DHECC: BP responds to my story on the PSC expedited claims

After publishing my story on the email chain I received detailing efforts within the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center to expedite Plaintiff Steering Commitee's (PSC) personal claims ahead of other class claimants, I received a response from Claims Administrator, Patrick Juneau, implying that the PSC claims were expedited as part of "sampling program" in preparation for a fairness hearing that occurred in November of 2012, about six months after the office officially opened.

In that response, Mr. Juneau made the following statements:

"After discussion with the Court, BP and the PSC, it was determined that a larger number of claims should be examined before the fairness hearing so that the Court, the parties, objectors and claimants could see how the settlement program was working. "

and

"The Claims Administrator, with the knowledge and input of the PSC and BP, asked the PSC to provide a listing of such cases and a sampling was taken of those cases."

I then replied to the Claims Office asking them for a minutes entry from the Court of when this discussion took place but I have yet to receive a response.  I sent that request again today.

I also contacted BP's corporate office via email and asked them if they had participated in this discussion and if they were aware and approved the actions taken by the Claims Administrator as he stated.  I received and official response from BP's Head of Communications, Geoff Morrell:

"BP was aware of efforts by the Claims Administrator in the Fall of 2012 to get the CSSP up and running, including how to make the claims process more efficient and, correspondingly, increase the amount of claim payments in advance of the final approval hearing in November 2012.

However, there are other aspects of your blog postings -- including the e-mails from PSC members to the Claims Administrator you present -- that BP was not aware of, but we are concerned about them and are trying to look into them now."

While it appears the company was involved in "discussions" with the Claims Administrator it appears they may not have been aware that the PSC attorneys were expediting their own claims with the knowledge of Juneau.

I am still trying to find any court documentation of the discussions on the matter and I would like to find out if Judge Barbier was aware that the PSC claims were expedited as well.

Stay tuned.

DHECC - A BP motion that slipped under the radar

I am falling way behind on posts because my real world jobs and responsibilities are taking precedence but there is a lot going on in the BP claims world.

By now most people have seen the motion for recusal by Kurt Mix's attorneys to remove Judge Duval from his case.  Judge Duval had filed a an economic loss claim against BP without disclosing it to the court.  This only adds to Judge Duval's woes as the latest Freeh report seems to be targeting his son David's actions within the claims office and also calls into question how David was hired at the office in the first place.  I have reason to believe Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan may have also played a role in influencing Claims Office Administrator Patrick Juneau to hire David Duval.

It's not clear if David Duval used his position at the claims office to benefit claims filed by his family's law firm but lots of rumors are swirling.

While all of this is unfolding, Freeh's autonomy and integrity are also being called into question by the Andry law firm, Christine Reitano and Lionel Sutton...the accused parties in Freeh's first report. Wednesday Andry filed a motion to have Freeh removed as Special Master with both Sutton and Reitano joining that motion today.  As I write this, I believe Judge Barbier has denied that request but I haven't seen the official denial.

BP also filed a letter to Barbier requesting much of the evidence used to levy the allegations against Andry Lerner, Reitano, and Sutton.

These are all significant issues but there is one issue I want to focus on in this post that passed completely below the radar.  One week ago today, on Jan. 17th, BP filed a Motion for Leave to Class Counsel's Comments on the Special Master's Report.  What I want to point out in this report is item number 3:

Class Counsel note that Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) does not specify the time when the client’s written consent to a fee-sharing arrangement must be obtained. See Cmts.   3. Yet a practice of obtaining client consent to a shared representation “at different times” after the commencement of the representation would defeat the purpose of Rule 1.5(e) and thus should be strongly discouraged. The obvious aim of Rule 1.5(e) is to protect the client’s right to select counsel of his choosing before legal services are provided. The practice of obtaining consent to shared representation at later or different times lends itself to abuse, as the client may not know who is handling his case until well after services have already been provided. In In re Fewell, cited by Class Counsel (Cmts.   3 n.11), the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board stated that “[o]bviously, it is prudent for such writings to occur at the commencement of the representation.” No. 12-DB-048 (La. Discip. Bd. Aug. 7, 2013) at 8, available at http://www.ladb.org/new/DR/handler.document.aspx?DocID=8027. The Disciplinary Board further found that the client had been informed in advance of all lawyers who would represent him and consented to the shared representation. Written consent to the representation by all lawyers in a fee-sharing agreement should be obtained at the outset of the representation and before legal services are provided. Class Counsel further suggest that express client consent to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive in a fee-sharing agreement may not be required. See Cmts. ¶ 3 n.11. Louisiana Rule 1.5(e)(1), however, provides that fee division is permissible only if “the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved, and is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive.” Since the choice of lawyers at all times Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 12180-2 Filed 01/17/14 Page 3 of 10

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly but I think it may confirm an issue I've been working on for the past couple of weeks regarding one specific PSC firm, Herman, Herman & Katz.

