- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: BP story on fraud DW Horizon spill settlement from 60 minutes
Posted on 5/6/14 at 5:27 pm to eng08
Posted on 5/6/14 at 5:27 pm to eng08
quote:
BP's lawyers were told that the settlement plan was a bad design (by the attorneys argueing for the plaintiffs) they said "we know it will have some unintended payouts, but we want to show our goodwill to the state of LA."
eng08, you understand this entire situation and summed it up right here. This settlement agreement wasn't complex. Everyone knew it was a bad deal for BP and even told BP that. BP wanted to do it. BP knew Pizza Restaurants in Shreveport would be filing if they met the criteria but they said let's do it.
1
Posted on 5/7/14 at 12:43 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Your zone cannot be fraudulent. You have an address for your business and it has to agree to your tax returns. That is pretty straight forward. There are not that many different industries and it is pretty obvious if you are tourism related or seafood related. I don't think many have read the settlement but it is pretty freaking straight forward. BP knew every business in Louisiana would be potential claimants.
I know. I was just explaining how zone and industry may not determine if you have a claim but they do affect causation.
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 5:06 am to Mudge87
The biggest thorn in this for BP is this, the economy was circling the shitter during this time frame so even if a business is being 100% honest about everything they will still fit into the criterea for a payout from BP. Yes they agreed to the terms, but they had no idea how this was going to shake out. They should have learned about the larcenous hearts of the gulf south post Katrina but didn't. Even though they fricked up it does not excuse hairdressers and physical trainers getting handouts for nothing. After all they are just going to pass this on to you and me at the pump.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 6:10 am to lsu13lsu
So a business that had not been in business or two years prior to the spill is deserving of millions of dollars. There were many cases cited that had the same circumstances with before and after spill "damages" claimed.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:34 am to kingbob
quote:
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.
Well if the commercial fisherman were legit they have records of their catches and the prices they were paid on state docs called "trip tickets". If they were actually catching more and not reporting then screw them anyway for trying to cheat the system.
quote:
As usual, though, the lawyers were the only ones who really made any money off of this disaster.
I wonder if BP will ever go after the Feinberg group who took over the process about 6 months after the Horizon incident... that's when the culture of fraud was allowed to take advantage of the system at that time.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:37 am to Zephyrius
BP didn't realize they were dealing with Nigerian style corruption when they hired local lawyers. BP has every right to go back on the deal as it was illegally drawn up.
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 8:43 am to Zephyrius
quote:
Well if the commercial fisherman were legit they have records of their catches and the prices they were paid on state docs called "trip tickets". If they were actually catching more and not reporting then screw them anyway for trying to cheat the system.
My wife's cousins are shrimp trawlers. They were hired by BP to assist in the clean-up. They had a legitimate claim against BP, as it did affect their shrimping season. They also suffered affects from cleaning up the spill. They are doing better, now. But shortly after it happened, each one of them were coughing up shite months after the cleanup finished.
This is a small example of legitimate claims.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:43 am to C
BP didn't have local lawyers, their guys were Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Princeton.
The local guys were on the other side of the table: Tulane, Loyola, LSU, South Carolina and a few other schools.
The local guys probably didn't understand every 5th word, but BP still got cheated by creating a bad deal for themselves?
Also the Freiburg group just administrated the claims, they were only allowed to approve or deny via the claims process that BP created.
I'm fairly certain the judge has already denied their request to re-evaluate the payout deal once in the last few months.
The local guys were on the other side of the table: Tulane, Loyola, LSU, South Carolina and a few other schools.
The local guys probably didn't understand every 5th word, but BP still got cheated by creating a bad deal for themselves?
Also the Freiburg group just administrated the claims, they were only allowed to approve or deny via the claims process that BP created.
I'm fairly certain the judge has already denied their request to re-evaluate the payout deal once in the last few months.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:45 am to C
quote:
BP has every right to go back on the deal as it was illegally drawn up.
How was it illegally drawn up?
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:50 am to CITWTT
quote:
So a business that had not been in business or two years prior to the spill is deserving of millions of dollars. There were many cases cited that had the same circumstances with before and after spill "damages" claimed.
No they would not qualify.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:50 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
BP knew Pizza Restaurants in Shreveport would be filing if they met the criteria but they said let's
Agreed, but I'm not sure they took recession issues into effect...a perfect storm if you will..
Just about every business in Louisiana could show a lower revenue in the time period after the spill. But I think they would have had lower revenues anyway. I'm no economy genius, but everything slowed around that time nationwide, right?
I know of a flooring store in Jennings, LA that received over $200k! They followed the guidelines and all was done correctly, but there is no way in bell their falloff of business was from the spill. Lol
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:58 am to GeeOH
I don't buy for one second this idea that BP didn't know. They had an army of the best lawyers, accountants and consultants working on this settlement that was negotiated over about two years.
It's absolutely ludicrous to think they didn't know any and all of the downsides and risks.
It's absolutely ludicrous to think they didn't know any and all of the downsides and risks.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:59 am to USMCTiger03
I agree. They are far from an unsophisticated party. They got the deal done in a hurry to get the PR bump, but now want to renege once the emotions and the bad images on TV have died down.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 8:59 am to GeeOH
Exactly, but BP said they wanted to include the whole state in the claims process and open it to every business. The local guys ALL repeatedly told their ace legal team that was a bad idea. BP said we don't care we want to do it that way.
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 9:02 am to kingbob
quote:
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.
I'm thinking of the old saying ....
Ain't Karma a b!tch!
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 9:05 am to cave canem
quote:
The biggest thorn in this for BP is this, the economy was circling the shitter during this time frame so even if a business is being 100% honest about everything they will still fit into the criterea for a payout from BP. Yes they agreed to the terms, but they had no idea how this was going to shake out.
You are completely wrong here. BP was told by the judge and the Plaintiffs how this would shake out and they still agreed. It is documented. Go read the article I posted.
quote:
After all they are just going to pass this on to you and me at the pump.
Something tells me you do not know how a barrel of oil is sold.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News