The Donovan Law Group

GM, Like BP, Will Use Multidistrict Litigation and the Fund Approach to Limit Its Liability

GM, Like BP, Will Use Multidistrict Litigation and the Fund Approach to Limit Its Liability

 

April 3, 2014

The Faulty GM Ignition Switch
Since February, 2014, General Motors (“GM”) has recalled 2.6 million cars – mostly Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions – over a faulty ignition switch, which can cause the engine to cut off in traffic, disabling the power steering, power brakes and air bags and making it difficult to control the vehicle.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said that House Energy and Commerce Committee staff members found 133 warranty claims filed with GM over 10 years detailing customer complaints of sudden engine stalling when they drove over a bump or brushed keys with their knees.

The claims were filed between June 2003 and June 2012. Waxman said that because GM didn’t undertake a simple fix when it learned of the problem, “at least a dozen people have died in defective GM vehicles.”

GM intends to handle its liability for failing to properly address its faulty ignition switch problem in the same manner that BP addressed its liability for the BP oil spill of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s basically a simple two-pronged approach:

(a) The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) will order that centralization of the GM faulty ignition switch cases will “eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary; and serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the more just and efficient conduct of the cases.” In sum, all GM cases will be consolidated in one transferee federal court; and (b) GM retains Feinberg Rozen, LLP to manage a fund to allegedly compensate the GM victims for all “legitimate” claims.

GM ignition switch victims may find the following manner in which BP limited its liability for the BP oil spill of 2010 to be instructive.

Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) and the Fund Approach
Judicial economy is undoubtedly well-served by MDL consolidation when scores of similar cases are pending in the courts. Regrettably, for victims of the BP oil spill, the BP Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 2179”) is a “faux” MDL – i.e., an MDL that limits the liability of the defendants, grants excessive compensation to the members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) and other counsel performing common benefit work, and fails to adequately compensate the plaintiffs.

MDL 2179 is a “faux” MDL primarily because of: (a) the manner in which Kenneth R. Feinberg was permitted by the JPML and the MDL 2179 Court to administer the BP compensation fund; and (b) the terms and conditions of the BP/PSC class settlement agreement.

MDL 2179 officially started on August 10, 2010. The Transfer Order issued on that date by JPML clearly states: “.. Centralization may also facilitate closer coordination with Kenneth Feinberg’s administration of the BP compensation fund.” The JPML made it clear from the very beginning that the purpose of centralization was not merely to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary; and serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the more just and efficient conduct of the BP oil spill cases. Here, the purpose of centralization was to maximize judicial economy via the creation of a “faux” class settlement wrapped in a “faux” MDL.

From the very beginning, the purpose of MDL 2179 was to replace democratic adversarial litigation with a fund approach to compensating victims of the BP oil spill. The vast majority of BP oil spill victims will never have their day in court. Judicial economy, rather than justice, is the primary objective.

The fund approach to resolving mass claims, i.e., those claims resulting from the BP oil spill incident, ought to be viewed with a significant degree of concern. The precedent established by the JPML and the MDL 2179 Court is clear: A “Responsible Party” under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90”) may now enter into a contract with a politically well-connected third party “Claims Administrator,” i.e., Kenneth R. Feinberg and Feinberg Rozen, LLP, d/b/a Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”). This third party “Administrator / Straw Person,” directly and excessively compensated by the party responsible for the oil spill incident, may totally disregard OPA 90, operate the claims process of the responsible party as fraudulently and negligently as it desires for the sole purpose of limiting the liability of, and providing closure to, the responsible party, and the third party “Administrator / Straw Person” shall never be held accountable for its tortious acts.

The operation of the GCCF has allowed BP to control, manage, and settle its liabilities on highly preferential terms; has permitted members of the MDL 2179 PSC, who are directly appointed by Judge Barbier, to be excessively compensated for merely negotiating a collusive settlement agreement; and has enabled judges to clear their dockets of large numbers of cases. In sum, fund approaches to resolving massive liabilities shift power over claims resolution entirely into the hands of self-interested parties and largely evade judicial scrutiny and oversight.

As noted above, judicial economy is undoubtedly well-served by MDL consolidation when scores of similar cases are pending in the courts. Nevertheless, the excessive delay and marginalization of juror fact finding (i.e., dearth of jury trials) associated with traditional MDL practice are developments that cannot be defended. The appropriate focus for fund resolution of mass claims should be justice for the claimants, not merely judicial economy and closure for the corporate misfeasor.

Kenneth Feinberg’s Administration of the BP Compensation Fund
On August 23, 2010, Feinberg Rozen, LLP, doing business as GCCF, replaced the claims process which BP had established to fulfill its obligations as a responsible party pursuant to OPA 90.

