Insights from the Fairness Hearing-BP Deep Horizon Oil Spill

There is little to be gained from speculating on what happened during the Fairness hearing, but I will speculate on it anyway.
Perhaps the highlight from the excitement standpoint was the ejectment of a small group "streaming" the hearing over the internet.  This is largely an irrelevant act (recordation and ejectment) since the entire process (except those parts which might be called "sidebars" by the court) was available over the phones and is typed up as a part of the pemanent court record. 
This blog post will not try to repeat everything that happened, but will focus on one particular issue, the effect of the fairness hearing on those who "opted out" of the settlement.
There are some sad, perhaps ironic matters that were pointed out, the attorney who signed his clients' opt out petitions and thereby potentially invalidated them.  These are a side show to the point I am making.
What I heard in response to every objection to "fairness" was that "anyone who didn't like what they get under the settlement" could "opt out" of the settlement.  Because this was used over and over again, the single hammer to some extent in the court's arsenal of rebuttal, it stands to reason that the court must require the defendants to take any opt out seriously.  More importantly, the court must be willing to give as much attention to the "opted out" cases as the others or the court is being "unfair" by giving this as the only remedy necessary, but then treating the opting out parties as the "red headed stepchildren" of the oil spill.
Likewise, if BP does not treat Opt Outs fairly, then the court has an obligation to sanction BP unless BP distances itself from the court's position, something they did not do.
The good news for everyone, is that there are very few opt outs relatively speaking and treating them all fairly and in good time, speed being one aspect of treating them in common with the class, shoudl be an easy matter for everyone concerned.