It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Not enough money in world’ to pay every spill claim: oil fund czar

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

The prominent US lawyer managing BP's 20-billion-dollar oil disaster fund said Wednesday not all claimants will be paid, especially some of those seeking compensation for falling houses prices.

"There's not enough money in the world to pay every single small business that claims injury no matter where or when," Kenneth Feinberg told the House of Representatives Committee on Small Business.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: rawstory.com...


If they can't afford to pay all the damages that they created, then they should cease to exist as a company and sell off all of their assets to ensure that the people get as much as possible. I'm sorry but the excuse given, is simply not good enough. You can't claim that there isn't enough money to pay everyone what they are entitled to, yet stay be able to stay in business. Personally, I think that some executives need to be held criminally liable and put on trial. This could be one of the biggest crimes in modern history with the most damaging consequences in history and all for what, greed? People need to demand accountability but sadly, I don't think it's going to happen. BP needs to give the game up and go down trying to make reparations to all that have directly lost out due to their negligence. It's time that we stop allowing corporate interests to walk all over us.

--airspoon




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I agree. If you cant afford the damages you actually do, then your company should be completely dissolved, and the money used to satisfy as many claims as possible.

I am sure the small businesses who may face complete loss of their business arent getting a chance to stand in Congress and argue that their liabilities to people be dismissed. Why should BP.

They should pay legitimate claims until they do not have a thin dime left after their assets are sold or the claims are paid in their entirety, which ever comes first.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
according to this article:
BP has asked 7 Banks for a $1B loan each
and is already agreed to sell $10B worth
of assets. However, the way these loans
are set up, they will be private and not open
to public scrutiny. Which leads me to believe
they may be illegal loans.

www.reuters.com...

I said 2 months ago on a thread that the stock target price
for a hostile takeover would be $25.00. It's at $28.00
right now and dropping.



[edit on 30-6-2010 by boondock-saint]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
BP made $5 billion + PROFIT in the 1st quarter of 2010. Add that with all the previous quarters.

Oh.. I'm sure they can come up with more than $20 billion to help solve the problems THEY caused.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
How much money can they get from donating their organs? I'm sure they employ a few hundred minions. Surely a couple of hundred kidneys, livers and hearts could help pay the tab.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
If they can't afford to pay all the damages that they created, then they should cease to exist as a company and sell off all of their assets to ensure that the people get as much as possible.


Then nobody has any incentive to clean up the oil. Obviously we cannot rely on government.


Originally posted by DerekJR321
BP made $5 billion + PROFIT in the 1st quarter of 2010. Add that with all the previous quarters.


That's one side of the equation. What were their EXPENSES? What was their PROFIT MARGIN?

Push BP too hard for money and they'll file bankruptcy and relinquish themselves from ANY financial liabilities.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This is something we are reading time and time again here..

These companies must no longer be fined for their crimes.

If I had my own business and did something wrong that was deemed criminal, I would most probably go to jail and lose my business along with all assets seized.

This should be the same for corporate entities. Although the actual entity cannot go to jail (the people who run it can) it could be shut down as punishment.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


$5+ billion "profit" as in "after expenses". That came straight from their website.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Well, I dont know all the specifics on corporate law, but bankruptcy in individuals does not relieve you of all types of debt, and so imho, the idea that them filing for bankruptcy would allow them to skip away owing nothing is a little hysterical.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


the 'after expenses' would include the fat-cats outrageous compensation... the Bonuses that are divvied out regardless of impact on humanity...


I agree, the 'fines' are cosmetic, after all the shareholders 'pay the fines' because the contracted compensation & formulas for bonuses are included in the "Operating Expenses"...that are exempt from review or scrutiny!


China has the ultimate solution... if a CEO decides to harm the public... They themselves forfeit their LIFE !



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


$5+ billion "profit" as in "after expenses". That came straight from their website.



I could not find that data on their website, nor their expenses.

Could you please link me?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I can't get my head around this. Everyone is three steps ahead of where we actually are.

Why is everyone so obsessed with money on this one. Money is not the issue. there is a problem that needs to be solved. It is still an incident. After the incident we can do problem management and root cause analysis, along with discuss justice and compensation.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


Seems to me their lawyer is the one arguing that they cant pay the bill.

And the reason the claimants are arguing about money is because they have bills to pay and creditors too. Your average fishing boat owner, (or other small business hurt by this spill) isnt getting a break on his mortgage because of this crisis, and they arent getting donated food, etc.

