U.S. Supreme Court rejects BP challenge to Gulf spill settlement

[hue]

Source: REUTERS

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected BP's challenge to a settlement agreement over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which the oil giant said allowed certain businesses to get payouts despite being unable to trace their losses to the disaster.

The court’s refusal to hear BP’s appeal means the London-based company will have to make the payments as it continues to deal with the aftermath of the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and rupture of BP's Macondo oil well.

BP signed a settlement agreement in 2012 to compensate spill claimants, but has since argued that the agreement has been interpreted improperly, forcing it to pay businesses that could not show damages.

The court’s unsigned order is the latest setback to BP, which is trying to limit payments over the disaster, which killed 11 people and triggered the largest U.S. offshore oil spill.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/08/us-usa-court-bp-idUSKBN0JM1KR20141208

[belzabubba333]

1. this is surprising -- anyone got any insight to this

[Sgent]

14. Yes

BP signed a class action settlement agreement which didn't require oil spill related damages to be specifically identified. If you had business operations in a affected zone, your damages were calculated using a comparative P&L statement. Didn't matter if you were a gas station or an internet distributor.

-In a geographic region
-Meet certain financial benchmarks (keep in mind in the southern states 2009 was a better year than 2010).
-Get financial settlement.

Depending on your geographic location the financial benchmarks were more or less stringent, but only in some cases were direct damages by the oil spill required to be shown.

BP negotiated this settlement, it went on for two years, then they tried to rescind it because it thought the payouts were too tangential to the damage. Every court that looked at it has basically said you negotiated it and are bound by it.

[belzabubba333]

15. so they said you agreed to it now you pay it. well good still im surprised

i would have expected the corporate judges would welcome the opportunity to help out another corp.

thanks for taking the time to respond

[cstanleytech]

17. Translation: BP signed a contract without reading it and is now feeling the burn? That about it?

If so then that explains why the court didnt agree to hear the case though I am willing to bet that 5 conservative justices on the court are wailing and gnashing their teeth over BP signing such a contract thus making it next to impossible for them to protect BP as much as they probably wanted to.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Very good.

The payment program is not perfect, and too many "little people" were not compensated
but
tis good to see one corporation who is unable to intimidate the Supremes.

[NV Whino]

3. Now that's good news

[BlueCaliDem]

4. !

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL] Corporate-bought-and-paid-for Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the commands of an oil corporation?? Now I've seen everything!

[Man from Pickens]

6. People might notice

that the original settlement let them get away like bandits, paying for only a fraction of the actual damage caused

if they had to pay everything they should be liable for, they would be bankrupt, and they'd take a lot of the UK pension system with it since so much is invested in BP

[BlueCaliDem]

7. I'm just rocking back on my heels that the Cons on SCOTUS rejected BP's challenge

to pay that fraction of the actual damage caused. I mean, why should BP have to pay at all, is their thinking and, I thought, would be the thinking of the pro-corporate Conservatives on our highest court.

[staggerleem]

11. Don' t give SCOTUS too much credit here.

Remember that what they decided was to NOT hear an appeal, i. e., to do nothing more to help BP avoid the agreement that they signed on to. The motivation could have been simple laziness.

[cstanleytech]

18. Oh I am willing to bet it wasn't laziness rather they just couldnt find any way to bail BP out

from the agreement BP signed and that if there had been that they would have moved heaven and earth to hear the case in order to assist BP.

[Hoppy]

8. Yeah, whatzamatter with them. Bid'ness made our country great.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. No denying that - but unregulated businesses caused Wall Street crashes and failed economies.

And yes, I know you were using sarcasm.

[staggerleem]

12. BRITISH bid'ness ...

... on the other hand, did NOT make our country great.

I suppose that a person could say that the policies of ONE British bid'ness (the East India Company) actually MADE our country - or at least provided a rallying point for the revolution that created our country. Yes, one could indeed say, without too much fear of contradiction, that the USA was founded in opposition to what was, at the time, the world's largest multinational corporation.

Since then, however, not so much.

[Hoppy]

13. O.T.O.H., wasn't Hancock a tea merchant whose bid'ness was hampered by the Tea Act?

[RationalMan]

5. It is hard to say........

The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to issue a stay on the 5th Circuit's ruling pending a writ of certiorari. That request for a stay was denied shortly thereafter. The petitioner filed a formal petition for a writ of certiorari a few months later in early August.

As it takes only 4 of the 9 justices to issue a writ, we can expect that Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted for the writ. It appears they weren't able to get any of the remaining justices to join them.

Whether the other justices withheld their vote for the writ because of the actual legal issues in the case and their review of the 5th Circuit and U.S. District Court's rulings or because they didn't want to get involved in this specific issue. The Court has been reluctant to take up "one-off" cases - i.e. where their decision will be limited to the specific parties in one case. They sometimes take up these one-off cases where their resulting holding will have broader application across the country. They may have seen this as being a very fact-specific case that would not affect parties beyond this case and that the District Court and 5th Circuit seem to have handled the controversy appropriately.

[belzabubba333]

16. writ of certiorari. defined here

Answer A petition for a writ of certiorari is the documentation sent to the Supreme Court of the United States to request that they review a case

[RationalMan]

19. Yes, a petition for a writ of certiorari is a request to the SCOTUS to hear a case

where their review is not required under the Constitution. The SCOTUS is the court of first instance in some cases such as those between the states where they must hear the case. But in other cases where original jurisdiction is in the District Court and where appeal has been taken and decided by a competent Circuit Court, the SCOTUS is not required to hear the case.

In cases like this of a very specific set of facts and where the outcome is only going to affect the specific parties to the case the Court may not issue a writ. They may, as they did here, allow the Circuit Court holding to stand.

[bahrbearian]

9. "The Supreme Court needs to apologize to BP"

[Sunlei]

20. Thank you, President Obama. President Obama signed the RESTORE Act into law on July 6, 2012. The RE

President Obama signed the RESTORE Act into law on July 6, 2012. The RESTORE Act creates a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund. The Fund will receive 80% of any civil penalties paid under the Clean Water Act by the parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill

http://www.restorethegulf.gov

[Sgent]

21. I'm happy he signed it

but it has no bearing on this case.

This case involves the economic (not criminal or civil infractions) settlement between BP and affected businesses.

Essentially BP signed a settlement agreement, then disagreed how the settlement agreement was interpreted by the claims administrator and the court. BP signed an agreement that was probably too broad in certain respects, but they did sign it and its not like they didn't have legal representation.

[Sunlei]

22. Without President Obamas actions there would not have even been a camera on that failed well.