Kenneth Feinberg used the fear of costly and protracted litigation to coerce victims of the BP oil spill to accept grossly inadequate settlements from GCCF. During town hall meetings organized to promote GCCF, Feinberg repeatedly told victims of the BP oil spill, “the litigation route in court will mean uncertainty, years of delay and a big cut for the lawyers.” “I am determined to come up with a system that will be more generous, more beneficial, than if you go and file a lawsuit.” “It is not in your interest to tie up you and the courts in years of uncertain protracted litigation when there is an alternative that has been created,” Feinberg said. He added, “I take the position, if I don’t find you eligible, no court will find you eligible.”

GCCF employed two strategies to limit BP’s liability:
(a) an “Expedited Emergency Advance Payment (“EAP”) Denial” strategy. This strategy is as follows: “Fail to verify, investigate, and appraise the amount of loss claimed by the claimant in the EAP claim and deny the EAP claim without ever requesting supporting documentation from the claimant;” and

(b) a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy against legitimate oil spill victims. This strategy, commonly used by unscrupulous insurance companies, is as follows: “Delay payment, starve claimant, and then offer the economically and emotionally-stressed claimant a miniscule percent of all damages to which the claimant is entitled. If the financially ruined claimant rejects the settlement offer, he or she may sue.”

The ultimate objective of Feinberg’s “Expedited EAP Denial” strategy and “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy was to limit BP’s liability by obtaining a signed “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” from as many BP oil spill victims as possible.

The “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” requirement forces economically and emotionally-stressed victims of the BP oil spill to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to receive a miniscule payment amount for all damages, including future damages, they incur as a result of the BP oil spill. Feinberg’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” requirement violates OPA 90, State contract law, and is contrary to public policy.

The “Expedited EAP Denial” strategy and “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy, although unconscionable, have proven to be very effective for Feinberg and BP:

The GCCF data indicates that a total of 574,379 unique claimants filed claims with the GCCF during the period from approximately August 23, 2010 to March 7, 2012. The GCCF paid only 221,358 of these claimants. In sum, the GCCF denied payment to approximately 61.46% of the claimants who filed claims; the average total amount paid per claimant was $27,466.47.

The status report data further indicates that the GCCF paid a total of 230,370 claimants who filed claims with the GCCF during the “Phase II” period. Of these, 195,109 were either Quick Pay or Full Review Final payments; only 35,261 were Interim payments. In sum, the GCCF forced 84.68% of the claimants to sign a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties; only 15.31% of the claimants were not required to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to be paid. Feinberg’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” excluded approximately 200,000 BP oil spill victims from the MDL 2179 Economic and Property Damages Class Settlement Agreement.

The BP/PSC Class Settlement Agreement
BP and the PSC reported settlement negotiations began “in earnest” in February 2011 for two distinct class action settlements: a Medical Benefits Settlement and an Economic and Property Damages Settlement.” In sum, the PSC initiated settlement negotiations “in earnest” merely four (4) months after Judge Barbier appointed members to the PSC. Clearly, the MDL 2179 class settlement was not achieved in the full context of adversarial litigation.

There is little doubt that any class settlement agreement which: (a) excludes approximately 200,000 claimants from the settlement benefits because they had been forced to sign an unconscionable “Release and Covenant Not to Sue;” and
(b) excessively compensates members of the PSC and other counsel performing common benefit work is neither “fair, adequate, and reasonable” nor “free from collusion.”

In sum, a faux class settlement wrapped in a faux MDL is not right for America because it:

(a) allows judicial economy to replace justice; and

(b) denies access to the courts by permitting the desires and influence of corporations with deep pockets, and politically well-connected defendants, to trump the legal rights of the individual.

GM victims and BP victims deserve better!

N.B. – BP paid Feinberg Rozen, LLP a sum of $1.25 million per month to limit its liability (“administer the BP oil spill victims’ compensation fund”).

UPDATE (April 25, 2014): Plaintiffs File Motion to Hold Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al. Accountable for Financially Ruining Them

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION FOR GM VICTIMS

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION FOR BP VICTIMS

Tagged with: ,

The BP Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 2179”) Is Not Right for America

The BP Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 2179”) Is Not Right for America

MDL 2179 is a “Faux” Class Settlement Wrapped in a “Faux” MDL

By

Brian J. Donovan

Tampa, FL (August 12, 2013)  – Robert Dudley, CEO of BP, recently told Bloomberg Businessweek he believes the deal BP made with the MDL 2179 plaintiffs’ steering committee to complete the process of paying legitimate victims of the oil spill is “not right for America.” Dudley stated, “… millions of dollars are going out to pay people who suffered, in many cases, no losses from the spill. And this is just not right. I don’t think it’s right for America. When you make an agreement and you don’t have the faith and the trust that agreement is going to be interpreted the way you expect, it’s not good for America.”

MDL 2179 is not right for America, but not for the reasons set forth by Dudley.

The “Faux” MDL 2179

Judicial economy is undoubtedly well-served by MDL consolidation when scores of similar cases are pending in the courts. Regrettably, for victims of the BP oil spill, MDL 2179 is a “faux” MDL – i.e., an MDL that limits the liability of the defendants, grants excessive compensation to the members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) and other counsel performing common benefit work, and fails to adequately compensate the plaintiffs.