Should they just lose a lifetimes worth of saving, sweating, working, striving, just because it is unseemly to bring up the subject of money and how much they are losing by the day because of BP's carelessness and greed? You dont think they have the right to sue or claim for damages?

They cant just afford to wait patiently until this is all fixed. One, that would be used as proof that they were not harmed economically, and two, they dont have billions of dollars to live off while their source of income is being destroyed.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This spill is going to be the end of BP.

What I dont understand is..


... If I took... 10000 dump trucks FULL of .. .. .. asbestos..

and dumped it in a forrest.. Id be thrown in prison quicker than you can say

'' buck tooth bob bounces betty's bopping boobies ''

These, government sponsoring corporate pigs dump 100000000 dump trucks worth of oil off beautiful coastline.. and can end up putting a cap on how much money they will pay in repairs and damages.

Once this thing has been tapped, the CEO's should be thrown in prison.
The company, if it cant pay every single legitimate claim, should be disolved and sold off until every every pennys paid, then the remainder should be given to organisations to help repair coastal damage.

thats what you'd do in a fair and just civil world.. but sometimes I forget we live in the age where corporate America rules.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
He knew that. We knew that. However, where was it I read yesterday that BP's liability is not limited to the $20B. It's around here somewhere among these millions of threads.

(Found it here.)

Here's what Kenneth Feinberg had to say a few weeks ago on the PBS NewsHour.

Near the end he mentions that they're also keeping in mind future illness claims, as didn't really happen properly with 9/11. And in light of this news, seems like they already knew this.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Also keep in mind that loooooooong after the furor of the Exxon spill has ended, and everyone thinks that Exxon had to pay big bucks for the economic damage they did, this happens.

www.seattlepi.com...


The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gutted punitive damages awarded to victims of the Exxon Valdez spill, devastating West Coast fishermen.

There were fears that after so many years in court the oil behemoth would see its penalty reduced. But the decision ending the legal saga -- slashing the award from $2.5 billion to $500 million -- triggered emotional shock waves.


Not only did these people suffer great economic damages, and it would have been bad enough that they had to wait YEARS to get those settled, but the amount they got was slashed to next to nothing too.

Dont forget, our politicians from both parties have been quietly appointing pro-Corporate justices for years. Most of these people whose livlihoods are being destroyed will lose everything and never be compensated. You will think they will, you will see a jury award a big sum, but it will end up just like this one. Hacked into peanuts compared to the actual damage they did to these peoples lives.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
I can't get my head around this. Everyone is three steps ahead of where we actually are.

Why is everyone so obsessed with money on this one. Money is not the issue. there is a problem that needs to be solved. It is still an incident. After the incident we can do problem management and root cause analysis, along with discuss justice and compensation.


Well, money is important because BP is not doing what they are supposed to be doing in order to cut costs. Money is important because many people are loosing their livelihoods, homes, businesses, careers and towns, while BP is at total fault. There really is nothing we can do to get BP to do a better job at containment or clean-up, other than pressure them and hope for the best.

I think we need to throw BP out of the containment process and bring in one of those European countries, then we can just charge BP and hopefull try those responsible.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Id be thrown in prison quicker than you can say '' buck tooth bob bounces betty's bopping boobies ''

Not if you've made the right kinds of friends though contributions to help advance the careers of various politicians. When you make a political contribution, it's like getting a "get out of jail free" card.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If you cant afford the damages you actually do, then your company should be completely dissolved, and the money used to satisfy as many claims as possible.

I am sure the small businesses who may face complete loss of their business arent getting a chance to stand in Congress and argue that their liabilities to people be dismissed. Why should BP.

They should pay legitimate claims until they do not have a thin dime left after their assets are sold or the claims are paid in their entirety, which ever comes first.


And in doing so, you effectively condemn many many thousands of ordinary British folk who's retirement funds and future standard of living will be seriously affected.

They had nothing to do with the disaster, why should they lose out?

[edit on 30-6-2010 by timski]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by timski]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by timski
 


All these British with their pensions tied into BP took a risk, called an investment. When you invest in a company, you take a risk that the company won't screw up and do something to dissolve itself. To some extent, these British investors knew about this risk and chose to accept it. The people in the Gulf region, didn't. Furthermore, all of these British investors wouldn't have shared their profits with the people of Gulf, had the company not screwed up so why should the people of the Gulf region be forced to absorb the risk?

--airspoon



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join