There’s no mechanism to compensate for long term economic and environmental damages. To put it in perspective the recession did a whole lot more to BP’s bottom line than the spill will ever do.

“that analysts are predicting a possible target of $5 a gallon gasoline this summer,”; well if Goldman is the source, one knows why it will happen.
And since the Saudi’s -of all people- have already said that oil shouldn’t be more than $70 a barrel AND that DODD/Frank allows the CFTC to impose position limits-which Gensler hasn’t done because?- AND Chavez a few years ago made the proposition to the U.S. to supply $50 a barrel oil, WHY SHOULD GAS BE $5 A GALLON?

Just a recipe for further economic depression.

Feinberg, being BP’s employee, has to expect a big bonus for his efforts. Maybe they’ll buy him an island, just not in the Gulf.

We already had $5 a gallon gas two years ago where I live. okay? Also, BP and the other oil companies are already, and have been making great profits. So?

Just a recipe for further economic depression.

Not for BP, Goldman, and their lackeys on Capitol Hill and in the White House, it’s not.

This is simple warfare. In war, the first thing one attempts to do is destroy the enemy’s economic ability to fight.

When one is willing to accept that to the ruling class the people are the enemy (as they have always been), all the rest of the economic devastation follows as simply part of the plan.

Well this good news for ws but Main Street in the area are doomed to no jobs, failing health, and death. Yep everything is normal Great Job 0

Gas is over $4/gallon here again. And the price per barrel was down today.

Talk to me when you have something to say that I and others don’t already know. K? No offense, but it’s getting old, being told the freaking obvious over and over and over. There are plenty of people here paying attention.

Long term health effects are a complete unknown.

That what most of settlement money gets spent on. Chronic long term health problems.

Did the Obama administration ever reveal how much BP was paying Feinberg to essentially be their claims adjuster or did they let the charade go on that Feinberg was a neutral third party?

Lots people who lost their livelihoods were working “under the table”. Their income was not documented. Of course, BP took advantage of that. Assholes. The world is run by assholes.

Unfortunatly, most of the individual businesses were not very profitable to start with. So even if BP had to pay triple damages for the economic loss to individuals, it would not be 20 billion. A shrimp fisherman probably only made 20 or 30k at most after expenses a year. The big money in the gulf is oil and chemicals and those were not hurt.

but in that low $30,000 of income loss there may have been a 500,000 payroll, a 500000 cost of goods sold, a 100000 depreciation of a building, a 100000 loan payment, with gross receipts of $1,230,000.

What does BP pay – just the $30,000?

Indeed that seems to to be the approach that our dear adjuster is taking – if the seller of the goods that were to be sold is outside of the city – they get nothing. If the workers do not apply to BP individually, they get nothing. The building depreciation is a lost cause. Missing that loan payment is just not BP’s fault. Yes indeed – insurance adjusters can make a $50 billion loss into a $5 billion dollar payment – saving BP $15 billion.

But then the $20 billion never was real – another Obama can-job. He got BP to agree to a max $20 b that would be taken out of the new drilling leases that Obama would give BP. So if no new drilling – no damage fund and the liability is capped at $75 million (which the GOP will not change as it might hurt the small businesses that drill billion dollar wells /s). Happy news is the fact that drilling has continued and even “deep water” drilling that was stopped has started back up again.

Feinberg’s compensation is not set by either BP or Obama. He agreed to deal independently and to take on an impossible challenge. A couple of points are important here, the measure of damages in law, especially business is fairly precise and requires proof of income, documentation, etc. Business losses are not typically subject to punitive damages but rather are intended to “make the parties whole.” By law business damages cannot be speculative. I think he has pursued standard legal business reimbursement policies. I think he has pursued standard legal individual income reimbursement policies. Why wouldn’t an individual with income losses file for reimbursement?

Are those reimbursement principles imperfect? Yes. Is Feinberg an evil tool of BP or the White House? Of course not, that’s just stupid. However, Feingberg seems to have failed in reimbursing individuals and businesses at the level of damages that they individually and collectively sustained, even to date. There is also the problem of geographic causation of damages, that is those to far away are often denied any reimbursement at all. That’s obviously wrong.

As for those working off the books, that’s a risk that often involves cheating on social security, medicare, and paying your taxes. I’m not real sympathetic on that point. Of course, our friends in business and corporate America have a lot of teach us on these points. There is this thing called business insurance perhaps some of you have heard of it? It’s like flood insurance, it’s not required but when I owned a house I bought it. And yes, I know a lot of people can’t afford either type of insurance. I am sympathetic on that point.

