Judge Barbier denies BP's request to stop Gulf of Mexico oil spill payouts under the 2012...


Judge Barbier denies BP's request to stop Gulf of Mexico oil spill payouts under the 2012 settlement with business and individuals. BP claims the oil spill fund's process for handing out money could cost it billions of dollars.

From other sites
Comments (19)
  • joker
    , contributor
    Comments (169) | Send Message
     
    Next, BP will appeal and ask this judge to be replaced!
    5 Apr 2013, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • bjj
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    I'm shocked -- It seems crazy not to allow a halt to payments if there's any question at all about legality. This judge may be hostile to BP and unreasonable. Perhaps BP should file for a mistrial?
    5 Apr 2013, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas L. Young
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    There is NO question that the settlement agreement says what the settlement agreement says. This is nothing but sour grapes on BP's part.
    8 Apr 2013, 06:04 AM Reply Like
  • SSGAJ
    , contributor
    Comments (227) | Send Message
     
    Barbier said the settlement anticipated that "false positives" or "absurd results" would sometimes occur. That's fine, it's likely that there are those out there that would file such claims, however there should be an investigation on situations where it appears there are unjust filings and if someone is found guilty of such a crime they should be punished 'SEVERLY". Our courts need to set a precendent, so those who are tempted to act in such a fasshion will think twice before looking for fast illegal compensation for loss. Our government needs to take a harder stand on other punishable actions such as identity threft, robbery etc. Criminals will not be affected unless they know that there are stiff consequences.
    5 Apr 2013, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas L. Young
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    I am personally aware of 0 fraudulent claims. Not saying that there are not people out there trying to game the system, there may very well be. But, the "absurd" and/or "false positives" referenced are anything but.
    These claims are ENTIRELY driven by mathematical formulas. Unless you cook your books (admittedly, a possibility), you either have a valid, payable claim or you do not. The results are binary. BP knew this when they set up an objective system designed to take subjectivity out of the equation.

     

    In fact, BP attorney Mark Holstein wrote the following in an email to plaintiff counsel last year while negotiating the settlement. In reference to the kinds of claims BP is now objecting to paying, Holstein said they are an “inevitable concomitant of an objective, quantitative, data-based test.” The company KNEW these types of claims would be eligible to for payment under their compensation scheme. BP was well within its rights to negotiate for their exclusion. They did not. They now have buyer's remorse.
    8 Apr 2013, 06:04 AM Reply Like
  • ishere
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    joker:
    And good reason for them to do so. For the judge to dismiss such concerns with ease signals his bias in the case. First he frees Cameron of any blame (who built the faulty blowout preventers) and now this.

     

    Seems biased but that's just my opinion.
    5 Apr 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas L. Young
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    The Judge dismissed this filing by BP after great deliberation. In fact, this was the third time in as many months that BP has lodged the very same complaint. Judge Barbier is very well versed on the issue and ruled from the bench b/c he has heard the same argument multiple times now. BP's position is wholly without merit.
    8 Apr 2013, 06:04 AM Reply Like
  • thermal
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Spot on "bjj". Any legal system is supposed to protect from abuse. IF there is suspicion of any wrong doing or irregularity in the payments, then they should be stopped until matter are clarified. Common sense to me. BP should take matters further or pay the price.
    5 Apr 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • nolanc@union.k12.ms.us
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I just wish they would be ordered to cut gas prices in half for at least a year. This I bet would boost the economy. Ha
    5 Apr 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • curious-george
    , contributor
    Comments (607) | Send Message
     
    government TAKES too much money from every gallon sold for that to happen
    6 Apr 2013, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • grannied
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Seems a lot of people want something for nothing, even if they do not deserve it. Whether they legitimately have a case against BP or not, it is not that important as long as there is a monetary gain for themselves.
    5 Apr 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • jefb
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Individuals and business's that were adversely affected by the oil spill should be compensated and "made whole" to the best degree possible. That is BP's (and the other defendants) responsibility.
    But when individuals and business's are granted compensation where there is no direct (or even indirect) connection to the spill, it not only adds false punishment to BP, it ultimately will reduce the amount available to legitimate claimants.
    Based on some of the examples that I have read about, there should be more "checks and balances" to the process to protect both BP and the legitimate claimants.
    5 Apr 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • atlantis60
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    There will be many angry American BP shareholders pension fund holders unless this judge is replaced by one who operates a doctrine of fairness.
    5 Apr 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • daphnex2
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    BP's defense begins next week. If the judge continues to go overboard in his lopsided decisions, I sincerely hope BP will fight back rather than cave in to this biased judicial action. BP sure has a case for appeal
    5 Apr 2013, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • doc47
    , contributor
    Comments (1734) | Send Message
     
    Okay BP fans who told me and few prescient others were "too negative on the stock and the court case..." WE TOLD YOU SO!!!
    5 Apr 2013, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • curious-george
    , contributor
    Comments (607) | Send Message
     
    thanks for the warning doc; many have read about those false claims and many that could not validate any losses BECAUSE they kept no books [they cheated the government of their income] and when they could not fish, they really did have a problem

     

    in many places BP ADDED jobs and improved the economy because of the accident; and the following spring, fishing was back better than before -- BP more likely than not, has overpaid and have been more than fair and generous

     

    all the best to BP's employees and all the thousands downstream that benefit from therefrom

     

    fee the goose that lays golden eggs!
    6 Apr 2013, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • April May
    , contributor
    Comments (688) | Send Message
     
    Would this court behave this way if BP were an American corporation? I don't think so. Secondly, BP seems too accommodating. They should have set immediate guidelines for compensation to prevent false claims from the beginning. As it is, it seems like every business within 200 miles of the shoreline made a claim for lost business/income due to the oil spill or negative publicity affecting their sales. Didn't anyone consider the recession as at least partially responsible for lower sales?
    6 Apr 2013, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas L. Young
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    You want guidelines April? BP itself created a 1,200 page "guideline" for claimants to follow.

     

    The detail is immense. The complexity enormous. In fact, the very specificity of these guidelines is what will be BP's undoing in this case.

     

    B/c they were very precise in drafting the "guidelines" there is no room for creative interpretation. There is no wiggle room. BP's own guidelines simply are costing them more than they thought. So now the company wants a do-over.
    8 Apr 2013, 06:04 AM Reply Like
  • bjj
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    If they are already pursuing 300 cases for fraudulent claims, it sounds like there's reason to suspect something is wrong.

     

    Laws are rewritten when it turns out that they are not doing what they were intended to do or if it turns out that the lawmakers left a loophole that criminals are exploiting legally.

     

    The larger the document, the more room there is for multiple interpretations of various points (see the Bible). Also the more room for deliberate misinterpretation.

     

    Surely a settlement can be rewritten or reinterpreted if it turns out that large numbers of people and businesses are claiming losses that did not occur or that are far larger than occurred.

     

    My understanding from earlier articles is that some businesses made more money after the spill than before the spill, but still claimed losses based on some fictional idea of what they "should" have made. And no one took a recession into account in their calculations.

     

    Do you feel a claim of this sort is valid in this situation?
    8 Apr 2013, 10:35 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
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