MDL 2179 is a “faux” MDL primarily because of: (a) the manner in which Kenneth R. Feinberg was permitted by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) and the MDL 2179 Court to administer the BP compensation fund; and (b) the terms and conditions of the BP/PSC class settlement agreement.

Feinberg’s Administration of the BP Compensation Fund

On August 10, 2010, the JPML formally established MDL 2179. In its Transfer Order, the JPML states, “Centralization may also facilitate closer coordination with Kenneth Feinberg’s administration of the BP compensation fund.” The JPML made it clear, from the very beginning, that the purpose of centralization was not merely to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary; and serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the more just and efficient conduct of the BP oil spill cases. Here, the purpose of centralization was to maximize judicial economy via the creation of a “faux” class settlement wrapped in a “faux” MDL.

On August 23, 2010, Feinberg Rozen, LLP, doing business as GCCF, replaced the claims process which BP had established to fulfill its obligations as a responsible party pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”).

In violation of OPA, GCCF‘s approach to determining claimant eligibility was driven by two factors: (1) loss location; and (2) claimant business type.

GCCF employed two strategies to limit BP’s liability:

(a) an “Expedited Emergency Advance Payment (EAP) Denial” strategy. This strategy is as follows: “Fail to verify, investigate, and appraise the amount of loss claimed by the claimant in the EAP claim and deny the EAP claim without ever requesting supporting documentation from the claimant;” and

(b) a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy against legitimate oil spill victims. This strategy, commonly used by unscrupulous insurance companies, is as follows: “Delay payment, starve claimant, and then offer the economically and emotionally-stressed claimant a miniscule percent of all damages to which the claimant is entitled. If the financially ruined claimant rejects the settlement offer, he or she may sue.”

The ultimate objective of Feinberg’s “Expedited EAP Denial” strategy and “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy was to limit BP’s liability by obtaining a signed “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” from as many BP oil spill victims as possible.

The “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” requirement forces economically and emotionally-stressed victims of the BP oil spill to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to receive a miniscule payment amount for all damages, including future damages, they incur as a result of the BP oil spill. Feinberg’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” requirement violates OPA, State contract law, and is contrary to public policy.

The “Expedited EAP Denial” strategy and “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy, although unconscionable, have proven to be very effective for Feinberg and BP:

(a) GCCF forced 84.68% of the claimants to sign a “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties;

(b) Only 15.32% of the claimants were not required to sign a “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” in order to be paid;

(c) GCCF denied payment to approximately 61.46% of the claimants who filed claims;

(d) The average total amount paid per claimant by GCCF was a paltry $27,466.47; and

(e) Feinberg’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” excluded approximately 200,000 BP oil spill victims from the MDL 2179 Economic and Property Damages Class Settlement Agreement.

In sum, BP is responsible for the oil spill incident; Feinberg, et al. (independent contractors), via employment of their “Expedited EAP Denial” strategy and “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy, are responsible for not compensating and thereby financially ruining BP oil spill victims.

On March 8, 2012, the MDL 2179 Court terminated Feinberg and the GCCF claims process and appointed Patrick Juneau as the claims administrator for the transition to the court supervised claims program. On May 2, 2012, Juneau was appointed as Claims Administrator to oversee the claims administration vendors, that will process the claims in accordance with the class settlement agreement. Under Juneau, the evaluation and processing of claims shall continue to be performed by Garden City Group, Inc., BrownGreer, PLC, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. Accordingly, there is little reason to believe that the percentage of claimants denied payment and the average total amount paid per claimant will change under Juneau.

Gamesmanship of the Legal System by Defendants

Theoretically, the JPML does not have power over state courts. In reality, corporations with deep pockets, and politically well-connected defendants,  are easily able to circumvent this slight inconvenience through procedural gamesmanship – i.e., the baseless removal of a case from state to federal court for the sole purpose of subsequently being able to immediately file a Notice of Tag-Along Case with the JPML for the transfer of the case to an MDL before any court has the opportunity to either rule on the jurisdiction of the action or reach the merits of Plaintiff’s claims in the action. The JPML’s facilitation of this type of procedural gamesmanship, although politically expedient and judicially efficient, is unjust and makes a mockery of the U.S. judicial system.

Refusal by the MDL 2179 Court and the PSC to Hold Feinberg Accountable

Kenneth R. Feinberg and Feinberg Rozen, LLP, D.B.A. GCCF are neither named Defendants in any master complaint in MDL 2179 nor on the list of “Released Parties” in the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement.

In sum, the MDL 2179 Court concedes that it never contemplated Feinberg, et al. would be Defendants in MDL 2179. Nevertheless, the MDL 2179 Court and the PSC effectively ensure that Feinberg, et al. will not be held accountable in the near future by the following means:

(a)  All pending and future motions to remand are continued without date in MDL 2179.

