03282017Headline:

New Orleans, Louisiana

HomeLouisianaNew Orleans

Email Tom Young Tom Young on LinkedIn Tom Young on Twitter Tom Young on Facebook Tom Young on Avvo
Tom Young
Tom Young
Attorney • (813) 251-9706

Refuting The U.S. Chamber’s BP Position

3 comments

BP Image I-4

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, not to be confused with your altruistic local chamber on Main Street, is at the beck and call of big business and Wall Street. Evidence of this cozy allegiance resurfaced last month when the U.S. Chamber filed a legal brief supporting BP’s attempt to renege on its Settlement Agreement.

Rather than supporting the tens of thousands of small businesses that have sought restitution as part of the BP designed compensation program, The U.S. Chamber chose to stand in the corner of one very large, foreign business – British Petroleum. All of this makes you wonder if this is The U.S. Chamber of Commerce or The U.K. Chamber of Commerce?

Outraged, many local Chambers of Commerce and their small business members expressed their displeasure to The U.S. Chamber mothership. They wondered, “how could our U.S. Chamber sell us out in favor of a convicted corporate felon located halfway across the globe that had just destroyed our Gulf of Mexico and regional economy?” In response, and in an effort to quell the uprising, The U.S. Chamber provided the following “talking points,” no doubt spoon fed by BP’s public relations department.

Let’s take them point-by-point.

The Chamber’s damage control

In a letter circulated last week by the Executive Director of The U.S. Chamber’s Southeast Region, the following claims are made.

U.S. Chamber Claim: “The U.S. Chamber’s position on the BP oil spill settlement fund is straightforward: All legitimate claims caused by the spill should be paid, and those who have not been harmed by the spill should not be allowed to game the system and receive payment.”

Fact: Not only are the claims identified as “undeserving” by BP and The Chamber fairly traceable to the Spill, but they are supported by affirmative evidence that BP stipulated and agreed would be sufficient to objectively establish that such damages were caused by the Deepwater Horizon tragedy.  Hence, all businesses that present such evidence are, by definition, legitimate claims.

U.S. Chamber Claim: “We believe this means any person, business or organization that is part of the mutually agreed-to settlement class that can trace its economic injury to the spill should receive settlement funds.”

Fact: All businesses that present the causation evidence that BP agreed would be required under the Settlement Agreement have, by definition, traced their economic injury to the Spill.

U.S. Chamber Claim: “However, it is unjust for those who have suffered no harm due to the spill to nonetheless take money intended for those who actually suffered harm.”

Fact: “BP voluntarily agreed that the Settlement would be uncapped. Therefore, no business’ recovery under the Settlement Agreement has any effect on any other business’ ability to recover.  No one is “taking” anything away from anybody else.

U.S. Chamber Claim: “To this end, the U.S. Chamber has filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that makes this case.”

The Chamber’s Brief represents that: “As frequent class-action defendants, our members are deeply interested in the continuing viability of class settlements…. Litigating class actions can be expensive and time consuming, and amicable settlements benefit defendants, class members, and the legal system itself…. It is an unfortunate fact that litigation takes time and money. While litigating to a final judgment may nevertheless be the best way of resolving some disputes, others can be redressed more quickly and more efficiently through settlement. Such settlements, courts have long recognized, should be actively encouraged…. This is all the more true for class actions. As the number of parties to a dispute increases, so too do the complexities and costs of litigation….  Settlement gives parties an alternative to decades of complicated litigation, permitting large-scale disputes to be resolved quickly and efficiently.”

Fact: BP and The Chamber are arguing that the final Settlement BP agreed to in 2012 should be unraveled.  What BP and The Chamber now want is years and years of expensive and protracted litigation, to try to determine whether thousands of individual businesses can satisfy an unspecified and subjective causation standard that, in over two years and scores of briefs, BP has yet to define.  (Of course, what makes this all the more crazy is that BP spent almost a year negotiating for the objective causation standard that’s in the current Settlement Agreement.)

U.S. Chamber Claim: “Our interest in this case goes beyond BP. Failure to interpret the Settlement Agreement consistent with its plain terms means future defendants in similar cases may be less inclined to agree to efficient and quick settlements as BP did, meaning future cases will not end with relatively quick negotiated mega settlements, but with litigation that leaves legitimate claimants without payment for many, many years.”

Fact: There is no argument that the Court has failed to interpret the Settlement Agreement according to its terms.  BP has stated for the record on numerous occasions that it agreed with the Claims Administrator’s and the Court’s interpretation.  What BP, supported by The Chamber, now argues is that the Settlement Agreement – a contract -should be substantively modified, or set aside entirely.

U.S. Chamber Claim: “The U.S. Chamber’s position is limited to the current controversy before the court: whether it is necessary to prove that injury was caused by the spill.”

Fact: That is not a question before the Court.  No one disputes that litigants must generally prove that their injuries were caused by the defendant in order to prevail at trial.  The issue before the Court is whether BP is bound by a voluntary contractual agreement – a settlement – which, incidentally, requires the settling businesses to prove that their injuries were caused by the Spill.

U.S. Chamber members, pose these questions to your leadership

  • Why did The Chamber refuse to disclose to the Court that some of its members and local chamber affiliates were actively pursuing claims in the Settlement Program?
  • Why is the U.S. Chamber favoring a Foreign Oil Company over the interests of thousands of small businesses here in the United States?
  • Doesn’t The Chamber believe that parties should be held to the terms of their contracts?
  • Doesn’t The Chamber believe that a company should stand by its word?

Bottom line

Number of U.S. businesses that have submitted Economic Loss Claims in the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement Program as of April 18, 2014:

84,555

Number of businesses that The Chamber supports:

1

British Petroleum

3 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  1. Dave Arnsby says:
    up arrow

    I do not see one single comment from the US Chamber of Commerce where they challenge BP as to why legitimate claims are not being paid ? By that I mean claims that have been correctly and accurately submitted, both within the DWH Program and those under Presentment for the opt outs, that were perfectly entitled to submit their claims directly to BP under OPA. After all, that is precisely what is says on the BP website. What has BP done with these legitimate claims. Absolutely Nothing !. Not a word, no response whatsoever in two years. So, is every case being treated as undeserving, bogus and false by BP. It certainly appears so.
    The US Chamber of Commerce is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. There are tens of thousands of legitimate claims sitting in the processing centers, and these are not crocodile farms or paving companies located 200 miles from the gulf, that are questionable. These are deserving, qualified claimants that were financially injured by BP ‘s actions.
    There is literally no reason why these claims are not being paid. When BP gets denied very soon for the en banc hearing, the order should be given to commence payments to both DWH and Opt Out claimants and get this whole issue closed out as soon as possible, by Court Order.

  2. Joe Edwards says:
    up arrow

    Take the time now to ask your local Chamber of Commerce to state their position regarding this issue. Then ask them how much of the dues and subscriptions that you, local businesses, are paying that is being sent to the U.S. Chamber.

  3. Don French says:
    up arrow

    How disgusting, that under the guise of supporting American small business, the U. S. Chamber Of Commerce is a paid puppet for BP Oil.

Leave a Comment

Have an opinion? Please leave a comment using the box below.

For information on acceptable commenting practices, please visit Lifehacker's guide to weblog comments. Comments containing spam or profanity will be filtered or deleted.