Seeking Alpha

BP suffers setback in Gulf oil spill case

  • New Orleans District Judge Carl Barbier has rejected a request from BP (BP) that companies seeking compensation for the 2010 Gulf oil spill provide proof that the disaster caused them economic losses.
  • An appeals court had told Barbier to reassess the terms of a settlement between BP and the victims of the spill after the company argued that some claimants were unjustifiably receiving payouts. However, Barbier ruled that as part of the accord, BP had originally agreed that some claimants wouldn't have to provide evidence of damages.
  • Barbier, though, did reverse a previous position and agreed with BP that losses related to the spill should be calculated based on revenue and expenses.
  • BP, which has said that it has had to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in fictitious claims, plans to appeal the overall ruling.
Comments (22)
  • WisPokerGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (774) | Send Message
     
    Okay... So, the meaning of the first bullet point would be that anybody could file a claim whether or not the oil spill had caused them economic damages, right? So, if I ran a barbershop or a dog grooming salon, I could still file a claim, right?

     

    This judge must be on crack.
    25 Dec 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    No.

     

    "Judge Carl Barbier said BP would have to live with its earlier interpretation of a settlement agreement over the spill, in which certain businesses could be presumed to have suffered harm if their losses reflected certain patterns."

     

    You still have to prove that you are no longer making money that you had made in the past, rather than prove its because of the spill itself. It's to prevent BP from dragging their feet on legitimate claims, which they have done from the beginning.
    25 Dec 2013, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • cssdraw
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    The damages caused are in part, visible and quantifiable. The other part of the real damages are less so. The tourist industry feeds a lot of our population, and less money spent in the tourist, seafood, hotel, restaurant industries means less spent on new homes, movie theaters, retail, cars, bikes etc. what don't you get?

     

    Yes, your dog grooming business would be impacted too. ... The average joe cuts expenses when uncertainties ( like when will the well be repaired and oil stop pouring out, will the food be tainted? Will the oyster beds be ok? What's that horrible smell?) abound. And yes, barbers had less business too... As did doctors, engineers, survey companies, artists, chefs, musicians, street magicians, landscapers, banks, ... Anything a typical family buys or uses was cut back
    26 Dec 2013, 03:55 AM Reply Like
  • BTR2RSK
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    css, so basically you are saying everyone. What a stupid agreement if that's it: yes we will just compensate EVERYONE in the "affected areas" because we had an accident. Why not just give the keys to the company and call it a day?
    26 Dec 2013, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (393) | Send Message
     
    I live in NJ can I sue for anxiety and the time off I was distracted by watching the news and the videos? What a crock of crap. I think BP was negligent, but this ruling is ridiculous.
    25 Dec 2013, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • BuisnessUsual
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Ridiculous for BP to have to pay damages they caused? Outrage!
    25 Dec 2013, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • cssdraw
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    No, you would have to submit proof your earnings were less for the period of impact, as well as proving you were within the area of impact.

     

    Deal with your tv fixation and anxiety in other ways other than leaving uninformed comments
    26 Dec 2013, 03:55 AM Reply Like
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (393) | Send Message
     
    Reread my comment apparently you haven't figured it out I was being sarcastic.
    29 Dec 2013, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • treyminator
    , contributor
    Comments (85) | Send Message
     
    The real problem here is that BP made a serious mistake by kow towing to Obama and setting up a $20 billion fund to pay claims. In doing so, BP waived some important rights and defenses. APC disagreed with the plan and went defensive right away, which is what BP should have done. Now, BP is complaining about what the judge is doing, which is trying to follow the altered state of law based on BP's initial concessions toward appeasement. BP followed Lord Chamberlin's policy rather than adopt Winston Churchill's policy - "We shall fight them on the beaches, in the fields, in our towns...." XOM played hardball with Exxon Valdez spill and came out much better than BP with its appeasement approach. It's ALWAYS better to take the hard line up front and negotiate way out than partially settle then try to get tough.
    25 Dec 2013, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7606) | Send Message
     
    I am sure this same judge would be against showing some ID when voting.
    25 Dec 2013, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • cssdraw
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    You are an ijit. The Judge is enforcing an agreement. BP wants to change the rules.
    26 Dec 2013, 03:54 AM Reply Like
  • susan01
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Here we go again another misstep by BP management no doubt ( I do not blame the lawyers) I am almost certain it was a BP big wig that directed their lawyers to agree to such an open ended settlement. Any two bit lawyer could of drafted a settlement that could have provided BP with some protection from unscrupulous claimants.
    25 Dec 2013, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • mfergu4018@yahoo.com
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    This decision will drive the stock down in the short term.
    25 Dec 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • BuisnessUsual
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Cough it up BP, you got deep pockets. The greedy execs and investors just want more bread and butter for themselves.
    25 Dec 2013, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (1783) | Send Message
     
    Business-
    You sound like a previous BP hater who simply changed his / her name.
    In any case, trite is trite.
    26 Dec 2013, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Adriannzinha
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    I don't get the pro-bp rhetoric here. You can argue the merits of who should get compensated but frankly bp and their expensive legal team pushed for this arrangement and now they want to renege. Maybe they should have thought a little more closely about what they were agreeing to. In short bp didn't do it's due diligence and much as investors who lose for not doing theirs, bp needs to face up to their oversight.
    26 Dec 2013, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • laflyway
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. BP must be held to the agreement they themselves authored. Check out this story of BP attacking Emeril Lagasse in today's New Orleans Times Picayune.

     

    http://bit.ly/1kJT2JZ
    26 Dec 2013, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • HunterPSU
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The oil spill occurred during the economic meltdown. The only ones not suffering loss during this time period were repo men and gov workers.
    26 Dec 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • treyminator
    , contributor
    Comments (85) | Send Message
     
    Instead of caving in to Obama and setting up settlement fund, BP should have sent a small army of lawyers and accountants out to buy out hotels, businesses, and fishing companies, including their rights and claims relating to oil spill. They could have taken hard line and bought out claims on far more reasonable basis. Then, it could have turned around and sell the hotels, businesses, properties, fishing vessels, ect., to recover a significant portion of its settlements. BP, however, played it dumb and is going to suffer consequences for a long tume to come.
    26 Dec 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (1783) | Send Message
     
    Another 52 week High already today.
    9 Jan, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • HighOnDividends
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    @Bahamas1

     

    Shhhhh. Tell no-one ;)

     

    We are trying to buy it cheaper, thanks the "The Specialist''s series of articles. I think he should write another attack article. He has been awfully quiet. What is going on?

     

    Because of his recent disinterest, the share price is way too high now.
    9 Jan, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (1783) | Send Message
     
    HighOnDividends-
    Facts outweigh and trump disdain.
    Always will.
    10 Jan, 09:18 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|