Pursuant to the MDL 2179 Court’s Pretrial Order No. 15 (Rec. Doc. 676), “Pending further orders of this Court, all pending and future motions, including Motions to Remand, are continued without date unless a motion is specifically excepted from the continuance by the Court.” Furthermore, pursuant to the MDL 2179 Court’s Pretrial Order No. 25 (Rec. Doc. 983), “All individual petitions or complaints that fall within Pleading Bundles B1, B3, D1, or D2, whether pre-existing or filed hereafter, are stayed until further order of the Court.”

In sum, any lawsuit filed against Feinberg, et al., in state or federal court, will be transferred to MDL 2179 and stayed (“warehoused”) indefinitely until Judge Barbier decides to remand the case to the transferor federal court.

(b) The MDL 2179 Court has declined to permit discovery on Feinberg or the GCCF.

On September 5, 2011, Stephen J. Herman, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel in MDL 2179, stated, “please be advised that the [MDL 2179] Court has, thus far, declined to permit formal discovery on Feinberg or the GCCF.”

It is important to note that formal discovery on Feinberg and the GCCF, and the associated pressure of a trial, would have been required in order to have exerted sufficient pressure on the parties to negotiate a settlement which reflected the true value of the claims and not one which focuses on minimizing the liability of the defendants. This did not occur. Without formal discovery on Feinberg and the GCCF certain claims by private individuals and businesses for economic loss resulting from the operation of the GCCF may never be properly resolved.

Generally, Courts have held the excessive delay and “marginalization of juror fact finding” (i.e., dearth of jury trials) sometimes associated with traditional MDL practice are developments that cannot be defended. Delaventura v. Columbia Acorn Trust, 417 F. Supp. 2d at 153 (D. Mass. 2006). MDL 2179 is an exception.

The MDL 2179 Court Has Overreached Its Authority.

The Supreme Court has held that a district court conducting pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(a) has no authority to invoke 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to assign a transferred case to itself for trial. Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998).

Justice Souter, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Lexecon, explained “28 U. S. C. §1407(a) authorizes the JPML to transfer civil actions with common issues of fact ‘to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,’ but imposes a duty on the Panel to remand any such action to the original district ‘at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings.’ ‘Each action so transferred shall be remanded by the Panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated.’ 28 U.S.C. §1407(a). The issue here is whether a district court conducting such ‘pretrial proceedings’ may invoke 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to assign a transferred case to itself for trial. We hold it has no such authority.”

Justice Souter pointed out that “the Panel’s instruction comes in terms of the mandatory ‘shall,’ which normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion. Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U. S. 482, 485 (1947). In the absence of any indication that there might be circumstances in which a transferred case would be neither ‘terminated’ nor subject to the remand obligation, then, the statutory instruction stands flatly at odds with reading the phrase ‘coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings’ so broadly as to reach its literal limits, allowing a transferee court’s self-assignment to trump the provision imposing the Panel’s remand duty. If we do our job of reading the statute whole, we have to give effect to this plain command, see Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 476 (1992), even if doing that will reverse the longstanding practice under the statute and the rule, see Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo (1995) (“Age is no antidote to clear inconsistency with a statute.” (quoting Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S 115, 122 (1994))).”

While the need to promote efficiency in litigation is real, “age is no antidote” to the clear promotion and facilitation of “faux” MDLs by the JPML.

The BP/PSC Class Settlement Agreement

BP and the PSC reported settlement negotiations began “in earnest” in February 2011 for two distinct class action settlements: a Medical Benefits Settlement and an Economic and Property Damages Settlement.” In sum, the PSC initiated settlement negotiations “in earnest” merely four (4) months after Judge Barbier appointed members to the PSC. Clearly, the MDL 2179 class settlement was not achieved in the full context of adversarial litigation.

Professor Martin Redish of Northwestern University School of Law argues that settlement class actions undermine the important constitutional values underlying the requirement of adversary adjudication. In such classes, the parties expressly make class certification contingent on the entry of a settlement resolving the litigation. Thus, while settlement classes may have certain attractive aspects, such as reducing litigation expenses, many of the traditional aspects of adversarial litigation are missing. As a result, according to Professor Redish, the settlement class is potentially the product of collusion among the parties: defendants who wish to rid themselves of the burden of litigation and plaintiffs‘ counsel who wish to receive immediate compensation. Redish further argues settlement class actions are flat-out unconstitutional because there is no “case or controversy,” a constitutional requirement for making a federal case out of something. Since the lawyers are all on the same side, he says, the only losers are plaintiffs who are forever barred from suing over the matter again. This is precisely what has happened in MDL 2179.

The court in Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3rd Cir. 1996), noted that the presentation of class action cases in the form of negotiated settlements for approval by the courts under Rule 23(c) raises a constitutional issue whether there is a justiciable case or controversy. Such cases also raise practical concerns about potential collusion and inadequate representation, as well as the ability of the court to evaluate the merits of the settlement in a non-adversarial context. Georgine, 83 F.3d at 617.

