From the beginning of my reporting on the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center and the Plaintiff Steering Committee (PSC) that was chosen to represent the entire class of claimants for their economic losses caused by the BP oil spill, I've alleged that the PSC expedited their own personal clients' claims ahead of everyone else in the class. This was a clear violation of the terms of the settlement.
At first the allegation was denied. Then I provided proof that they had expedited at least 409 claims, most of them their own, ahead of the other claimants with the full knowledge and consent of Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau. The response then shifted from denial to "those claims were part of sampling program", as if that somehow justified the action. The PSC and MSM's favorite go-to pundit on the settlement cried "It's much ado about nothing" while failing to disclose his own conflicts of interest.
The argument was also made that it didn't really matter if the PSC got their own clients paid first because everyone was going to get paid eventually anyway.
Then Act 495, a policy which requires claimants to match revenues to expenses, was passed and completely changed the terms of the settlement. AZ commenter IN-HALE has been documenting the butchering effects of this act here on the blog since it was enacted. Thousands of claims have already been kicked out or denied....we now have a completely different, more stringent, settlement class to the great benefit of BP and the great detriment of the remaining class claimants.
Now, BP is asking Judge Barbier to retroactively enforce act 495 and claw back claims that have already been paid out that did not match revenues to expenses.
The PSC just filed this opposition memorandum in Judge Barbier's court petitioning the judge to deny the retroactive enforcement of 495 which would prevent these claw backs. I want you to read the language the PSC used (right out of the gate on page 1) from the original settlement contract agreed to by both BP and the PSC:
They are now using this language to try and block 495 from being enacted retroactively which may affect their own personal claims as well as thousands and thousands of others. That's still not going to help the remaining claimants who never got a dime from the settlement and are now shit outta luck.
So....I want someone to tell me how the PSC expediting their own claims is not a big deal.
Please...I'm all ears.
In specific, I'd love Louis Freeh to answer that.
At first the allegation was denied. Then I provided proof that they had expedited at least 409 claims, most of them their own, ahead of the other claimants with the full knowledge and consent of Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau. The response then shifted from denial to "those claims were part of sampling program", as if that somehow justified the action. The PSC and MSM's favorite go-to pundit on the settlement cried "It's much ado about nothing" while failing to disclose his own conflicts of interest.
The argument was also made that it didn't really matter if the PSC got their own clients paid first because everyone was going to get paid eventually anyway.
Then Act 495, a policy which requires claimants to match revenues to expenses, was passed and completely changed the terms of the settlement. AZ commenter IN-HALE has been documenting the butchering effects of this act here on the blog since it was enacted. Thousands of claims have already been kicked out or denied....we now have a completely different, more stringent, settlement class to the great benefit of BP and the great detriment of the remaining class claimants.
Now, BP is asking Judge Barbier to retroactively enforce act 495 and claw back claims that have already been paid out that did not match revenues to expenses.
The PSC just filed this opposition memorandum in Judge Barbier's court petitioning the judge to deny the retroactive enforcement of 495 which would prevent these claw backs. I want you to read the language the PSC used (right out of the gate on page 1) from the original settlement contract agreed to by both BP and the PSC:
If the Court does approve the proposed class action settlement, an appellate court could reverse the approval. In addition, it is possible that the terms of the proposed settlement may change in the future-for - for better or worse - as a result of further legal proceedings. However, if you sign this Individual Release, none of those uncertain future events will affect you.... In fact, even if the Court does not approve the proposed class action settlement agreement or the approval is reversed by an appellate court, you shall continue to be bound by this Individual Release.In the initial settlement agreement the PSC acknowledged that the terms of the settlement may change. They acknowledged this possibility, in print, in the agreement they wrote. They were fully aware that 495 or another deviation could change the terms of the original settlement down the road and still they expedited their own claims ahead of every one else's.
They are now using this language to try and block 495 from being enacted retroactively which may affect their own personal claims as well as thousands and thousands of others. That's still not going to help the remaining claimants who never got a dime from the settlement and are now shit outta luck.
So....I want someone to tell me how the PSC expediting their own claims is not a big deal.
Please...I'm all ears.
In specific, I'd love Louis Freeh to answer that.
