- 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
Can someone explain why BP's lawyers crafted such an agreement?
Posted on 5/20/13 at 7:57 am
Posted on 5/20/13 at 7:57 am
Were they incompetetent. Were they forced into it? Or did they sell out. And why did the company sign off on it. Are they really that clueless?
Or was it a matter of wrongly interpreting the agreement?
Or was it a matter of wrongly interpreting the agreement?
4
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:12 am to Rougarou4lsu
They, along with their economists and/ or actuarial exprerts, apprea to have misjudged the breadth of the agreement.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:30 am to Rougarou4lsu
Link?
Seriously, not trying to be a jerk. I'd like to know what you're talking about.
Seriously, not trying to be a jerk. I'd like to know what you're talking about.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:36 am to ZereauxSum
In simple terms, they kind of agreed that any business in the southern part of the country can claim losses of income and try and have BP pay. Very little to no proof needed to show BP caused their loss of income for that period of time during and after the oil spill.
My guess is that they were so worried about the bad PR they were receiving that they wanted to try and look like good guys.
My guess is that they were so worried about the bad PR they were receiving that they wanted to try and look like good guys.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:40 am to Rougarou4lsu
I can't explain it. But I don't feel too bad for them.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:41 am to notiger1997
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In simple terms, they kind of agreed that any business in the southern part of the country can claim losses of income and try and have BP pay. Very little to no proof needed to show BP caused their loss of income for that period of time during and after the oil spill.
My guess is that they were so worried about the bad PR they were receiving that they wanted to try and look like good guys.
And for the past 2 years, they have been prosecuting improper and fraudulent claims. There are people sitting in jail right now that tried to claim excessive or non-existent damages from BP.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:59 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
And for the past 2 years, they have been prosecuting improper and fraudulent claims. There are people sitting in jail right now that tried to claim excessive or non-existent damages from BP.
Explain this please. What crime would someone be prosecuted for if they follow the formula provided by BP? Are you saying these people were fraudulent in providing their numbers?
Posted on 5/20/13 at 9:09 am to Bear Is Dead
quote:
What crime would someone be prosecuted for if they follow the formula provided by BP?
Fraud. The level of proof doesn't supersede the law.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 9:21 am to Bear Is Dead
quote:
Explain this please. What crime would someone be prosecuted for if they follow the formula provided by BP?
Exactly. So someone submits a business economic loss claim, using the criteria set forth in the settlement agreement, and are then prosecuted for damages that aren't spill-related? I don't think so.
Fraud perhaps. But no business who submits a claim, turns in their financials, and awaits a settlement offer is going to be prosecuted for an "improper" claim.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 9:28 am to Jwodie
Its much better for BP to have broad standards for submitting a claim because they aren't excluding anyone and don't look like the big bad wolf. Now they can go after people who are trying to take advantage and spin it as they are trying to take money from people who truly need it.
Don't be foolish that you are smarter than a multi billion dollar law team
Don't be foolish that you are smarter than a multi billion dollar law team
This post was edited on 5/20/13 at 9:29 am
Posted on 5/20/13 at 9:30 am to Jwodie
quote:
Fraud perhaps. But no business who submits a claim, turns in their financials, and awaits a settlement offer is going to be prosecuted for an "improper" claim.
Yea I have just never heard of this happening. You must use your tax returns as evidence in proving damages, so unless you really went out of your way to be sleezy (changing numbers on a return), I dont know how this has happened. Hell you can say "BP pay me $5mil", and they can appropriately say no.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 9:31 am to barry
quote:
Don't be foolish that you are smarter than a multi billion dollar law team
So youre saying that they are altering the tax returns?
Posted on 5/20/13 at 9:31 am to barry
If you're referring to fraudulent claims then yes, that makes sense and would be justified. I assume you don't mean BP is going after businesses who submit a claim, provide valid info, etc. all within the criteria BP itself provided and thereafter received settlement monies.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 10:02 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
The people sitting in jail are folks who did things like claim they had a fleet of 20 shrimp boats when all they had was a bateau. This is entirely different from someone like a restaurant in BR who has a dip in 2010 and submits a claim. The dip may or may not be caused by the reduced economic conditions created by the spill, but its not a complete fabrication as a loss truly occurred. This is where the administrator will weigh the claim.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 10:49 am to GetBackToWork
quote:
The people sitting in jail are folks who did things like claim they had a fleet of 20 shrimp boats when all they had was a bateau. This is entirely different from someone like a restaurant in BR who has a dip in 2010 and submits a claim. The dip may or may not be caused by the reduced economic conditions created by the spill, but its not a complete fabrication as a loss truly occurred. This is where the administrator will weigh the claim.
It is not just limited to fishing/boating claims.
I know this as I know someone who claimed their business (legit business they did conduct, were liscensed, and relied on for income) was severely impacted. Said person claimed a lot more than was true. Was asked to provide tax returns to back up the claims a few years later. Could not. Is currently sitting in a federal prison because of it today.
This post was edited on 5/20/13 at 10:51 am
Posted on 5/20/13 at 11:26 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Said person claimed a lot more than was true. Was asked to provide tax returns to back up the claims a few years later. Could not. Is currently sitting in a federal prison because of it today.
Well yea because they gave bogus P/L's that did not coincide with tax returns. That is fraud. But if I used the formula to show that I had a $250k loss by manipulating the monthly breakdown, when I really didnt lose that money, that is not fraud. The formula opens itself up to issues such as that.
BP faces a daunting issue of claims that fit in line with the formula, even though the spill never directly affected those businesses, and may have never incurred a loss.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 11:26 am to barry
quote:
Its much better for BP to have broad standards for submitting a claim because they aren't excluding anyone and don't look like the big bad wolf. Now they can go after people who are trying to take advantage and spin it as they are trying to take money from people who truly need it.
Brilliant
quote:
Don't be foolish that you are smarter than a multi billion dollar law team
Lulz
Posted on 5/20/13 at 11:35 am to Athanatos
Its not fraud to have a bp claim and get paid even though you can't prove "direct loss from oil spill" or HOWEVER (stephen A smith voice) you want to legally verbalize that saying.
Posted on 5/20/13 at 12:40 pm to Chad504boy
on the claim side, a few if not more shrimper/fishermen were SOL when they needed to make claims.
"Sir, BP will be happy to pay you. We just need to know how much you brought in in years 2008, 2009, 2010."
"Sure, I brought in X, Y, and Z".
"Great! Please send us your tax return so that we can document the loss."
"uh... tax return...yeaaaa....uhhh....hmmmm"
Me: LOL at you!
"Sir, BP will be happy to pay you. We just need to know how much you brought in in years 2008, 2009, 2010."
"Sure, I brought in X, Y, and Z".
"Great! Please send us your tax return so that we can document the loss."
"uh... tax return...yeaaaa....uhhh....hmmmm"
Me: LOL at you!
Posted on 5/20/13 at 12:43 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:You're still talking about someone who misrepresented the true numbers. Of course that will get you in trouble.
I know this as I know someone who claimed their business (legit business they did conduct, were liscensed, and relied on for income) was severely impacted. Said person claimed a lot more than was true. Was asked to provide tax returns to back up the claims a few years later. Could not. Is currently sitting in a federal prison because of it today.
This thread is about businesses who claim their down numbers are related to the spill, and get paid for it, whereas the numbers were just as likely to be down due to the economy or any other non-spill factor. It seems BP severely underestimated the number of claims that would be made, or the criteria used to process them.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News