Professor Redish also points out that the opt-out mechanism under Rule 23(b)(3) should be abandoned in favor of an opt-in mechanism that requires absent class members to take some affirmative action before being swept into a class action. Redish believes that allowing due process rights to be waived simply by inaction, as under the current version of the rule, does not sufficiently protect such constitutional rights.

If a class is certified and the class representatives are unsuccessful, the absent class members’ claims will be “legally obliterated” by the result of the litigation, even though they did not actively participate in the suit. Likewise, as many have observed, a class action can reduce the input any particular plaintiff has in the conduct of the case. Where thousands are represented in a single lawsuit, it is simply impossible for them to have the same level of input regarding the prosecution of their claims. Moreover, conflicts among class members inevitably emerge, rendering the class action mechanism an imperfect means of resolving large-scale litigation.

The standard for reviewing a proposed settlement of a class action by courts is whether the proposed settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable” and whether it has been entered into without collusion between the parties. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977); see also Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Settlement is the offspring of compromise; the question we address is not whether the final product could be prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is fair, adequate, and free from collusion.”).

There is little doubt that any class settlement agreement which: (a) excludes approximately 200,000 claimants from the settlement benefits because they had been forced to sign an unconscionable “Release and Covenant Not to Sue;” and (b) excessively compensates members of the PSC and other counsel performing common benefit work is neither “fair, adequate, and reasonable” nor “free from collusion.”

Conclusion

Dudley is correct. Individuals and businesses that did not suffer damages resulting from the BP oil spill should not be paid. It is important to note, however, that fraudulent claims represent a very small percentage of the total number of claims.

MDL 2179 is “not right for America” because:

(a) it is a “faux” MDL;

(b) it approves a “faux” class settlement agreement which is neither “fair, adequate, and reasonable” nor “free from collusion;”

(c) attorneys, with impunity, are permitted to advise BP to tell Congress, the National Incident Command, and the public that the oil spill flow rate was 5,000 barrels of oil per day when BP engineers were performing internal analyses showing that the flow rate could be up to 20 times greater;

(d) it permits members of the PSC, who are directly appointed by the transferee judge, and other counsel performing common benefit work to be excessively compensated for merely negotiating a settlement agreement;

(e) it allows BP to retain a third-party “claims administrator” to limit its liability, with impunity, via an “Expedited EAP Denial” strategy and a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy; and

(f) the JPML, which does not have power over state courts, promotes and facilitates the gamesmanship of the legal system by defendants, i.e., the baseless removal of a case from state to federal court for the sole purpose of subsequently being able to immediately file a Notice of Tag-Along Case with the JPML for the transfer of the case to MDL 2179. The JPML’s facilitation of this type of procedural gamesmanship, although politically expedient and judicially efficient, is unjust and makes a mockery of the U.S. judicial system.

In sum, MDL 2179 is not right for America because it:

(a) allows judicial economy to replace justice; and

(b) denies access to the courts by permitting the desires and influence of corporations with deep pockets, and politically well-connected defendants, to trump the legal rights of the individual.

N.B. – BP paid Feinberg Rozen, LLP a sum of $1.25 million per month to limit its liability (“administer the BP oil spill victims’ compensation fund”).

Tagged with:

BP Oil Spill: An Open Letter to the MDL 2179 Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”)

December 21, 2012

VIA Email

Mr. Stephen J. Herman
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel
Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP
820 O’Keefe Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70113

Re: An Open Letter to the MDL 2179 Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”)

Dear Steve,

I am writing this open letter on behalf of my clients and all similarly-situated BP oil spill and Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”) victims.

Background

On August 10, 2010, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued its Transfer Order (Rec. Doc. 1) wherein it clearly states:

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Carl J. Barbier for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.” (Emphasis added)

In order to efficiently manage MDL 2179, Judge Barbier consolidated and organized the various types of claims into several “pleading bundles” for the purpose of the filing of complaints, answers and any Rule 12 motions. The “B1” pleading bundle includes all claims for private or non-governmental economic loss and property damages.

On December 15, 2010, the PSC filed a “B1” Master Complaint.

On January 12, 2011, the MDL 2179 Court issued PTO No. 25, in order to clarify “the scope and effect” of the “B1” Master Complaint. The Court held that any individual plaintiff who is a named plaintiff in a case that falls within pleading bundle “B1” “is deemed to be a plaintiff in the “B1” Master Complaint.” Also, “the allegations, claims, theories of recovery and/or prayers for relief contained within the pre-existing petition or complaint are deemed to be amended, restated, and superseded by the allegations, claims, theories of recovery, and/or prayers for relief in the respective “B1” Master Complaint(s) in which the Defendant is named.”

In sum, my clients were forced to be represented by the PSC. Accordingly, since you have stepped into my shoes, I, and all similarly-situated attorneys representing BP oil spill and GCCF victims, hold the PSC strictly accountable to zealously advocate on behalf of all MDL 2179 Plaintiffs.

I look forward to receiving the PSC’s answers to the following 10 questions.

QUESTION NO. 1

Why did the PSC designate the “B1” Master Complaint as an admiralty or maritime case, and request a non-jury trial pursuant to Rule 9(h), rather than properly allege claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”), a strict liability statute, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”)?

On February 9, 2011, the PSC filed a First Amended Master Complaint. Rather than allege claims under the OPA (which governs the MDL 2179 cases alleging economic loss due to the BP oil spill) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) (which governs the MDL 2179 personal injury and wrongful death actions and borrows the law of the adjacent state as surrogate federal law), the PSC made the unfathomable decision to allege claims under admiralty law. In the “B1” First Amended Master Complaint, the PSC clearly states, “The claims presented herein are admiralty or maritime claims within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs hereby designate this case as an admiralty or maritime case, and request a non-jury trial, pursuant to Rule 9(h).”

QUESTION NO. 2

Why has the PSC failed to inform Judge Barbier that the honorable MDL 2179 Court has overreached its authority?

The Supreme Court has held that a district court conducting pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(a) has no authority to invoke 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to assign a transferred case to itself for trial. Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998).

Justice Souter, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Lexecon, explained 28 U. S. C. §1407(a) authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) to transfer civil actions with common issues of fact “to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” but imposes a duty on the Panel to remand any such action to the original district “at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings.”

QUESTION NO. 3

Why has the PSC failed to inform Judge Barbier that the E&PD class settlement violates the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”)?

In violation of the OPA and contrary to the intent of Congress, the E&PD class settlement defines “Class Members” by geographic bounds and certain business activities while requiring proof of a heightened, vague standard of causation.

QUESTION NO. 4

Why has the PSC failed to inform Judge Barbier that the honorable MDL 2179 Court has illegally excluded approximately 200,000 BP oil spill victims from the E&PD class settlement thereby greatly decreasing the bargaining power of the remaining class members?

GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violates the OPA:

(a) by requiring the release of future damages as requirement for receiving a payment from the GCCF claims process, in contravention of 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2); and

(b) by allowing Feinberg, et al. to intentionally fail to provide a process for presenting, processing and paying interim, short-term damages, in contravention of 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2).

The text and the legislative history of the OPA statute are clear. OPA expressly prohibits Responsible Parties from engaging in a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy wherein the victims of an oil spill are starved and ultimately forced to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to receive a miniscule payment amount for all damages, including future damages, they incur as a result of the oil spill.

Furthermore, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violates State contract law because it:

(a) was obtained through the use of economic duress;

(b) was obtained without free consent (Claimants did not consent to the release by choice, because the only option for receiving payment required Claimants to sign a release, the terms of which they had no opportunity to negotiate.);

(c) was obtained through fraud;

(d) requires Claimants to discharge, waive and release future claims (including those resulting from gross negligence) for costs and damages (including punitive damages) that are unknown and have not yet arisen;

(e) was obtained in exchange for inadequate consideration; and

(f) has as its objective the circumvention of the OPA.

Accordingly, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” is void ab initio.

In sum, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” and the class settlement’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violate federal law, State contract law, and are contrary to public policy. Illegally excluding approximately 200,000 Claimants from the E&PD class settlement also greatly decreases the bargaining power of the “Class Members” and results in an increased loss of faith in the federal judicial system.

As Judge Barbier aptly stated in his Order of August 26, 2011, “The long term effects [of the BP oil spill] on the environment and fisheries may not be known for many years.”(p. 31, Rec. Doc. 3830).

Requiring BP oil spill victims, PSC’s clients, to prematurely waive their right to sue in exchange for a miniscule single final settlement payment is unconscionable.

QUESTION NO. 5

Why has the PSC failed to inform Judge Barbier that the E&PD class settlement is not “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and has not been entered into without collusion between the parties?

For the following reasons, the E&PD class settlement is not “fair, adequate, and reasonable” (at least not for the “Class Members”) and has not been entered into without collusion between the parties:

(a) Prior to the class action settlements, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust had a balance of approximately $13.8 billion from which BP oil spill victims believed they would be compensated by the GCCF for all “legitimate” claims.

(b) After the class action settlements, the proposed “Settlement Trust” has only a balance of $7.8 billion from which BP oil spill victims are being told they will be compensated by the DHCC “so long as they execute an individual release.”

(c) As noted above, under the class action settlements, BP will receive a refund of approximately $6 billion; the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work will receive $600 million.

(d) The E&PD class action settlement doesn’t actually provide for funds to be distributed to Class Members; it merely gives BP oil spill victims the right to submit, yet again, a claim for economic and property damages. The PSC and BP oil spill victims have to ask, “Where’s the settlement?

(e) “……within 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the BP Parties shall irrevocably pay into the Common Benefit Fee and Costs Fund an amount equal to 6 % (six percent) of the aggregate Settlement Payments paid under the Economic Agreement in respect of Claimants that have executed an Individual Release.” In sum, the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work are financially motivated to have as many Claimants execute an Individual Release as expeditiously as possible regardless of whether the negotiated settlements reflect the true value of the claims.