The most legitimate criticism of this payout plan is in the first comment by bmull. There is no way to know the future losses that will be sustained by an individual or business because we don’t know the long term environmental or economic consequences of the oil spill. It seems readily apparent to me that those losses could and almost certainly will far exceed any agreements entered into by Feinberg with people taking settlements.

The only alternative to taking an inadequate settlement is to join forces with a lawyer and hope that after decades of litigation you might, emphasize might, get some money, although that’s doubtful. Many of the people who have chosen to sue will be dead by the time any final decision on their claim is made by a court because BP, like Exxon, will fight until the end of time to avoid paying legitimate losses that are sustained by their gross negligence.

While I agree with criticisms of Feinberg and the settlement process, it’s a gross oversimplification to just say Feingberg is evil and a tool of this company or that government or etc., etc. He’s just a human being who tried to do the best he could under impossible circumstances and plainly failed. At least he tried.

The best option for people in the area was to obtain the best settlement from Feinberg possible, then abandon their homes and businesses or their jobs, default on all payments due, move to another state or area not affected by the oil spill and declare bankruptcy. If, of course, you can qualify for the “reformed” bankruptcy pushed through Congress that limits the ability to write off debts. It’s complicated. Feinberg felt constrained by the same principles of reimbursement he faced as a result of the 9/11 payouts, it’s not easy and it’s inherently unfair that some are reimbursed far more than others.

One reason is the approval process. Some workers go to the centers with their tax returns, w-2s, lay-off notifications and are approved. Some are not. The reason is always the same. Insufficient paperwork. And they can be in the same company with the same paperwork. Once you are turned down, no paperwork is sufficient.

There are a lot of workers that will not join in a lawsuit. They don’t feel that they will be compensated at all. They just swallow their anger.

“Feinberg’s compensation is not set by either BP or Obama…Is Feinberg an evil tool of BP or the White House? Of course not, that’s just stupid.”

I can’t take you seriously when you call the facts “stupid.” The court has already ruled that Feinberg is an agent of BP’s and is not neutral and has a duty of confidentiality and loyalty to BP:
http://www.thepoptort.com/2011/02/ken-feinberg.html

Feinberg specifically urged people not to use lawyers with the carrot of quick adjusting and low recoveries. He, himself, made immense compensation out of his work. As a lawyer who does contingent fee cases I have to say I found the process Exhibit A of working with insurance companies. I am as concerned as everyone else at how little BP will actually do to rectify the damage they have done to not only the people living and working in the area of the spill, but to the world as a whole. If you think the most important thing in the world is the market, then you have to approve of Feinberg and the process. If you think the spill—the lack of regulation, negligence of the operators, the response, etc… is a complete travesty, then you need to protest, as effectively as possible.

Agency is a complex area of the law and this Order by Judge Barbier does not contradict anything I said. Judge Barbier did not hold that BP determined the rules of compensation or dictated the terms of a settlement. Did you even read the decision? Specifically the Judge noted that BP had the right to appeal Feinberg’s decisions to award damages over the amount of 500K to be decided by a three judge panel. So, if BP does not like Feinberg’s decisions it has to appeal to an independent three judge panel. The Court did not question the independence of the three judge panel. The court did not question Feinberg’s methodology of determining damages. The Court did not hold Feinberg’s methods of determining damages were subject to the direct control of BP. So what’s your point?

Acting as an agent does not show that Feingberb’s decisions on compensation were determined by anything other than common law principles governing damages. BP did not adjust up or down Feinberg’s compensation based upon his decisions in individual cases or collectively.

This order properly and primarily involved how Feinberg must communicate with potential Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit. It did not hold his decisions were determined by BP and it, in fact, establishes that BP did not have authority to override compensation settlements or decisions independently.

I had heard that Feinberg was being $800,000 per month by BP.
The local attorneys are starting to solicit for lawsuits against BP in my area on the Gulf.

First of all, Mr. Feinberg and his firm were initially paid $850,000 and received a raise to $1.25 million (which is what they get paid now) MONTHLY.
1.25 x 12 = $15 million annually.

Regarding the $16 billion still sitting in BP’s account, if the people are vigilant and determined I don’t see why that number can’t be drastically reduced. How? Continuing to file claims. People all along the Gulf of Mexico should be filing claims. Why? Because everyone in one way or another was economically affect. That argument can be made. How? Hire an attorney working on contingency fee and have them make it for you. In addition to claims, BP will be hit with punitive damages in court.

More importantly, we need to reach out to our public officials to make sure that BP is held accountable financially. This is a political season and we need to remind them that.

http://www.bpandfeinbergbankruptedus.com