I take issue with this type of sentiment. Oil and other carbon-based fuels are causing extreme climate change that is only going to grow exponentially worse. Because of this, governments around the world will accelerate production of renewable energy sources that, due to technological advances, will become cheaper than oil within 10 years.
All that oil in the ground companies spend billions to find and recover will become STRANDED ASSETS.
We live in a CARBON BUBBLE and the sooner people embrace renewable energy the BETTER OFF the world will be.
That is a false statement. Renewables are getting more economical than coal and gas generated electricity. Look at what is going on in Germany. I know, I was in a relationship with a businessman who traveled there.
China is stopping use of coal, as the US will be doing. Soon, public opinion will gel around the world and using coal will be tantament to slavery in the 18th century. Coal causes global warming, which causes sea level to rise, which kills people. Hence, coal kills people.
speaking of downward spirals, there's the racist, misogynist himself. Maybe it's understandable; I would assume most men would be deeply troubled and angry if they were shortchanged in the anatomy between the legs department.
BP - baby pene-is.
If you're a gentleman, you should shun that creep, please.
"Well it looks like Barbier chooses to continue his behavior of willful misconduct and fraud."
Translation from delusion-speak to reality: "Judge Barbier refuses to re-write BP's settlement agreement or the law."
"Given that release, it's hard to imagine how BP thought it could convince a court that it's entitled to a mulligan, when the claimants aren't."
I read that Judge Barbier stated to BP's attorneys during the hearing in effect "you wouldn't agree that the claimants could now sue BP if the process was found flawed."
No I mean with their women. They treat them like ladies and don't physically abuse them like some American men.
I wonder if stoolpie is going to refer us to the nola article by that same author who located emails between Claims Administrator and BP attorneys before the settlement was approved that show BP green lighted the claims process even after Juneau specifically said, "just to be clear: if we know the economic loss had nothing to do with the spill, or we can separate the spill-related loss from the claimed loss, are we to go ahead and just pay it all?" And BP's lawyers on various levels said, "yes, that's the agreement."
That is so totally false and racist! Asian-Americans, and Chinese-Americans in particular, are thoughtful, intelligent and gentlemen. You won't see any of that Ray Rice stuff from these gents.
I'm really excited to see what this company brings to the table. I'm also looking forward to hearing from Asian-Americans right here...preferably eligible men ;);)
For the record, the judge in question in that article is NOT Judge Barbier, who is overseeing the lawsuits and fines against BP. It is Judge Duval, who presided over the criminal trial of a BP engineer.
After the trial the engineer argued in a motion that Judge Duval had a conflict because he owns property on an island hit by the oil spill and joined a lawsuit.
That Motion failed. Judge Duval disclosed that he had property and would be joining a lawsuit. The engineer's attorney kept Duval on as judge.
Unfortunately, when a disaster of the magnitude of this one occurs, most everyone with property could be claimed to have a "conflict."
In short, total non-story and non-issue here.
Federal Court has a 35 page limit, double spaced requirement for briefs. BP submitted a brief that went the full 35 pages, but didn't use the required double space.
Judge Barbier issued an Order telling BP he wouldn't expect that kind of cheating from a high school student. He cut 6 pages from the cheaters ..., er, BP's brief.
hetedrol, I understand you position, and although I disagree with it, I can respect it. But the issue here is not some authority figure arbitrarily deciding what is fair and who should get money. We have a judge following the law by its meaning and intent (clean water act, oil pollution act), and applying a settlement agreement by its clear terms and intent.
You can just as easily find people claiming their mortgage agreements or credit card agreements, which can be onerous for debtors, and put people who lose their jobs or suffer severe medical disease into foreclosure and bankruptcy, who claim its all unfair. It's the terms of the law and agreement that governs.
Sorry, we still are a land of laws, notwithstanding the attempts of the British government to intervene!!
It's a good question, why no punitive damages are allowed if the Judge made factual findings that would otherwise support a punitive damages award in Court.
The answer, as I understand it, has to do with the Judge's interpretation of law under the Circuit his Court is on, and for these types of maritime claims, he found they are not allowed.
Of course, you don't see people screaming that Judge Barbier is biased against the claimants, because that ruling really actually helped out BP a lot. Judge Barbier is just trying to follow the law as best he understands it. We need more dedicated public servants like that, IMO!!
Agreed, both Feinberg and the UK are making policy, not legal arguments. I meant to try to say that but it came out wrong!
As to the point of how implementation of the agreement could deter future settlements, I agree with you also. But of course, if you put on the "fraud goggles" that BP wants everyone to wear, and accept their argument that BP NEVER actually BELIEVED the agreement would EVER be applied this way, and just ASSUMED the administrator would GRAFT a causation standard onto claims (duh!), then OF COURSE future companies will not do this.
BP's argument is the legal equivalent of kicking sand over the oil and pretending oil was never there.
Sorry, but I just have to point out it's unfair. The real argument should be, if BP gets away with this in Court, no future claimants will agree to a companies settlement offer...
So, what Feinberg is essentially arguing is that, if companies can't re-write a bad settlement deal when they discover the costs exceed their original estimate, future companies won't be as will to enter agreements.
That might be true, but it doesn't make it a legally correct argument.
Again, these amicus briefs (Britain's and now Feinberg's) seem to encourage the Supreme Court to decide this case based on something other than the actual law.
"you seem to conveniently forget a lot of history, Feinberg has a pretty good record of fair-dealing..."
What I do remember is Feinburg's firm was found to be on BP's monthly retainer while he was processing claims. That's a conflict of interest.
As to whether he was fair or not, there was disagreement, but that's subjective.
Everyone agreed he needed to be replaced after all this news broke.
"Corrupt states in the Union"? You sounds like John Wilkes Booth.
"your continual posts attacking BP are redundant and without substance. they need to be countered ..."
The counter them with some facts, a link, anything other than personal insults. Otherwise you continue to pollute this board with juvenile nonsense.
If anything factual I've posted is incorrect, I'd love to learn that with a link to where I've been incorrect. I consider it beneficial to learn from mistakes.
"Yes, it is highly annoying that the blunders of a few greatly affect so many that are not to blame."
The sentiment of an investor who wishes the share price was higher.
Imagine what those who's lives were damaged/destroyed suffered. It's more than just "highly annoying," trust me.
That means nothing. For the record, Ken Feinberg was replaced as claims administrator after complaints of bias in favor of BP and evidence being disclosed that Feinberg was on BP's payroll.
Since he has been replaced, by agreement of BP, Feinberg and his firm have continued to do lucrative business for BP, and he has continued to make public comments all in BP's favor.