I didn't have the opportunity to see the premiere in Baton Rouge but I've heard it's the definitive story on how the oil spill has affected the people and ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico.
You can get tickets from the Joy Theater in advance (recommended as the Baton Rouge showing sold out). You can also call 504-528-9569.
Unfortunately I can't make it as I took a job out of town next week. There is another showing coming up in Lafayette I am going to try and make.
Enjoy!
3 comments:
As the settlement scam continues.
Recently the PSC circulated another new way the claim center will calculate smaller BEL claims that are less than $35,000 pre RTP using a AVM or Annual Variable Margin. This now makes three similar situated claimants with 3 different payment offers all based on when their claim was processed.
1. Original settlement math.
2. Policy 495 math.
3. Quick pay AVM applied.
Natural this could be good for some but it will mean for the most part smaller payments and offers being made when Policy 495 is still up in the air.
It still racks my mind, why would the PSC put their class members in a take it or leave it situation. With future offers expected lower and just like the GCCF’s quick pay option forced to decide to accept or wait until the outcome on the 495 appeal.
The puzzling issue is that PSC filed a requested stay for 120 days on Dec 23, 2015 on the ruling of 495 by the 5th Circuit Court. I can’t see how this can be beneficial to the class and that they are acting in the best interest of the class when it only delays more months before the Claims Administrator starts issuing offers under the original settlement guidelines.
A few ideas:
1. Court vendors successfully issued 62,205 Incomplete denials.
2. Court vendors milked all possible billable hours out of these claims.
3. The PSC wants a piece of the Transocean / Halliburton distribution.
4. Lowers the overall cost to BP when Policy 495 is removed.
Looking for a few reasons on why this is good for the class. As I figure out how to explain this ridiculous process to our clients.
IN-HALE
1. Court vendors successfully issued 62,205 Incomplete denials.
2. Court vendors milked all possible billable hours out of these claims.
---> What's the latest trend in Incomplete Denials? Once upon a time, the office swore that claimants would only receive ONE incomplete notice EVER... Not realistic, but just goes to show how clueless the CSSP was at its onset.
In hindsight, so many policies that made little-to-no sense back then now make perfect sense when these two points are taken into consideration.
It’s now clear policy 495 was created to allow the court vendors and BP a redo by pulling 775 million back in made offers. The latest requests coming out are so vague of so detailed that the class-member can’t satisfy them. Their record-keeping was never kept in the manor required to satisfy them so now the court vendors have a license to reinstate the Profit and Losses, they're move revenue and expenses with no justification if your one of the lucky ones to even get an offer.
For the others Policy 495 produced 12,035 notices for causation denial and incomplete denials from January 2015 to current stats from today.
New on the radar:
Now that the PSC tabled the decision for 120 days on the appeal filed on Policy 495 and started working on the Opt outs and excluded members. It will be interesting to see if they bargain away the appeal in exchange for something for the non-class members. CONFLICT I don’t believe this would be considered in the best interest of the class- members!!!!!
One other disappointing stat out of the 60,781 Individual claims filed only 6,216 received a payment.
IN-HALE
Post a Comment