Poll - should BP be put into receivership?

[grahamhgreen]

Court-appointed receivers are "the most powerful and independent of the judicially-appointed managers."<2> Unlike special masters and monitors, "the receiver completely displaces the defendants: the receiver makes large and small decisions, spends the organization’s funds, and controls hiring and firing determinations.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receivership?wasRedirected=true

[blondeatlast]

1. Yes, indeed. nt

[notesdev]

2. No

it should be seized and liquidated. Leaving the corporate structure in place is just asking for this to happen again. The point has to be to break up the dangerous way they do business, if they are intact then they will keep going as is no matter who is nominally in charge.

[okieinpain]

5. how do you do that to an international company. n/t

[NightWatcher]

8. seize their domestic assets the same way you'd arrest and seize the assets of a criminal

If a mass murdered from the UK came here and killed a dozen people, you'd arrest him and freeze his bank accounts to cover his expenses. Treat the corporations the same way.

[Ian David]

3. Yes. But we need to get the gulf state governors to ask us to do it.

See, if a bunch of Repuke governors want it, it's okay.

Otherwise, it's "Socialism."

[dipsydoodle]

4. You cannot put BP into receivership.

You have no means of doing so aside and neither would not be in your own best interests to do so.

[Jennicut]

6. Is it legal, is it a foreign company, isn't it?

[dipsydoodle]

11. I'm not sure that's the issue

but it may influence it. To apply for it to be put into administration would require substantive proof of what they owe by a creditor - - I repeat objective substantive proof not subjective feelings. I doubt your government would do that and certainly not prior to a court case. Others may chose to do so through an english court which proabably has jurisdiction over this this BP plc being registered in the UK. Use of an english court should not be taken as implying any favoritism on the issue. If this was done then shooting yourselves in the foot would be an understatement. Personally I don't give a shit whether or not BP beconmes part of Petrochina but both our governments do - receivership could help accelerate that.

[grahamhgreen]

18. According to Sec. Robert Riech we can!

BP America, anyway.

[dipsydoodle]

22. It might be different

if BP America was an individual loose company but its not : its a division of plc.

[Statistical]

7. Under what legal atuhority? n/t

[Laelth]

16. Congress makes the law of the United States. They could do this if they wanted to. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

9. Other

How?

It's a global corporation. How the fuck do you put a global corporation into receivership?

[Jackpine Radical]

13. It's gotta be chartered somewhere.

[grahamhgreen]

19. Short of war - just BP America.

[libtodeath]

10. Yes

K&R

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Yes, but only because

you didn't have a "Holy fuck, yes, Right now!!!11!" alternative.

[ThomWV]

14. And just what authority, what law, would allow that to happen?

Do you think its a good idea for Government to confiscate private property at the whim of some official?

[Laelth]

17. Congress makes the law of the United States. They could do this if they wanted to.

Whether it's a good idea is another issue. In most cases, I think government restraint and a marginal respect for property rights is the better policy.

For global environmental criminals who, though their negligence, have created the greatest environmental catastrophe in our history, I see no need for restraint. Quite the contrary. I see an immanent need to act.

Nationalize BP's U.S. holdings now!

:dem:

-Laelth

[grahamhgreen]

20. "Obama has implicit authority through laws and regulations dealing with offshore drilling

especially the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. By analogy, if a nuclear reactor were melting down, the President would use his regulatory authority over nuclear energy to take temporary control over the plant and the relevant parts of the corporation that ran it."

http://robertreich.org/post/655678383/putting-bp-under-temporary-receivership-some-qs-and-as


As far as is it a good idea?

It's a bad idea to allow greed to destroy the Gulf of Mexico. IMHO.

Yes, its a great idea to not allow the fox to be in charge of the hen-house.

[Laelth]

15. I'd prefer for all of BP's U.S. Operations to be nationalized.

But I would take a receivership if I couldn't get nationalization.

:dem:

-Laelth

[WillyT]

21. Yes !!! - K & R !!!

:kick: