BP Escrow Fund Administrator Kenneth Feinberg: A History of Success
In the everlasting battle between those on the far left and the far right to find something to complain about, the latest would seem to be Kenneth Feinberg.
The left side of the argument goes like this: Feinberg's contract is with BP; therefore, he will not act in the best interest of claimants.
The right side of the argument goes like this: OMG!!!! Feinberg's doing the "Obama shakedown"!!!! There is no point in arguing with irrational people who think this is a real argument. These folks should really just talk to those who saw any and all settlement of their losses in Alaska after the Exxon-Valdez spill evaporate in the name of tort reform. That's more or less all I have to say about the Republicans' and affiliated groups' arguments. Irrationality begets insanity after awhile. They're there.
At least the left-hand side is based on something other than base idiocy. It could be argued under some circumstances that the contract arrangement might suggest bias, or pressure to put the company's agenda ahead of those who suffered losses. I disagree, but it is at least based on some form of rational thought.
NOLA.com has more details on the relationship between Feinberg, BP, and the escrow fund:
Willis said BP presented a list of suggested names to the president to fill the position. Feinberg said he will operate as a private, independent agent on contract with BP. His pay and the costs of the new facility will be provided by BP directly and will not come out of the $20 billion claims fund, he said. If either the president or BP is dissatisfied with his performance he will walk away, he said.
Point number one: Not one penny of the escrow fund will be used to cover the administrative costs for Feinberg and his staff.
BP should be financing the position because there is no other good choice, Feinberg said. Neither the government nor the victims of the spill should have to contribute money to pay for the administration of the claims program, he said.
Point number two: BP, and ONLY BP, is responsible for costs, damages and claims arising out of this disaster. Therefore, it makes sense for BP to contract with Feinberg, a third-party (and in 2008 was the government adviser overseeing bonuses to executives of banks receiving TARP funds) rather than the government.
Point number three: Louisiana tort law is different from every other state's. It is renowned for its complexity and difference from the other 49 states. Before claims can be administered, standards have to be set that comply not only with Louisiana tort law, but also Mississippi law, and possibly Florida and Texas laws, too.
With that in mind, it's worth looking at Feinberg's past history with regard to claims adjudication.
Mediated Product Liability Settlements
These cases were dragging in the courts for years. Victims had received nothing at all when Feinberg became involved.
- Asbestos-damage suits
- $2.5 billion settlement of class-action lawsuit for the Dalkon Shield class-action lawsuit
- Agent Orange class action lawsuit on behalf of veterans
- 9-11 Victims' Compensation Fund
- Arbiter of compensation caps on bank executives whose banks still owe TARP funds.
Taxpayer socialization of this disaster is likely. Wait about three years when we have a Republican president and Republican-controlled Congress in both houses. Any costs remaining at that point will be passed on largely to blue states and paid for with cuts to social services.
really think that the Americans are that stupid. They will not vote the republicans in when there is so much obstructionism. The only way the republicans can win is if the elections are fraudulent as in 2004 and 2000.
I imagine there's a lot of Gulf Coast residents (and other Americans) second-guessing their allegiance to the Republican party after remarks made by the Republicans since the
spillblowout in the Gulf.Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Also, that they have a short memory and will do or say what they see on TV. Citizens United + rigged electronic voting machines + 24/7 bombardment of lies and propaganda = Republican win.
I would be thrilled to be wrong. But I'm not expecting to be.
If the primary is an indicator, Americans don't have to vote for Republicans to win.
when the adversaries are too far apart. The fact that Fineberg could do nothing in certain class action suits means nothing but that the parties could not agree. It was not Fineberg who dragged those matters before the courts for years. You might as well blame a judge as a mediator when that happens.When mediation works it works well and Fineman has proved that.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
. . . great post. Excellent dissection of some very complex information, and great avoidance of the distraction that is the "complaints" from the right.
But being the whiny lefty that I am, I still wonder about a few things. Most importantly: What do some of the leading lawyers for Plaintiffs in these cases have to say about this?
Being a mediator is nice, but mediators are generally agreed upon by all parties, and their decisions are only binding if all parties agree. How does that work in these cases? Can the Plaintiffs or BP opt out of this arrangement?
Also, if Mr. Feinberg is a fair arbiter, why would BP pick him? And why is it BP's decision?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I wasn't quite done with this post...somehow it snuck into the queue before I had answered the questions you ask. So I'll try here, at least briefly. The consensus on his administration of the 9-11 fund was that he was compassionate, hands-on, and got the job done quickly. Plaintiffs' attorneys in the Dalkon case didn't care much for the amount of the settlement but agreed because they didn't have to admit liability. The decision to choose Feinberg was a limited one. Obama gave BP several names as options (don't know who the others were) and they chose Feinberg. Sort of like saying "You can take the firing squad or the lethal injection but one way or the other you're still dead."
As an aside, most special masters are paid from the funds they administer. Further, the current arbiter is a risk management specialist who clearly has only BP's interests at heart. Finally, the President had no legal authority with which to compel BP to do this. They could easily have simply taken their chances in court and enriched a lot of lawyers while residents lost everything. It is remarkable to see a deal like this happen, and to have the wheels turning already. It's what should happen in these cases but often doesn't.
While I agree that the tax payers should not have to pay for this mans services. I'm uneasy about him being on BP's payroll.
If he's on the tax payers dime, BP will claim that he's bias.
If he's on BP's payroll. People will say he's bought and paid for.
He's screwed. While I applaud this move. I think I'd rather see him being payed for by the tax payers. I know we shouldn't have too.
But the thought of him being on BP's payroll is unsettling.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Since he's on BP's payroll, does that mean that he could be held liable in a court of law? For failing to accomplish his designated mission? The way I see it, BP has been acting with depraved indifference.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
He's got BP by the balls. The fact that BP pays him means they have exactly one power and that is the power to fire him. If they do that they'll lose big time. Unless they caught him writing big checks to himself there is no scenario that wouldn't cost them more to settle including an inevitable suit with Fineman himself.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Lets just say I'm jaded when it comes to big corp oil.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Don't forget the military industrial complex, coal mining and large drug comapnies. Lots to be jaded about.
Of course all of those too. And more.
It's just that this thread is about Feinberg and BP.
That's all.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
that comes from none of BP's executives having to live near the beaches they soiled. Now a spill on the Isle of Wight right before Tony Hayward's yacht race might have annoyed him, but only 2nd to having to appear like he cares about the lives of Gulf residents. That sucks the most.
Will the SCOTUS ruling that corp's are the same a people now, will that affect the outcome of any litigation?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I mean, kablooey, we lost 3,000 people, sucked down our mercury gas, and that was that.
The Iraq War, where we blamed Saddam Hussein for 9/11, and then killed 1 million 6 hundred thousand Iraqis, to the point where every Iraqi knows at least one innocent person killed by America for Lies, is much worse.
9/11 is a joke compared to the Iraq War.
Of course, genocide is not as bad as extinguishing the Planet itself which is what we are doing to the Gulf of Mexico: extinguishing it as though it were an Iraqi Wedding Party.
9/11? I laugh at 9/11. I was there, and I laugh at 9/11. 9/11 hurt like a skinned knee. The Iraq War hurts like a lost leg. The Gulf of Mexico hurts like inoperable Lung Cancer.
9/11. Pffft.
I'm a lot like Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes: Why?
One wonders, could the sublime objections be intertwined?
Yet another repulsive reality, it turns out to be all about phuckin' money, money, money.
...aren't going to be eating or much of anything without it. It's as simple as that.
""They never miss an opportunity to seize on the crisis to turn to the far left to do list," the minority leader said."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/20/mitc...
You mean the way Bush and Cheney used 911 to check off their to do list: Invade oil rich country on false pretenses.?
regurgitating my corporatist talking points, I must question this:
"In the everlasting battle between those on the far left and the far right to find something to complain about, the latest would seem to be Kenneth Feinberg."
Why must we always rely on violent militaristic terminology? Wouldn't "spirtited comptetition to demonstate intellectual similarity" be more in keeping with the motivation behind these kind and kindred fellow Americanskis?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
because "In the everlasting game of bridge between those on the far left and the far right" doesn't quite pack the same punch.
and even when played outdoors in the heat does not cause the level of internal blood boiling which requires frequent tin foil chages.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
"simian turd hurling" which I personally think more accurately describes the intellectual level of the contest most days.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
This post was only half done. Lol. I guess you should consider it the first installment.
Comments are closed on this entry