Sunday, March 08, 2015

DHECC - Comment Bump, March 8, 2015

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - Red∞mption?": 

I’m not sure this 495 went through the proper channels. PAJ was to provide an outline then both parties the PSC and BP could argue or appeal. 

It seems very strange that the judge granted or adopted 495 just to vacate the injunction without any changes to PAJ proposal.

Can a legal mind look into the process and confirm it was carried out properly? 

I've been wondering about this as well.  How was it just adopted without any argument from the PSC or Juneau?  Any legal eagles out there have an answer?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

From 5/5/14 order re 495:

"The Claims Administrator has filed with the Court the entire history of
the confection of the “matching policy,” including the parties’ respective proposals to the Claims
Administrator.[Footnote 1 Rec. doc. 12589. The first proposals by the parties for a matching policy were made on November 21, 2013 - BP
(pp. 98-178) and Class Counsel (pp. 179-189); responses to the original proposals on November 26, 2013 - BP (pp.
201-212) and Class Counsel (pp. 213-225). The Administrator’s proposed Policy No. 495 was issued on February
12, 2014 (pp. 278-348); the Administrator’s reissued revised Policy No. 495 was issued on March 7, 2014 (pp.
495-607); and the Final Policy was announced on March 13, 2014 (pp. 608-696)]

Having reviewed the entire record submitted by the Claims Administrator, particularly the
comments of Class Counsel in its Proposed Modification and Memorandum in Response to the
Policy Announcement (Rec. doc. 12589 at pp. 379-469), the Court finds that proposed Policy No.
495 fairly implements the directive of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling entered on October 2, 2013. Accordingly, the Court affirms the Claims Administrator’s proposal and
approves the enactment of Policy No. 495, 'Business Economic Loss Claims: Matching of
Revenues and Expenses.' The Program is authorized to immediately implement the processing
of Business Economic Loss (“BEL”) claims pursuant to the Policy."

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

This suggests that Pat Juneau proposed 495? Am I reading that correctly?

Barbier is saying it was Juneau's proposal?

Anonymous said...

According to the settlement, when an issue is raised that needs to be resolved by a new policy, the CA proposes the policy (usually after comment from BP and PSC). After a vote and formal issuance by CA, either side can appeal to the court.
It would appear from the first comment that Barbie instructed Juneau to draft a policy in accordance with the 5th circuits ruling. Juneau elicited proposals from the parties and, after several revisions, a final policy was issued. It is not clear if one or both parties then appealed to the court, or the court reviewed it on its own.

Gabrielle Dalemberte, Esq. said...

Policy 495 is not being applied properly nor did the PSC do what it should have done to fight it. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, once Policy 495 was adopted, both parties had ten days to file a Motion for Reconsideration. This gives way to an eventual appeal and without such a Motion, the parties are estopped from fighting the Policy. BP made such a Motion, and once denied, they appealed the Policy. The PSC failed as fiduciaries to the claimants by not timely filing said Motion. Later, to cover their tracks, they filed a Motion to Clarify Policy 495 but that Motion was untimely. What that means is Barbier has no authority/jurisdiction to hear an untimely Motion on the merits.

Anonymous said...

The motion to amend Policy 495 was denied in an order dated 3/31/15. The order is posted on the court's website and describes in some detail the process that led to its adoption in the first place.