Environment & Energy

Eugene

(61,900 posts) Wed May 28, 2014, 08:40 PM May 2014

BP asks U.S. Supreme Court justice to block Gulf spill payments

Source: Reuters

BP asks U.S. Supreme Court justice to block Gulf spill payments

BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
WASHINGTON Wed May 28, 2014 8:14pm EDT

(Reuters) - BP Plc (BP.L) on Wednesday asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to allow the company to avoid making payments to businesses demanding compensation for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill while litigation continues.

The company acted after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction earlier in the day that had prevented payments being made. Last week, the court had decided not to revisit a decision rejecting BP's bid to block payments to businesses that could not trace their economic losses to the disaster.

Scalia, who has responsibility for emergency applications arising from the 5th Circuit, can either act on BP's request himself or refer the matter to the nine-member court as a whole. There is no specific deadline by which the court must act.

In the new court filing, BP's lawyers say that if the payments are not blocked, "countless awards totaling potentially hundreds of millions of dollars will be irreparably scattered to claimants that suffered no injury traceable to BP's conduct."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/29/us-usa-court-bp-idUSKBN0E82HV20140529

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BP asks U.S. Supreme Court justice to block Gulf spill payments (Original Post) Eugene May 2014 OP

to claimants that suffered no injury traceable to BP's conduct. Submariner May 2014 #1

They're trying to switch off the opportunists who climbed aboard the gravy train Nihil May 2014 #2

they negotiated the terms Leme May 2014 #3

If BP has an appeal pending, there's a good case for a stay Jim Lane May 2014 #4

Submariner

(12,504 posts)

1. to claimants that suffered no injury traceable to BP's conduct.

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 08:52 PM

May 2014

I'm sure BP's definition of traceable is a lot different than how it has been experienced by the locals. EVERY person who lives in the Gulf was impacted directly or indirectly in some way shape or form.

BP needs to STFU and man up and pay all the bills. BP brought this on themselves. Live with it. Deal with it. But pay through the nose.

Nihil

(13,508 posts)

2. They're trying to switch off the opportunists who climbed aboard the gravy train

Reply to Submariner (Reply #1)

Thu May 29, 2014, 05:26 AM

May 2014

> EVERY person who lives in the Gulf was impacted directly or indirectly in some way shape or form.

EVERY person who lives in the Gulf has been living with the pollution from oil & gas companies
for most/all of their lives (not to mention the shit - literally - that the agricultural lobby has been
dumping in the Gulf for decades) yet it's only BP that has to pay?

Even a cash cow gets fed up of being milked by parasites.

There are still people with a genuine need for compensation; don't let the scammers divert that
money to their own (over-full) pockets.

Leme

(1,092 posts)

3. they negotiated the terms

Reply to Nihil (Reply #2)

Thu May 29, 2014, 05:49 AM

May 2014

BP certainly had expensive lawyers. Perhaps they should sue their lawyers for malpractice.

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

4. If BP has an appeal pending, there's a good case for a stay

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Thu May 29, 2014, 02:28 PM

May 2014

Suppose BP makes numerous payments and then, on appeal, wins a ruling that it doesn't have to make those payments. Is it supposed to go chasing down every payee to demand a refund? and sue the ones that don't comply?

A better solution is that BP doesn't have to make the payments yet, but must bond the appeal (pay a very well heeled insurance company to issue a bond), so that the payees know the money will be available and BP won't blow it on something else while fighting in court. In addition, if BP eventually does have to make the payments, it should have to pay interest for the period of the delay.

If this case were in New York State courts (the system I know something about), BP wouldn't even have to ask for such a stay. It would be automatic if BP bonded the appeal. The payees' entitlement to interest would also be automatic.

Reply to this discussion