It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Kenneth Feinberg, the lawyer who is serving as the administrator of BP's $20-billion oil spill claims fund, says a "huge number" of claimants are failing to provide basic documents such as tax returns and financial statements, which are necessary to prove the extent of their losses.
"We've notified people that they must give us some substantiation, some proof," Feinberg told CTV's Canada AM during an interview from Washington on Wednesday morning.
Feinberg recently suggested that as many as 80 per cent of the remaining claimants will not receive compensation because of documentati
They are playing dirty.
Kenneth Feinberg (born October 23, 1945, Brockton, Massachusetts) is an American attorney, specializing in mediation and alternative dispute resolution. Feinberg was appointed Special Master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and currently serves as the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, popularly called the "pay czar." Additionally, Feinberg currently serves as the government-appointed administrator of the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. He is also an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, New York University School of Law, the University of Virginia School of Law and at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by HaveAnotherOne
But what is the standard of proof for "lost income" or "lost tourism" or the expense to the state in terms of unemployment compensation? Department of Revenue is currently undergoing a monumental task of documenting every phone call that had to do with the Oil Spill. There are 100's of different call centers that get 1000s of calls per day, and many of those had to do with the Oil SPill.
There were people who stopped paying child support because they lost their job due to the oil spill. So, mothers and children went without support, while fathers were unemployed and falling further and further behind on child support. Those same mothers had to go to the State for WIC and Welfare and Food Stamps. So any single unemployed fisherman or jet ski renter or bartender may have had 3 to 8 additional claimants. How do they all prove their cases? Who gets paid back first? How can BP quantify any one claim over that of another?
I don't think they should have to pay every frivolous claim. My Mom and Dad got worried and moved back to Missouri. They incurred moving expenses and loss of income, while I incurred further household bills and a new daycare bill. I don't think I have a valid claim, but others might disagree.
I think BP needs to err on the side of awarding a little too much instead of holding up 99% of their claims over lack of documentation. It will be next to impossible to document all of the losses, so someone will have to use common sense somewhere along the way.
How would you personally go about differentiating the losses due to the spill, and those due to the recession?