This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/08/bp-appeals-deepwater-horizon-claims

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
BP appeals against 'inflated' Deepwater Horizon claims BP appeals against 'inflated' Deepwater Horizon claims
(2 months later)
BP is being forced to pay inflated and fictitious claims to businesses because of the way a court-appointed administrator is making payments from a legal settlement, following the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the company's attorney said on Monday.BP is being forced to pay inflated and fictitious claims to businesses because of the way a court-appointed administrator is making payments from a legal settlement, following the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the company's attorney said on Monday.
Ted Olson made the arguments in a packed courtroom before a three-judge panel of the 5th US circuit court of appeals. A lower court has already refused to block payments to businesses that claim the spill cost them money.Ted Olson made the arguments in a packed courtroom before a three-judge panel of the 5th US circuit court of appeals. A lower court has already refused to block payments to businesses that claim the spill cost them money.
At stake are billions of dollars in settlement payments, stemming from the blowout of BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which killed 11 people and caused an environmental disaster.At stake are billions of dollars in settlement payments, stemming from the blowout of BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which killed 11 people and caused an environmental disaster.
Samuel Issacharoff, an attorney for Gulf Coast businesses and residents, argued the oil company was aware of the settlement terms and the administrator's methods. He questioned whether the appeals court has the authority to change that agreement.Samuel Issacharoff, an attorney for Gulf Coast businesses and residents, argued the oil company was aware of the settlement terms and the administrator's methods. He questioned whether the appeals court has the authority to change that agreement.
"There is no order of the lower court that is capable of being reviewed by this court," Issacharoff said."There is no order of the lower court that is capable of being reviewed by this court," Issacharoff said.
Olson, who served as solicitor general under former president George W Bush, attacked the payout process. "Irreparable injustices are taking place and money is being dispensed to parties from whom it may not be recoverable," he said. Under the settlement, BP initially estimated that it would pay $7.8bn (£5.2bn) to resolve claims by tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents and businesses. Now the company says it no longer can give a reliable estimate for how much the deal will cost, amid reports that it could be double the initial forecast.Olson, who served as solicitor general under former president George W Bush, attacked the payout process. "Irreparable injustices are taking place and money is being dispensed to parties from whom it may not be recoverable," he said. Under the settlement, BP initially estimated that it would pay $7.8bn (£5.2bn) to resolve claims by tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents and businesses. Now the company says it no longer can give a reliable estimate for how much the deal will cost, amid reports that it could be double the initial forecast.
After the settlement was announced last year, a judge appointed attorney Patrick Juneau to take over the process of evaluating and paying claims.After the settlement was announced last year, a judge appointed attorney Patrick Juneau to take over the process of evaluating and paying claims.
Awards to businesses are based on a comparison of their revenues and expenses before and after the spill. BP says a "policy decision" that Juneau announced in January 2013 allows businesses to manipulate those figures.Awards to businesses are based on a comparison of their revenues and expenses before and after the spill. BP says a "policy decision" that Juneau announced in January 2013 allows businesses to manipulate those figures.
The panel opened Monday's hearing by asking Olson whether the court has jurisdiction in a case involving a settlement already approved by the parties in the case and a US district court judge. Judge James Dennis seemed sceptical at times, asking: "How can we go beyond the four corners of the agreement?"The panel opened Monday's hearing by asking Olson whether the court has jurisdiction in a case involving a settlement already approved by the parties in the case and a US district court judge. Judge James Dennis seemed sceptical at times, asking: "How can we go beyond the four corners of the agreement?"
BP has asserted that the judge who approved the deal and a claims administrator have misinterpreted the settlement, allowing thousands of businesses to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for inflated and fictitious losses.BP has asserted that the judge who approved the deal and a claims administrator have misinterpreted the settlement, allowing thousands of businesses to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for inflated and fictitious losses.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.