QUESTION NO. 6

Why has the PSC failed to inform Judge Barbier that a class action may not be brought in a limitation proceeding?

The MDL 2179 Court may not certify a class in the limitation action because it would contravene the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Lloyds Leasing Ltd. v. Bates, 902 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1990). In Lloyds Leasing, the Fifth Circuit squarely held that a class action may not be brought in a limitation proceeding. Id. at 370. In affirming the district court’s denial of class certification, the Fifth Circuit reasoned as follows: First, the class action interferes with the concursus contemplated by the limitation of liability proceeding. . . . Second, the notice requirements of the limitation proceeding are more restrictive than the notice requirements of the class action. . . . Third, the entire thrust of Supplemental Rule F is that each claimant must appear individually and this is obviously inconsistent with the class action. Staring, Limitation Practice and Procedure, 53 Tul.L.Rev. 1134, 1150 (1979). In sum, “[t]he two rules are incompatible, and class representation in the sense of Rule 23 should therefore not be allowed in limitation proceedings.” Id.

Following Lloyd’s Leasing, courts in this district have routinely stricken class action allegations when they are filed within a limitation proceeding or dismissed class action complaints when they are filed after a limitation proceeding has been instituted. See, e.g., In re: Ingram Barge Co., No. 05-4419, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79403, 2006 WL 5377855, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2006) (striking class allegations pursuant to Lloyd’s Leasing); In re: River City Towing Servs., Inc., 204 F.R.D. 94, 97 (E.D. La. 2001) (same); Humphreys v. Antillen, N.V., Nos. 93-3799, 93-3714, 1994 WL 682811, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 31, 1994) (dismissing class action complaint filed after limitation proceeding). The limitation proceedings need not be resolved and limitation of liability upheld in order to dismiss class action allegations. For example, Judge Berrigan in Ingram Barge and Judge Feldman in Humphreys struck or dismissed class action allegations before deciding the limitation issue. See Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (America), Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27180.

QUESTION NO. 7

Why has the PSC allowed the MDL 2179 Court to decline to permit formal discovery on Feinberg, et al?

On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff Salvesen, one of my clients, filed his action against Defendants Kenneth R. Feinberg, Feinberg Rozen, LLP, GCCF, and William G. Green, Jr. in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida asserting claims for gross negligence, negligence, negligence per se, fraud, fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment under Florida state law. The case was subsequently transferred by the JPML to the MDL 2179 Court on October 6, 2011. See Salvesen v. Feinberg, et al., 2:11-cv-02533.

Once the Salvesen case was transferred to the MDL 2179 Court, not only was the case automatically stayed, but the Salvesen claims, as explained supra, were inexplicably deemed “amended, restated, and superseded” by the allegations and claims of the Master Complaint in Pleading Bundle B1 (See Pre-Trial Order No. 25, Para. 5, Jan. 12, 2011).

It is important to note that Kenneth R. Feinberg and Feinberg Rozen, LLP, d/b/a Gulf Coast Claims Facility, are not named Defendants in any Master Complaint or Class Action Complaint in MDL 2179.

On August 29, 2011, I emailed a letter to James Parkerson Roy wherein I informed Mr. Roy that the Pinellas Marine Salvage, Inc., et al. v. Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al. case had been transferred to MDL 2179. The letter, in pertinent part, stated “I would like to commence discovery as soon as possible. Since this action does not involve common questions of fact with actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2179, please advise as to how we may most expeditiously initiate and coordinate discovery……I look forward to working with you on this case.”

On September 5, 2011, I received an email from you wherein you stated, “please be advised that the Court has, thus far, declined to permit formal discovery on Feinberg or the GCCF.

Judge Barbier writes, “…the PSC has actively lobbied and argued for increased supervision and monitoring of the GCCF and Kenneth Feinberg/Feinberg Rozen, LLP. These efforts have met with at least partial success. For instance, on February 2, 2011 the Court granted the PSC’s motion (in part) and ordered the GCCF and BP to:

(1) Refrain from contacting directly any claimant that they know or reasonably should know is represented by counsel, whether or not said claimant has filed a lawsuit or formal claim.

(2) Refrain from referring to the GCCF, Ken Feinberg, or Feinberg Rozen, LLP (or their representatives), as “neutral” or completely “independent” from BP. It should be clearly disclosed in all communications, whether written or oral, that said parties are acting for and on behalf of BP in fulfilling its statutory obligations as the “responsible party” under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

(3) Begin any communication with a putative class member with the statement that the individual has a right to consult with an attorney of his/her own choosing prior to accepting any settlement or signing a release of legal rights.

(4) Refrain from giving or purporting to give legal advice to unrepresented claimants, including advising that claimants should not hire a lawyer.

(5) Fully disclose to claimants their options under OPA if they do not accept a final payment, including filing a claim in the pending MDL 2179 litigation.

