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.
"In America, at least, a deal is a deal."
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee's Response to British Government's Amicus Curie brief.
Little BP boy, go harass someone else.
Justice was served on BP the company this week. I encourage readers to read Judge Barbier's opinion.
Then posters can chime in and mock nadsmis for having the little BP.
I read the opinion. The failure to recognize the failed negative pressure test was a big part of Barbier's finding of gross negligence. Barbier went into details of the records of conversations between the BP foreman and BP onshore manager (which BP left out of its own internal reports) which basically show that BP ignored the obvious problems with the negative pressure test. That, alone, would have prevented the blowout, according to Barbier. And that was driven by cost considerations.
I think the reckless conduct of an employee can be imputed to the company when that individual is given high level responsibilities, as was the case with the foreman and manager in this case.
Whether Barbier harbors some secret vendetta against BP is an issue no one will ever know. What is clear is his very detailed, lengthy opinion will not be casually reversed on appeal, IMO.
Haha, nadmis has a BP. Nadsmis has a BP.
Men with BPs spend all day on the internet because no women would touch that wet mini noodle.
Haha nadsmis has a BP.
Question: Judge Barbier ruled that there's no punitive damages allowed under the law for the blowout. That applies to all defendants, I think. Wasn't the only remaining exposure to RIG/HAL punitive damages? So are they completely off the hook?
I would think that ruling is also very good news for BP (though it hasn't been mentioned much). Removes uncertainty over remaining civil litigation, BP should be able to settle all those claims if it wants.
It's also very worrisome that the racist stalker nadsmis is allowed to defile women on a public messages board and no one comes to defend me.
He has a BP. And that's the problem.
Needs a magnifying glass to find it.
Hi nadsmis sock puppet/fake ID number 17.
Go take a look at the wonderful news coming out over at the BP board.
Today is a great day for those seeking justice.
Every day is a bad day if you have a BP like nadsmis.
I think you might be partially correct, bearing in mind that the penalties will not be due for at least one year, maybe longer if you consider an appeal. BP is appealing the gross negligence finding now, though, so whatever appeals happen after the next phase will no go as long.
Also, keep in mind the ongoing sanctions against Russia (Rosneft). If those linger, coupled with fines due, and settlement payments (which will be coming directly from earnings), I don't see how BP maintains the dividend in 2015.
Investors are starting to flee
The gross negligence of BP
They cheated and lied
As animals died
When their poison poured into the sea
Judge: BP drilling engineer told co. investigators he believed BP was "going to get a (profanity) cement job" by only using 6 centralizers