Punishing BP: 6 brutal proposals

[n2doc]

Commentators are calling for heads to roll at BP — literally, in some cases — over its disastrous Gulf oil spill. What's the appropriate penalty?
POSTED ON MAY 28, 2010, AT 12:45 PM

How should BP pay for the oil spill in the Gulf? Photo: Flickr SEE ALL 24 PHOTOS
Eleven people are dead and the Gulf of Mexico has become ground zero of America's worst-ever oil spill. Who's to blame? In the eyes of most commentators, BP tops the list. More than a month after the Deepwater Horizon blew up and crude began spewing into sea, almost three quarters of Americans say BP is doing a "poor" or "very poor" job dealing with the accident, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll, and calls to punish the oil giant are gaining in volume. But what's the right penalty? Here are six disciplinary options that have been floated by pundits and advocacy groups:

1. Make BP pay and pay and pay
Congressional Democrats, worried that BP will leave taxpayers footing the bill for the oil spill, are trying to ensure that BP pays big. The main event is trying to raise BP's federal civil liability limit to $10 billion, from $75 million (Republicans have blocked the effort). But that may just be the beginning: The federal government can, and probably will, fine BP $4,300 for each barrel of oil spilled. Add in clean-up and legal costs, and BP's on the hook for "tens of billions," says University of Michigan environmental law professor David Uhlmann. That may not be unrealistic: In the past decade, BP has booked profits of $163 billion.

2. Void all its government contracts
Even before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Environmental Protection Agency was weighing whether to declare BP ineligible for all U.S. government contracts based on four separate cases of criminal conduct in the past decade. The most severe form of the penalty, would terminate all BP's deals with the federal government (including, for instance, military gasoline purchases) and potentially bar the company from drilling on public land. If enacted, this penalty could cost BP up to $16 billion annually in lost revenue, according to one estimate.

3. Kill the company
It's time to really give BP the "corporate death penalty — being shut down, dissolved, and having their assets sold off," says progressive talk radio host Thom Hartmann in The Huffington Post. All this death and destruction result from the company's reckless and shortsighted desire "to save a little money." And killing BP in return would hardly be unprecedented: In America's first 100 years, we shut down an average of 2,000 "rogue corporations" each year.


more
http://theweek.com/article/index/203410/punishing-bp-6-brutal-proposals

[Oceansaway]

1. K&R...n/t

[femrap]

2. Every time I drive by a BP

gas station, I see very little traffic. The gas station across the street is full.

I won't buy gas from them....or any of their subsidiaries.

I feel sorry for the franchisee who has bought into BP.

[Andy823]

3. K&R

Democrats need to go on the attack big time with the bill to raise limits so BP can't dump this on the taxpayers! They need to force votes daily, keep it in the public eye, and show voters that the republicans are trying to get BP off the hook and let them, he taxpayers, foot the bill on this mess! Now there will always be the loyal brain dead followers of the right who will not see the facts, but the vast majority of americans are already ticked off and keeping these kinds of things out there for them to see, will only help them to see just who it is the republicans are really working for!

[jp11]

4. Yes on 1, 2, some movement on 5, 4, and 3 is a reach but I'm okay if the other options result in

3. The car analogy is ridiculous, I'd hope some of the mid or lower level people in charge see some jail time for their behavior of pushing rules/ignoring safety policies but the higher ups will probably be shielded simply by not having been involved in the daily workings.

The boycotts won't last and for the most part won't hurt the company, but more the people who own/operate and employ the businesses that make/sell the products.

1,2 and 5 in my mind get us 'justice', or a realistic semblance of it. 3 and 4 are more to make people feel better, and 6 is the ultimate expression of that, just about every company operates on the idea of trying 'to save a little money' some obviously more so than others. Taking out BP for that and anger over this disaster won't change any corporation's ideals of making more money by virtually any means they can, none of them think that their greed is going to get the better of them.

[Scuba]

5. Let's examine these options...

Option 1 has some merit, on the surface. It assumes BP will continue to operate, and operate profitably, in the future and that we can 'garnish' their earnings. Problem is with the assumptions. I'll predict that if this model were imposed, BP would somehow be bankrupt in a year or two, and the American people would get stiffed, again.

Option 2 has no merit whatsoever. It say's 'you were bad, so we're not going to do business with you anymore'. This would presumably hurt BP's bottom line and could result in their bankruptcy. Once again, you and I pick up the tab for the cleanup and Gulf-area residents (and others) can just suck it up over their lost jobs, lives, etc. Gee, who could have seen that coming? Oh yeah, now the US military and other government departments can buy oil at further-inflated prices since there's less competition.

Option 3 makes no sense whatsoever. Yeah, sell their assets to other bad companies at fire-sale prices. That'll hurt Big Oil. :sarcasm: Don't these people realize that the same powerful families own most of each of these companies?