I've been informed that Herman, Herman & Katz created "fee-sharing" agreements with multiple law firms across the Gulf Coast at the onset of the DHECC.  Allegedly, they created an arrangement where the partnered law firms would submit their client's claim information to Herman, Herman & Katz who would then file the partnered firm's claims for them, under the partnered firm's name.  I'm not sure what the advantage to the partnered firms would be other than to possibly have their claims expedited by Herman, Herman & Katz within the claims office or to perhaps ensure their claims were not rejected.

I've spoken with a couple of attorneys regarding this issue and I'm still not sure if it is illegal but as BP suggests it is highly unethical.  The partnerships could create a scenario where the partnered firms' clients may not know they are being represented by Herman, Herman & Katz and more importantly it creates a scenario where the claims office, itself, may not know Herman, Herman & Katz was involved in the submittal of the claims.

This may not seem like a huge deal at first glance but the complications that arise with the overall evolution of the DHECC claims process can get pretty hairy.

For example, remember that the seafood claims are a capped fund so any money left over in that fund will be distributed pro rata to the claimants who received claims.  Depending on the extent to which a single firm, especially a PSC firm, has partnered with other law firms around the Gulf they may have a significant, if not a majority, interest in the seafood claims submitted unbeknownst to the claims office.  As you can imagine, if this PSC firm held any influence over which seafood claims were approved or denied, they could potentially be manipulating the claims process to their advantage by ensuring their firm's claims and their partnered firms' claims were approved while other claims were denied.  When all the claims are processed they could reap a substantial benefit with the pro rata payout without the claims office even knowing the PSC firm had partnered with the other firms.

There is even the potential for collusion among the PSC firms to ensure the above scenario unfolds.

This also ties back in to my original FOIA request to the DHECC where I asked for a list of the claims filed in the first four weeks of the claims office opening.  If you recall I had received reports that the PSC firms' claims had been pushed ahead of other claims and also that at least one PSC firm may have sold access to the "formula" of the claims process before the office opened.  The possibility that a PSC firm may have sold access to partnerships on top of the shared percentages upon payout also exists.

I've also been informed that the latest Freeh report was in fact a "preliminary" report to an upcoming more comprehensive report.  I still don't know if Freeh is going to reveal the identity of the page 60 law firm...a PSC firm....but it doesn't seem likely.     

DHECC - Blood in the water

This letter was sent to Judge Barbier's court today from BP counsel:

BP Letter to Barbier, Jan. 21, 2014

BP clearly knows a lot more about possible issues with Duval, Fisher, Odom, Juneau and possibly even Judge Duval and Magistrate Judge Shushan than what the last Freeh report revealed.

Keep in mind that Odom and Duval's deposition was not provided to Andry, Sutton or Reitano upon request.  However, Fisher's was provided.

There's a lot going on right now that I'm trying to iron out but I find it curious that BP did not mention the page 60 firm in this letter.  It's clear they are still going after Juneau but they seem to be adverse to addressing the PSC firm mentioned in the first report.

More coming....

Oh...and in the meantime...per Kevin...can anyone name all the folks in this picture?

It was reportedly snapped at a ritzy wedding at the Chanticleer on Nantucket island, September 13, 2003.

Happy hour on me to the first person who can name these dapper dans.

UPDATE:  This link just came in on the comment section:

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/duval_box.htm  

The Advocate story on Wisner

City Hall battles Wisner heirs over valuable real estate

Very well written, a great job by Andrew Vanacore.

Some highlights:

1.  Chett Chiason confirmed that Michael Sherman was shopping the property to him in this Advocate story.  I also confirmed Sherman contacted Laney Chouest about it which is what Michael Peneguy asks him in the video.

Sherman claims he doesn't even know "Mr. Chouest".

Michael could have been referring to another "Mr. Chouest" but that's a stretch considering I confirmed the conversation took place.  I think Michael Sherman knew exactly what Peneguy was asking him and that's why he spazzed out.....yelling, "Mr. Peneguy, you are out of order!!!" :

The Wisner Trust - Committee Meeting, Feb, 18, 2013 - Peneguy asks Sherman about shopping the sale of the land from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Incidentally, Michael Peneguy wasn't out of order...the point of order had been brought to the table.  If Sherman was shopping the sale of Wisner land I think it deserved to be talked about at the meeting, no?

I sent an email asking former Director of Communications for Mayor Landrieu, Ryan Berni, if the Mayor was aware that Sherman was playing real estate agent with Wisner property but I got no response.

From the story:

"Landrieu's administration denies shopping the property, but Chet Chiasson, director of Port Fourchon, acknowledged in an interview that the mayor's executive counsel, Michael Sherman, approached him before leaving City Hall in May about whether the port would be willing to buy the land."

That's two separate confirmations that the property was being shopped.

Either Michael Sherman is a liar, Mitch Landrieu is a liar....or both of them are lying.  That's ironic considering the Mayor's office is claiming they have been attempting to bring transparency to the Committee.

2.  Stacy Gerhold-Marvin went on the record about getting strong-armed out of the Committee by the Mayor's office and that was confirmed by Cathy Norman per her phone conversation with Roxanne Townsend.

She wouldn't go on record with me but I'm a lowly blogger...woe is me.

