- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
BP story on fraud DW Horizon spill settlement from 60 minutes
Posted on 5/6/14 at 11:20 am
Posted on 5/6/14 at 11:20 am
So based on the model that BP agreed to in settlements it seems BP now thinks there is fraud committed as businesses who may or may not have suffered losses are being compensated. As I see it its buyers remorse and not sure if there the ability to renegotiate or tweak the compensation model. Is there fraud being committed – you bet when you have at total settlement of $20B there will be fraud and I bet there is an economist that can predicate the rate will x%. But if a business meets the criteria that fits compensation maybe BP should have been more diligent in developing the compensation model, I would suggest they hire better economists/modellers. Any thoughts from a Gulf perspective and it seems very petty by BP to try and renege on an agreement (flawed or not). Am I surprised BP is trying this tact – nope large business will always try an exploit any legal wrangling they can. Now they are suspending payments. I didnt see the 60 minutes story but question is based on Times Pic article and 60 minutes transcript.
10
Posted on 5/6/14 at 11:44 am to OntarioTiger
Tactic- cast a wide net, as far as plaintiffs included in the settlement, then try to throw out, frustrate, dissuade, as many of the ones in the net as possible.
It's amazing that no one talks about the many ways that the settlement is unfair to potential claimants. There is unfairness on both sides (which is typical in class settlements) but we only hear about BPs bitching and moaning about the settlement.
It's amazing that no one talks about the many ways that the settlement is unfair to potential claimants. There is unfairness on both sides (which is typical in class settlements) but we only hear about BPs bitching and moaning about the settlement.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 11:50 am to OntarioTiger
there's a ton of fraud. Being able to prove it will be an uphill battle.
The problem is, those who suffered the most real damages (the commercial fishermen and oil field workers) are the ones who would have the most trouble proving that they had actually been harmed thanks to most fishermen dealing in cash.
Of those individuals (not corporations or hotel owners or state tourism boards) who were paid the most money in damages had many many fraudulent claims. As usual, though, the lawyers were the only ones who really made any money off of this disaster.
The problem is, those who suffered the most real damages (the commercial fishermen and oil field workers) are the ones who would have the most trouble proving that they had actually been harmed thanks to most fishermen dealing in cash.
Of those individuals (not corporations or hotel owners or state tourism boards) who were paid the most money in damages had many many fraudulent claims. As usual, though, the lawyers were the only ones who really made any money off of this disaster.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 12:28 pm to OntarioTiger
The list of people/businesses filing for damages that he cited during that interview definitely backed BPs claim to FRAUD on a massive scale.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 3:33 pm to OntarioTiger
quote:
So based on the model that BP agreed to in settlements it seems BP now thinks there is fraud committed as businesses who may or may not have suffered losses are being compensated.
BP shouldn't even exist anymore as a company I have no sympathy for anything that happens to them.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 1:15 am to OntarioTiger
Screw BP, they chose to settle because 1) they are the largest producer in the Gulf and needed to protect their image, and 2) Exxon found out the hard way after the Valdez spill that choosing to litigate for decades before ultimately losing to the plaintiffs was a stupid legal strategy.
On another note, it may not be that wise on BP's part to contest the settlement that was approved by the same federal judge who also has the discretion to ultimately determine the amount of damages BP will owe to the government in the federal lawsuit.
On another note, it may not be that wise on BP's part to contest the settlement that was approved by the same federal judge who also has the discretion to ultimately determine the amount of damages BP will owe to the government in the federal lawsuit.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:41 am to OntarioTiger
quote:
it seems BP now thinks there is fraud committed as businesses who may or may not have suffered losses are being compensated.
Of course there was fraud. Millions of dollars of fraud. But like you said, it's kind of BP's fault too, for basically just throwing money at the problem. They did not do any due diligence on the smaller claims, and their lack of oversight is biting them in the arse.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 9:02 am to OntarioTiger
Just wait to see what happens if the environmental industry succeeds in lawsuits against the oil and gas companies. That source of funding will fund rampant, institutionalized fraud for decades.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 9:04 am to OntarioTiger
There is a legal doctrine called contra proferentem (Latin for "against the offeror"), which states that if there is an ambiguity in a document, the preferred meaning will work against the one who wrote it.
This is because the person drafting the document was in the best position (and, in some cases, such as insurance policies, the only position) to determine its terms and conditions, exceptions, etc.
If BP wrote the Settlement Agreement (and it appears they did), and now they found out that it has so many ambiguities that people are taking advantage of it, they're stuck with it except where they can prove fraud.
This is because the person drafting the document was in the best position (and, in some cases, such as insurance policies, the only position) to determine its terms and conditions, exceptions, etc.
If BP wrote the Settlement Agreement (and it appears they did), and now they found out that it has so many ambiguities that people are taking advantage of it, they're stuck with it except where they can prove fraud.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 9:09 am to OntarioTiger
The way the BP settlement has been interpreted by the plaintiffs' lawyers and the settlement administrator fall outside of the spirit of the settlement and defy basic human logic. Why would anyone agree to pay settlements for losses completely unassociated with the cause? This is basically semantics fraud. The administrator is trying to hide behind "I'm just doing my job, blah, blah, blah" but frick him, he should know better. /rant
Posted on 5/7/14 at 10:02 am to OntarioTiger
I spoke with a guy at my kids soccer game about this. He said a lawyer contacted his business, ran the numbers and showed he was owed $5k in compensation. While his business is oilfield related they are not a BP vendor nor did they have any adverse consequences from the spill. They eventually turned down the money because, as he said, "one day that $5k would have bitten us in the arse".
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News