The real answer is to nationalize them. Use future profits to clean up and compensate victims.

Comments and criticisms welcome.

[Angry Dragon]

6. Personality of a Corporation

Each company acquires its personality from its executives and its leaders. Bp has a history of leaving death and destruction in its wake. The people at the top can not claim they could not know that by skirting safety that people could die, because they have killed people in the past and have done nothing to change that environment. Past knowledge of crimes is in their history.

I see no reason that the execs can not be held liable for murder. They knew from past experience that people could be killed or hurt by their actions or inactions. If they allowed things to continue in this manner and did nothing about it then they are murderers. They could have left the company, no one forced them to work for bp, so by staying they condoned murder and destruction. Using the defense of just following orders does not hold up.

Until executives are held personally responsible for the actions of their murderous corporations nothing will change. It is time to stop people from being able to hide behind the protection of the cloak of secrecy of large corporations.

If you or I hurt or harm someone we are held responsible, why should this not also apply to individuals within corporations??

[Scuba]

8. +1

[dipsydoodle]

7. we shut down an average of 2,000 "rogue corporations " each year.

Oh - how many of those are US corporations ?

[whopis01]

14. BP America (the company that actually owns the well) is a US corporation

While shutting down the parent corporation may be much more difficult due to it being non-US, that issue doesn't apply to BP America.

[dipsydoodle]

16. A simple search would show you

that BP America is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP plc.

Your move.

[whopis01]

21. It is a subsidiary is (as opposed to a foreign branch), so it is a separate entity.

Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities when it comes to taxation, regulation, and even lawsuits. Their assets and liabilities are kept separate.

A US corporation remains a US corporation even if it is owned by a foreign entity.

One of the reasons companies create subsidiaries is to isolate the main company from the liabilities of the subsidiary. However, to enjoy that advantage, the companies must be kept legally distinct and separate. So while it may be difficult for the US government to go directly after the parent company, BP America is a US corporation - who owns it doesn't matter.

And while I appreciate the fact that you are trying to make your point, the aggressive "your move" attitude really isn't necessary. This isn't a game or a challenge, or even a debate. It is just a discussion between people. I'm not trying to one-up you or anything like that - just trying to have a conversation.

[Buns_of_Fire]

9. Raise the liability cap? Nah. ELIMINATE the liability cap!

And #7: Bring back the stocks in the town square. Make it a rolling exhibit on a flatbed trailer, from town to town, and allow people to bring all the nice juicy rotten vegetables they can gather. Tar balls would be a nice addition to the ammunition, too. I don't know how many stocks would be necessary, but I'm thinking enough to hold the CEO, all the senior vice presidents, and the Board of Directors. And DICK Cheenee, just because he SHOULD be there with them.

But I think an execution of Tony Hayward by the state is totally unnecessary. His own stockholders will probably take care of that.

[Romulox]

11. The corporate structure already provides more liability cap than these "persons" deserve... nt

[Romulox]

10. I doubt the present administration would ever give BP the "corporate death penalty"

$$$

:rofl:

[JoshieR]

12. Does BP fall under the jurisdiction of the US government?

In that they have the power to shut BP down? I would think that an international company such as BP would operate outside of the jurisdiction of the US.

[whopis01]

15. BP America (the company that owns the well) is a US company.

It falls entirely within the jurisdiction of the US.

As far as for the rest of the company, while they may be out of the reach of the US, I am sure that they could be prevented from doing business within the US.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Wrong.

Defendant BP America, Inc . is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Warrenville, Illinois, but doing business in the State of Mississippi and throughout
the United States. BP America, Inc. is a subsidiary of BP, PLC .

http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/pdf/20100506-ms-complaint.pdf see page 4 para 11.

[whopis01]

20. Did you actually read what you quoted and directed me to?

I said that BP America was a US company.

You say that I am wrong and quote a lawsuit that states:

"BP America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation"

Unless you are trying to claim that by being a subsidiary of a foreign company somehow makes them no longer a US company, I truly fail to see what you were trying to point out.

[blindpig]

13. Expropriate without compensation

[rhett o rick]

18. Who is going to do this? Currently BP seems to be completely in charge. They tell our president

which way to jump. I think we may have seen the tipping point.

[Fozzledick]

19. A modest proposal: arrest BP and put it in jail

Since the Extreme Court has ruled that a corporation is a person, why not treat it like one? Arrest it, prosecute it as a common criminal, and put it in prison!

Of course there's no clear law or precedent defining the actual physical "corpus" of a corporate person, but this and other recent rulings have clearly established the authority of courts to rule based on personal bias and expediency without regard for law or precedent, so any judge hearing the case is free to use his imagination to define what constitutes the body of a corporation.