3.  Chiasson basically repeated his sentiments about what would happen if the Trust is dissolved.  I have speculated that the Port may get the state to take it over under imminent domain but this is what Chiasson told the Committee directly:

The Wisner Trust - Committee Meeting, Feb, 18, 2013 - Chett Chiasson Comments on Port Fourchon's intent for the Wisner Land from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

But let me give you another scenario.  If the City takes over the entire thing and Mitch is intent on selling it, who would realistically be able to buy it aside from the Port of Fourchon?

Hmmm....a massive oil company with interests in the Gulf could buy the land.  A massive oil company looking to buy the land in order to avoid a costly settlement for damage they may have caused from the largest oil spill in history?  Kind of like what happened with Cat Island in Mississippi?

That would explain a lot.

4.  "The mayor's spokesman could not say which firm Sherman works for, and Sherman did not respond to an email sent to his Tulane address."

I believe that would be Jones Walker?

But perhaps I'm wrong...from comment section:

Sherm the "worm" (or "superman" as he was once known at City Hall) is "of counsel" at the firm Middleberg, Riddle, Gianna. Fun fact: Dominic Gianna was a consultant on the film My Cousin Vinny. 

Comment section #2:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Advocate story on Wisner": 

Anon

According to the LSBA Membership Directory, the 'little guy' is not affiliated with any firm. 

http://www.lsba.org/2007MembershipDirectory/MemberDetails.asp?ID=2008540&Menu=MD 



Thanks to The Advocate for citing me....they could have linked to me but I guess that's asking too much :) .

UPDATE:  I found out The Advocate doesn't have a linking system on the website yet but they're working on that.  Cool beans.
  

"But what do I know? I'm from New York."

That's Joe Nocera's closing sentence from a July 19th article in which he blatantly shills for the multi-national oil company, BP.  Joe wants us to believe that poor BP is getting "skewered" by our "good ol' boy" trial attorneys way down here in the dirty south.  Apparently he has a "deus ex machina" view from his office in "Big ole' " New York City.  (I feel like I'm writing dialogue for Mr. Haney in a Green Acres episode)

Nocera drives the point home in today's NYT opinion article:

Lawyers' Business Model

...he feels the need to justify his moral obligation to tort reform by pointing out the injustice he's witnessed in the mass litigation against Dow Corning for health effects caused by silicone breast implants.  I can't imagine the horrors this man has faced.

I guess he's trying assure us that he "understands" mass litigation and all the issues involved, particularly with this case, the BP oil spill.

Rest assured dear NYT reader...he has no agenda here other than to ward off the enormity of New Orleans' trial attorneys onslaught against this poor, little, multi-national, oil company, BP.

And rest assured, according to Joe, if Feinberg was still in the driver's seat...everything would be right as rain:

"But, to me, the question of whether BP can afford to pay is irrelevant. BP is the best example I’ve ever seen of a company that actually tried to find a better way. Immediately after the spill, it set up a claims process to get money into victims’ hands quickly, without having to file a lawsuit. Though that process had its critics, it worked. Of the $11 billion BP has paid out in claims, $6.3 billion was paid through that process."

And Joe knows that this claims process was "working"......because....he's from New York....

Right.

Well...I'm from Louisiana.  I've been covering the effects of this spill from the moment it happened.  Perhaps I don't have that wonderful panoptic view New York City provides, but I have seen a lot of what's actually happening on the Gulf Coast in the wake of this man-made disaster.  

I've seen a lot of suffering.  I've seen a lot of struggle.  I've seen a lot of death and destruction.

I see that it is still very fucked up.

But don't take my word on the matter, let's go back to June of 2012 and take a look at what a Louisiana fisherman had to say about how well the GCCF/Feinberg process was working for the "good 'ol boys" down here on the Gulf Coast:

George Barisich from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

So, I'm no big-city, New York, swinging dick...but I'm gonna go ahead and take a shot at answering Nocera's question about what he knows.

I think he knows two things:

1.  Jack

2.  Shit

The DHECC - Examining the "Claims" - Part 1

Alrighty...I'm trying something new here on AZ.  I've oft been criticized for my writing mostly because it's too "complicated" to understand especially when I'm writing about complex issues. With that in mind, I've decided to branch out and try some Voice Over (VO) narration, nothing fancy, to explain the following series of posts I'm going to make regarding the DHECC and the potential for fraud taking place within the claims process and the possible manipulation of the process by the PSC lawyers.  It is pretty complicated stuff but I hope to make it less complicated with this VO.

I am enclosing links below, as well an open letter I have sent to Federal Judge, Carl J. Barbier.  Let me know what you think and I do have a rough draft of the V.O. if anyone wants me to publish text.  

Thanks.

The American Zombie - DHECC claims process, fraud allegations, Part 1 from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Here is the letter I sent to Judge Barbier requesting the claims data be redacted of any personal claimant information and made public:

Links to referenced stories:

Geoff Morrell article:

Spill deal's big winners shouldn't be plaintiff's lawyers

Joe Nocera:

Justice, Louisiana Style

Getting Skewered in New Orleans

AZ:

Sounds of the Jungle

Thieves in the Temple

A little help