BP's motion for preliminary injunction was denied today by Barbier. BP asked the court to halt payments from the remainder of the seafood compensation program ($1.2bn). BP had argued there was fraud based on a Texas lawyer who didn't have all the clients he said he did.
I viewed this as a frivolous motion, and Barbier agreed. That $1.2bn needs to be paid to the claimants, just as BP agreed to do.
Just because a motion is denied doesn't make it frivolous. And regardless of how the motion might be described, or its prospects for success, I don't see any downside to it ... other than the possibility of annoying the Judge while he's still pondering his eventual Phase I and Phase II tral rulings that seem (to me, anyway) to have far greater economic significance to BP than these settlement administration battles do.
I agree - the denial of a motion doesn't mean the motion necessarily is frivolous it lacks merit. I believed it lacked merit when I read it a month ago. And so would most people.
Note that BP is employing the "guilt by association" argument. Since one of the class plaintiffs' attorneys committed fraud, all claim payments must be stopped so BP can investigate each other lawyer to see if they also committed fraud. Not that there's a bit of evidence of fraud, BP just wants an excuse to slow things down.