorough and are increasingly demanding as one moves through the claims process toward payment or denial. Also be aware that the accountants who vet these claims and apply these rigorous tests and analysis are HAND PICKED firms chosen by BP itself!! BP is simply playing the game of trying to get American to turn on their neighbors and create fear or anger about supposed fraud that doesn't in the end exist, all in an attempt keep legitimate claims from being filed or paid. It is simply a corporate numbers game, decreasing their final costs a % point at a time with each with each angry rise they get out of all you out there in America's heartland.

[poundstone]

15. BP's Red Herrings...Real Claims not Frauds!

Bp’s Request for stay to SCOTUS/Scalia revolves around a single issue, that is:

“…certify a class settlement that includes numerous members who have suffered no injury plausibly traceable to the defendant’s actions…”

BP restates this in numerous ways in their 34 page request submitted to Judge Scalia. Each time BP’s attorneys state that the class as constructed includes numerous or insinuates “huge” numbers of claimants who have no loss traceable to the BP oil spill of 2010. The problem is BP is wrong, legally and morally.

I would suggest that the PSC and the 5th Circuit have missed an opportunity to dismiss these specific points. (Please note that the lack of full file disclosure of past claims information that BP uses keeps all such discussions as theoretical, but importantly PLAUSIBLE connections.)

Please consider the following explanations for defeating BP’s assertions of no causal nexus for their “poster child” fraud case claims:

A car dealer who lost his franchise for a car line (Pontiac) – This dealer publicly stated that he tried unsuccessfully for the entire summer and fall of 2010 to get a new franchise to sell new vehicles. Prior to the spill they had 3 contacts with other auto makers bidding to give them their franchises to sell their new vehicles. The spill ended those talks and the business shut for the year. That is a real loss as opposed to the BP half truth.

An RV park that had a foreclosure filed against it prior to the spill – This is a not an RV park that had closed it’s business. It simply had a filing against it. Their business remained open at that location through 2010. A foreclosure does NOT mean a closure of business in the current FL real estate market for businesses. Most negotiate for a rental contract with the bank who forecloses as the banks prefer a property to be occupied and thus keeping the property from becoming abandoned. Many home owners are keeping residence in their homes in FL now under the same management agreements with banks (though ownership of the property is lost their business income was not.) This property faced the effects of the tourist exodus from the region in 2010 caused by the oil spill.

The cellular phone business that burned down prior to the spill – This company was reported to have been ready with contractors to use their insurance money to move to a different adjacent location and restart their business, but failed to be able to do so as there was simply no customer base to move forward.

The oft quoted “4 partner accounting firm” where one partner takes a medical leave during the oil spill…this was a hypothetical case not a real one. If it was real then there would be other factors that would have allowed the case to proceed against BP in a normal court of law. As it is hypothetical then one might ask first – Did this 4th partner decide to take his medical leave at this time because there simply wasn’t enough business for him to be needed in the office? Or did his absence from the office result in any turning away of clients? Really…would a business of that type actually lose business because one partner had a forced medical leave? Of course not! They would hire a temporary staff accountant. There were many unemployed accountants due to the prior economic crisis available to hire to take up his work load IF and only if such a work load existed.

Truly these cases put forward by BP are red herrings meant to deceive the public (as well as SCOTUS) and succeeded with at least one Judge by the name of Clements.