Tuesday, July 29, 2014

DHECC- Comment Bump, July 29, 2014

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - Comment Bump July 25, 2014":

Another 1162 incompletes denials went out in the last 2 days vs. 37 payments to the BEL class.

IN-HALE


Still "winning"!


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let’s play who said this: PART I

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 7104 Filed 08/13/12 Page 59 of 67

Replaces a vague baseline “loss of income” (LOI) determination with concrete, objective and flexible methods to establish base compensation loss, under a two step process that accounts for both (i) losses, as compared to benchmark earnings periods, and (ii) the difference between 2010 profit and what the business would have earned but for the spill.

Identifies specific “fixed” versus “variable” costs to be applied in the compensation calculations.

Allows for causation presumptions based on industry and location, and, with respect to other class members, provides various alternative methods of establishing, by objective means, that the business or individual suffered a loss caused by the spill.

Compensates class members for Coastal and Wetlands Property Damages, VoO Charter Compensation, Real Estate Sales Losses, and other damages which were not being compensated by GCCF.

Includes RTP enhancements that are in virtually all cases equal to or greater than the “multipliers” under the GCCF stated methodology.74

Guarantees of independence, transparency, Court supervision, and no “special deals”.


IN-HALE

Anonymous said...

Let’s play who said this: PART II

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 8138 Filed 12/21/12 Page 79 of 125

ii. The Court Has No Authority To Modify A Settlement Agreement That Is Fair, Reasonable, And Adequate. Certain objectors have suggested that the Court should “provisionally approve” the Settlement Agreement, contingent upon the parties’ agreeing to certain modifications. See, e.g. Nov. 8 Fairness Hr’g Tr. 232:7-10. Because the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, however, the Court is not authorized to insist upon changes that, in its judgment, might lead to a superior settlement. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness. Neither the district court nor this court have the ability to delete, modify, or substitute certain provisions.”) (citations and quotations omitted); Dandridge v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd., No. 64-14801, 2009 WL 24461, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 5, 2009) (“It is also important to note that, although the Court has the power to approve or reject a settlement negotiated by the parties, the Court may not require the parties to accept a settlement or a consent order to which they have not agreed.”). Rather, the imposition of conditions upon a grant of final approval is only appropriate where, absent modifications, the settlement would fail to satisfy the Rule 23(e) analysis.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 8138 Filed 12/21/12 Page 80 of 125

b. Claimants Have No Right To Know Their Exact Compensation Amount Prior To The Opt-Out Date.
Some objectors contend that the Settlement Agreement is unfair because the Settlement Program did not determine the precise award to which they were entitled prior to the opt-out date.27 These objections are meritless for three reasons. First, as Magistrate Judge Shushan has concluded, “[a]ny class member seeking to determine his compensation may simply read the settlement agreements and determine how his circumstances fit into the frameworks.” Rec. Doc. 7480 at 6. In all cases, the frameworks are detailed and transparent and a claimant can make a reasonable determination of how his claim will be resolved based on his or his business’s circumstances. Second, “there is a range of reasonableness with respect to a settlement.” Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 693 (2d. Cir. 1972); accord Reed, 703 F.2d the same fixed amount, the exact amount is not known at either the opt-out or the final approval stage. Third, and most critically, in a typical class settlement, claims are not processed and there are no settlement payments at all until after final approval by the district court, and many class settlements also withhold payments until all appeals have run.28

IN-HALE

Anonymous said...

Part I - PSC
Part II - BP

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

I have a guess!

Anonymous said...

Here we have two parties that drafted the contract between the class members and BP.

One refers to it as being concrete the other reminds the court they have no authority to modify the settlement negotiated by the parties.

PSC states: Replaces a vague baseline “loss of income” (LOI) determination with concrete, objective and flexible methods to establish base compensation loss.

BP states: The Court Has No Authority To Modify A Settlement Agreement That Is Fair, Reasonable, And Adequate.

Policy 495 will converts concrete in to quick sand and would change or lead to a superior settlement in favor of BP not the class.

The proof is in the numbers as request for documentation far exceeds the basic requirements, the denials will continue to escalate and the payments will slowly drip out to a few victims.

IN-HALE

Anonymous said...

From Monday 7/29/14 to Tuesday 7/30/14

The claim center issued 312 denials and made 7 payments to the BEL class.

IN-HALE