BP suffers yet another setback over 2010 oil spill claims

BP (BP) has again failed in its attempt to limit the amount of compensation it will have to pay for the 2010 Gulf oil spill, with a 13-judge Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirming lower-court rulings and rejecting the company's request to force claimants to prove a direct link between the disaster and any losses they may have suffered.

BP could now appeal to the Supreme Court.

The company, which has so far taken a cumulative pretax charge of $42.7B for the spill, argues that forcing it to pay what it has said are "wholly fictitious" compensation claims will cost it billions of dollars extra.

From other sites
Comments (13)
  • aatvanherk
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
    Obama's administration is not different than Putin's
    20 May 2014, 07:36 AM Reply Like
  • citizenleung
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
    The Obama administration is far different than Putin's. Any rational person can see that. Your statement reflects some combination of ignorance, stupidity, and delusion.


    The judicial system is not a part of the executive branch, and most of the claims are private. Why did you bring up the Obama administration, anyway? For what is worth, the Fifth Circuit, which decided the case, is considered among the more conservative circuits. Of the fourteen Circuit Judges, four were appointed by Reagan and six were appointed by Bush II. If any group would have let BP weasel its way out of its responsibilities, it was this one. BP obviously did not have a leg to stand on, and it deserves whatever is coming to it.
    20 May 2014, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • daphnex2
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
    Actually, there is a difference.......Putin seems to love oil....BO thinks oil is ruining the planet.
    20 May 2014, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • daphnex2
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
    Actually, there is a difference. Putin loves oil, BO seems to think oil is ruining the planet.
    20 May 2014, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (3408) | Send Message
    Maybe I should put in a claim..... hahaha
    20 May 2014, 07:48 AM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (754) | Send Message
    Maybe someone can explain to me why someone should be able to make a claim without proof it was tied to the oil spill?
    20 May 2014, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Dave the drummer
    , contributor
    Comments (71) | Send Message
    That is a total misconception created by BP...


    BP agreed in 2011 to legal terms businesses would have to meet to receive payment for damages from the firm's disaster compensation fund.


    To keep things simple and avoid protracted litigation, which would serve no one, businesses within a reasonable distance of the shoreline had to demonstrate that their fortunes traced a particular pattern: a sharp drop in income immediately after the spill, followed by a sharp recovery some time later.


    Those that met that test didn't have to show any other evidence that their losses were spill-related. It was well understood at the time that this wide net would sweep in some businesses whose losses fit the pattern but actually had nothing to do with the spill. The company accepted that, in writing, on the grounds that a few false positives were a small price to pay to keep things moving along.


    Then, as the settlement cost mounted, BP changed its tune. In newspaper ads, in news articles by BP-friendly publications, and ultimately on "60 Minutes," it said it was overwhelmed by fraudulent claims. In court, it maintained that the terms it had helped write and had agreed to were, in fact, unconstitutional. It said, essentially, that the income pattern wasn't enough, and claimants should also have to prove their losses had something to do with the spill -- exactly the tortuous process both sides had been trying to avoid.
    21 May 2014, 07:34 PM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (5132) | Send Message
    The biggest government sanctioned scam ever recorded.


    What a tragic embarrassment for the U.S. AND U.K. who seems to have their head in the sand !
    20 May 2014, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • Dave the drummer
    , contributor
    Comments (71) | Send Message
    Yes... and to think they are siding with a British Company in order to scam their own citizens on top of it... OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
    21 May 2014, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • shipingho
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    Yes, I agree it is a scam. Unfortunately BP has its own attorney and management team to blame for this mess. If you watch the recent 60 minutes, you can see their arguments are very weak and have little legal ground. Very sad for me as a former BP employee and shareholder.
    20 May 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • jwslaw
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    BP is not being truthful
    Every claim, to be successful, must show a loss in 2010 post-oil spill
    And must also show an objective relation to spill;
    Some examples of how to show relation:
    --Bounce back in 2011
    --Loss of non-local customers
    --Geographic location in Gulf of Mexico where tourism is dominant industry (such as Key West, Destin)


    So, BP's premise is simply not accurate
    20 May 2014, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • JPulcinella
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
    Actually the failure that caused the spill was the responsibility of an American Company
    20 May 2014, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (3408) | Send Message
    If thats true then why is BP responsible for paying claims?
    21 May 2014, 01:35 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs