subject: The One Thing to Know About Suing BP and Suing the Federal Government [print this page] The One Thing to Know About Suing BP and Suing the Federal Government
Asghar Kamboh: Is there a general criterion to determine who has a claim? If I'm trying to understand what distinguishes a legitimate claim of a person will not get anywhere, what are some things you should be thinking?
Noah Hall: Well, this is the big question. Effect of some courts of the actual physical condition for economic losses. Therefore, if you own a hotel and your business is 30%, they are going to want to see that the oil spill caused in some way, whether a material effect on your property, or at least immediately adjacent to your property. Other courts, however, you do not have this type of restriction, the law is in fact a kind of unclear in this area.
The reason I think this will play out is clear: We're already hearing the tourism industry with a huge hit in some areas of Florida, where there is no oil at all. Everything from Fort Myers and access to the keys and even the Atlantic in Florida, say tourism down, but there is no oil there. BP is going up to say: "We are sorry that the tourism industry in Florida is not what it was, but our oil does not have anything to do with it."
If anything, they will say: "blame the media; they are the ones who are afraid everyone away from going to Florida, but there is no actual harm, and there is no harm, and there is no material damage." This will be where I think we will see a lot of legal battles over who is responsible in this case played out. BP wants to go to the courts as a basis for some of the plaintiffs to the criterion of causation and this is worse than just "there was an oil spill in late spring and summer of 2010, tourism revenues in 2015 we still have continued." For me, this is probably the largest legal uncertainty that can change the amount of BP ultimately responsible for the BBC ... And the defendant in the depths of a pocket is ideal for claiming to be targeting.
I think we have only seen the first hint of this, that, at present the BBC grave concern about its image and public relations, and BP does not want to be seen as] a company [this nulling popular demands at the moment. But five years from now, the six years from now, BP and the shareholders will not be sitting back and allow the company to pay claims for compensation for economic damage incidental to some extent or may not prove in court. So I think you will see this issue build up over time. When the controversy dies down, down the road you're going to see the BBC the fighting much more strongly to defend itself against these claims and economic loss.
Greer: I want to talk about government-imposed moratorium on drilling in deep waters. Drilling companies Transocean Inc. (NYSE: predecessor), Diamond Marine, Inc. (NYSE: do not), and Noble (NYSE: Near East) has declared force majeure may be against them. In last week we had an oil services company Hornbeck (NYSE: HOS) The prosecution by the Interior Ministry to ban for six months on drilling in deep water. Hornbeck Boats provide the display on most drilling rigs in the Gulf region. Hornbeck did not have a shot at winning that suit?
Hall: Yes, in fact. In fact, I looked into this issue. It's very difficult. Claims against the government and things are much easier to defend a political gain from a legal standpoint.
Hornbeck did not really have a property right that was taken away by the government. It's not as if you own a piece of property and the government comes and takes them away or even prevent you from developing countries because there are some endangered species there. The government before allowing offshore drilling in deep water, and now they are not. This is a change in policy. In general, do not get compensation for the change in policy.
I do not know if they will receive cash compensation, but may be required for the Obama administration did not follow proper procedures to change the management of government policies. If the government wants to put the new rules or regulations change, there is usually a large beautiful to go through. I noticed the new rule. You can put them for public comment. Others can not say, "Whoa, we have seen, and before being allowed something, and now we will not allow anything."
So I think it is a claim where the administrative process followed and followed procedure, they might have fit pretty decent. In terms of collecting monetary damages, and not so much.
