One of the things those of us who actually read everything filed in court see is that an unbelievable amount of information is redacted.
Why?
What is the reason for redacting? It isn't to save embarrassment...or is it? One has to recognize the power of an independent branch of the United States government where the members are appointed for life. Give me that job. The judge can do whatever is fair, so what is the concept here? A bigger question is when will the final ruling on all this redacted information be entered?
If I had the time, I would write a history of this litigation, but other things call out to me.
This week saw two big events; one a settlement for a billion dollars by Haliburton, the other a 153 page judgment finding BP liable for punitive damages (the summary of this opinion which includes pictures is only a single page). Several parties were also found not liable.
I had the opportunity to listen to the non-psc (plaintiff steering committee) side of the Haliburton deal. It would be disingenuous of me to comment, but what I heard was interesting and points out something that I think is important.
First, we've waited four years for some sort of remedy here, but for some reason the PSC can't get an agreement where the people can find out what they will get before they sign off on it? I think the comments provide one answer, perhaps there is another one.
So here is what I think I heard: This Haliburton agreement is more of the same from the prior settlement with bp because it doesn't say anything specific, there is no ability for anyone to know what, if anything it will yield, the costs of administering it, including the huge fees which are primarily, if not exclusively, to the psc, come out of the amount set aside and unlike the BP settlement, it has a cap, albeit a high one.
Any settlement that doesn't define what the parties to it have to pay and receive in return is motivated by something other than justice in my opinion. What here? First, the huge amount paid to the attorneys for the plaintiffs who accepted this settlement. Second, it eliminates most of the future liability of the defendant. It takes the majority of the work out of a court system that could not handle all of the work this case would otherwise generate. What is left out, what parties are excluded? Those who are injured, of course.
The first bp settlement for all its flaws, was a compromise. It was a slap in the face of thousands, if not millions who were injured by the spill; but before it was turned into a circus by BP and the courts, it was designed to be a compromise verdict, punishing many for trying as hard as they could, rewarding others randomly, but dealing with a situation that was too much to deal with any other way within the short time frame at the time. Of course, it collapsed into an enabling act nightmare that may yet throw the entire thing into some crazy nether-legal world; but we'll probably know about that this year.
The supreme court is the "big tent", but there are hearings this month in district court, BP taking settlements that they signed off on with individuals, very specific ones where BP wants nothing less than to take the money back from individuals who agreed to specific amounts in exchange for specific releases. There's no fraud in these, just one more aspect of bp's scorched earth strategy. Well, bp, don't admit you did anything wrong but you're facing 19 billion in punitive damages and the line of cases will be shorter, but still waiting when the court finally releases them for trial.
This latest Haliburton settlement is predicted to have little of the positive that the prior settlement had and much of the negative, designed mainly for to help line the pockets of those who made the settlement either by adding money to them or limiting how much comes out, but lets see how the parties defend what they have proposed.
Next year the case will take huge strides towards resolution, however long in the future the final resolution will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment