Yes, and hitler had the trains running on time, too.
Tell us more about how world destruction has benefits. Please. We love the tragedy.
How are the claimants taking money from "pensionaires"? What pension cuts? You mean people relying on the dividend for income? Didn't you spend about 8 posts or so explaining to us how the dividend will never be affected by the liabilities?
And what's this morality vs. decorum? That's a debate in your mind, not mind. I simply argue BP must be held to its agreement by its terms. You fancy yourself as a reverse robin hood I suppose.
And BP's self-serving numbers are both inconsistent and intentionally vague.
Overall, I would rate this poster davenport as VERY CONFUSED. Only 1 eggroll!
Have a nice weekend every buddy!
PS. I told people to buy COP last years. You lost out. Those opportunity costs are killing you!!
"many have made tons of money of the disaster and have become spillionaires."
There is as much truth to that as BP claiming it's "Beyond Petroleum" a few years ago.
Gives us some facts/stats about these undeserving people who made a million off BP. They don't exist, believe me!
What a foolish question. Who should be rewarded and punished? Fortunately, that's not how agreements are interpreted. They are interpreted by intent, as interpreted through plain language.
In this case, you don't even have an argument that BP misunderstood vague language. BP simply claims it underestimated how many people would line up.
The number of "fake" claims is not nearly as large as BP claims. It's a marketing campaign, not a valid legal argument in my opinion.
Try becoming davenport_jd instead!!
None of your examples involves application of a straightforward, objective agreement. To determine if the revenue criteria are met, BP gets to select its team of accountants the administrator uses. BP gets to appeal any awards it believes are decided incorrectly.
You, as an investor in BP, just don't like the agreement BP struck since you think it includes undeserving recipients.
Consider that the cost of doing business for the deserving who will be undercompensated. You don't hear their complaints.
BP the victim? Cry me a river.
Your examples are poor attempts to justify BP's decision to change how claims are paid. Damages to a neighborhood caused by a kid? How about the largest environmental disaster that devastated an entire region's economy. BP's lawyers are no fools.
It's simple, really. Read the Oil Pollution Act. That Act gives a right of recovery to claimants based on geographical region when there is an oil disaster because it's understood that these disasters effect an entire area.
BP got its bargain and now things it can wiggle out. Do you know what happens in your neighborhood example when one of the kids welshes on a promise to pay? He gets peed on in the alley by the others. Think about that.
You're thinking of another part of the settlement - seafood loss I believe - where they agreed on a set figure to be divvied up that BP asked to be refunded after a class action for fake claims was filed.
The current issue pertains to business economic loss claims, which are far greater than the seafood loss ones.
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, thank you!
I try to keep it objective. Sorry if I fail from time to time. These issues can get emotional.
I'll try to "stick to the facts" more. I don't mean to engender bad feelings or antipathy like nadsmis does.
I must admit, even after being a but jaded by this case, learning that Judge Clement holds a seat on the board of an advocacy group, really surprises me. Never mind what that group advocates, but being a board member for ANY advocacy group strikes me as an obvious conflict of interest. Again, the ethics rules pertain to the APPEARANCE of impropriety, so the argument that she can keep the two separate isn't really relevant.
I mean really, that's just amazing. It explains her curious "advocacy" in the appeal she presided over, though.
It also makes me question whether 60 Minutes still does any real journalism. That seems like something they would've dug up as part of the story years ago...
I understand equal justice under the law. Not subjective interpretations of words like crime or fraud by people with a financial stake in the outcome.
Negativity seems to be relative. If this were a "BP Victims" message board, some silly poster would be telling your the same thing!!
But I agree something seems "seriously out of balance" on this board.
Correct, I was being tongue-in-cheek about the "optimistic" part. BP would appeal to the Supreme Court regardless of perceived prospect of winning. If nothing else, it prolongs the stay on payment of all business economic loss claims.
Well, I did a little research on the subject, and it turns out the way the Scalia and Alito have avoided recusals is that their children take pay cuts for any compensation attributable to the work the firm does for the clients before the Supreme Court. This issue came up recently in a Wall-Mart class action suit, and they didn't have to recuse themselves after their kids pay was cut.
But, it was an ethical issue that had to be addressed by the Justices.
BP used to stand for British Petroleum. Briefly it was Beyond Petroleum. Now it's Befriend Putin or should that be Befriendenemy Putin?
If this hall monitor wanted to be productive, he could after the spammers or off-topic posters who violate the rules. I do not violate those rules. But he doesn't want to be productive. He wants to wage a war on women. And minorities.
Who's the one who needs therapy? The 19th century is over. Put me on ignore and #$%$.
The rules of ethics that say when a judge should recuse her/himself are based on avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Not whether the judge is actually capable of making a decision.
Justices Scalia and Alito have sons who are lawyers for the law firm Gibson Dunn, the firm that represents BP in the spill defense litigation.
How's that for "friends in high places"?
You might want to review some of the recent scientific literature, which answers that question.
Or keep your head in the sand where the view is always the same.
Wake up deniers!
"What I care about as a shareholder is share price. I don't care about weather John Doe gets his $100K for lost fishing claim with or without merit in the courts. That trivia has virtually no impact on me...Only you care about this trivia, and only you have so little life..."
In other words, concern for trivial John Doe, instead of one's own fortune, means one has no life.
Which is the exact attitude that got BP in trouble in the first place.
Anyone else see the irony? I don't think people have learned the lesson yet.
Um, yes you implied those things. I would try to deny it too if odious comments I wrote were highlighted. There is no conspiracy against BP. Patrick Juneau and Carl Barbier are not part of a vendetta against BP or big oil. They are honorable jurists trying to do their duty under the law.
I don't care whether you or any deniers respond or not, or what your odious opinion of the judiciary is. I'm interested in understanding the process because I care about the results. You have nothing to offer on that subject.