re: BP story on fraud DW Horizon spill settlement from 60 minutes

It's important to add that one issue that BP won on was requiring a matching of expenses to revenue, which in some cases not doing so may have led to much higher claims than otherwise. This is on the compensation aspect of it.

quote:

---

It's a class settlement, the downside is some claims that may not have prevailed at full trial; the upside is closing the door on any and all such claims and avoiding full trial.

---

You still have to prove causation to be a part of a class in a class settlement.

II. “Fictitious” claims5 BP alleges not only that the Administrator's interpretation of the disputed terms inflates awards to legitimate BEL claimants, but also that the interpretation results in awards to BEL claimants who admittedly either have suffered no loss at all or have suffered losses that were not caused by the oil spill. Such claimants would have no colorable legal claim. See Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 326 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 3081, 82 L.Ed.2d 242 (1984) (defining a “colorable claim” as one with “some possible validity”). Absent a loss, a claimant has suffered no injury. Unless a claimant can colorably assert a loss, it lacks standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (noting that an injury is a required element of constitutional standing); Jobe v. ATR Mktg., Inc., 87 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir.1996) (“[T]he conventional tort elements in a negligence action are duty, breach of duty, proximate causation and injury.”). Similarly, if a claimant has suffered a loss, but it has no colorable claim that the loss was caused by the spill, it also lacks standing and cannot state a claim. It lacks standing because it cannot allege “a causal connection” between its loss and the spill. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Its injury is not “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant;” rather, it is “the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Id. (citation, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). Moreover, it cannot state a claim because it is unable to plead the causation element of a negligence cause of action. See Jobe, 87 F.3d at 753. Therefore, such non-colorable claims do not constitute Article III cases or controversies and are not founded on any substantive right.6

In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326, 340 (5th Cir. 2013)

quote:

---

Standing to sue in a court of law.

Not standing to make a claim under an administrative scheme agreed to by the parties.

---

I agree with you there. The problem is that the court has no legal authority under Article III to enforce the settlement. See the last part of citation from the case that is in bold, underlined, and in italics.

The Supreme Court has cautioned that “Rule 23's requirements must be interpreted in keeping with Article III constraints, and with the Rules Enabling Act, which instructs that rules of procedure ‘shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.’ ”7 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)); see also id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 82's mandate that “rules shall not be construed to extend ... the [subject-matter] jurisdiction of the United States district courts” (alterations in original)); Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 343 (3d Cir.2011)

In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326, 341 (5th Cir. 2013)

For the laymen, Rules of Civil Procedure 23 deals with class actions. The second portion of the above citation in bold is why I argue that this is not an issue regarding the "settlement" in this case. The issue is the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district court. As someone above stated, if the claims administrator had vetted the claims this would work. THAT IS A HUGE JOB, no doubt about it. This is a huge case with thousands of claimants. Rewarding the fraudulent claims is just as bad as BP not making the legitimate claimants whole. This is why I argue for BP in this matter. NOT for BP's sake, but for the sake of those that legitimately were damaged by BP.

quote:

---

BP should be held to the deal they made but damn they took it up the caboose on that deal.

---

Sums up my feelings perfectly.

quote:

---

BP should be held to the deal they made but damn they took it up the caboose on that deal.

---

quote:

---

Sums up my feelings perfectly.

---

Same here. BP is not an unsophisticated poorly represented company. They knew exactly what they were agreeing to and most likely planned to back out of it once the dust settled. They knew they could argue this later so they agreed to it.