(6) Advise claimants that the “pro bono” attorneys and “community representatives” retained to assist GCCF claimants are being compensated directly or indirectly by BP.” (Rec. Doc. 1098 at 14).

Judge Barbier further writes, “The PSC has advocated for a full and transparent audit of the GCCF and its claims handling practices, and together with the U.S. Department of Justice, has persuaded Mr. Feinberg to agree to such an audit which is now in progress. The PSC has advocated, again with some success, for the GCCF to employ a more liberal causation standard in evaluating claims and has advanced similar causation arguments in this MDL proceeding.” See Order of Aug. 26, 2011, Rec. Doc. 3830 at 32-33. (pp. 4-5, Rec. Doc. 5022).

Again, and please correct me if I am wrong, the PSC represents all plaintiffs in MDL 2179. These plaintiffs deserve more than the PSC merely: (a) “lobbying” for increased supervision and monitoring of Feinberg, et al.; (b) trying to “persuade” Mr. Feinberg to agree to an audit; and (c) “advocating,” again with some success, for the GCCF to employ a more liberal causation standard in evaluating claims.

The JPML believes, “Centralization may also facilitate closer coordination with Kenneth Feinberg’s administration of the BP compensation fund.” However, formal discovery on Feinberg and the GCCF, and the associated pressure of a trial, are required in order exert pressure on the parties to negotiate a settlement which reflects the true value of the claims and not one which focuses on minimizing the liability of the defendants. Certainly, as has occurred in MDL 2179, without formal discovery on Feinberg and the GCCF, certain claims by private individuals and businesses for economic loss resulting from the operation of the GCCF may never be properly resolved.

QUESTION NO. 8

Why does the PSC allow its BP oil spill victim clients to receive grossly inadequate compensation?

The Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”)

The GCCF data indicates that a total of 574,379 unique claimants filed claims with the GCCF during the period from approximately August 23, 2010 to March 7, 2012. The GCCF paid only 221,358 of these Claimants. In sum, the GCCF denied payment to approximately 61.46% of the claimants who filed claims; the average total amount paid per claimant was $27,466.47.

The status report data further indicates that the GCCF paid a total of 230,370 claimants who filed claims with the GCCF during the “Phase II” period. Of these, 195,109 were either Quick Pay or Full Review Final payments; only 35,261 were Interim payments. In sum, the GCCF forced 84.68% of the claimants to sign a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties; only 15.31% of the claimants were not required to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to be paid. See “Gulf Coast Claims Facility Overall Program Statistics” (Status Report, Mar. 7, 2012, p. 1).

The Deepwater Horizon Claims Center (“DHCC”)

The DHCC and the GCCF are virtually identical. Under the GCCF, the evaluation and processing of claims were performed by Garden City Group, Inc., BrownGreer, PLC, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP {“PwC”). Under the DHCC, the evaluation and processing of claims shall continue to be performed by Garden City Group, Inc., BrownGreer, PLC, and PwC. Accordingly, although Patrick Juneau has replaced Ken Feinberg, there is no reason to believe that the percentage of claimants denied payment and the average total amount paid per claimant will change under the DHCC.

The DHCC Data

The DHCC data indicates that a total of 36,468 claimants filed Individual and Business claims with the DHCC during the period from approximately June 4, 2012 to October 5, 2012. The DHCC paid only 71 of these claimants. In sum, the DHCC paid only 0.19% of the claimants who filed claims. Of the 19,338 Individual Economic Loss claims submitted, 79 claimants have received payment offers totaling $860,968, resulting in 6 payments totaling $38,173. This equates to an average payment of only $6,362.17 per Individual Economic Loss Claimant! (DHCC Status Report, Oct. 5, 2012).

The DHCC data, dated October 26, 2012, indicates that a total of 41,235 claimants have filed the above types of claims with the DHCC. The DHCC paid only 407 of these claimants. In sum, the DHCC paid only 0.99% of the claimants who filed claims. Of the 21,058 Individual Economic Loss claims submitted, 204 claimants have received payment offers totaling $2,190,404, resulting in 43 payments totaling $599,428. This equates to an average payment of only $13,940.19 per Individual Economic Loss Claimant!

The DHCC data, dated November 16, 2012, indicates that a total of 46,159 claimants have filed the above types of claims with the DHCC. The DHCC paid only 996 of these claimants. In sum, the DHCC paid only 2.16% of the claimants who filed claims. Of the 22,571 Individual Economic Loss claims submitted, 354 claimants have received payment offers totaling $3,893,028, resulting in 143 payments totaling $1,777,080. This equates to an average payment of only $12,427.13 per Individual Economic Loss Claimant!

“I think it’s a tribute to the GCCF that all the people we used have been retained [by the DHCC],” Feinberg said. “I take great satisfaction in that fact.” David Hammer, Louisiana lawyer set to take Kenneth Feinberg’s role in BP oil spill claims process, The Times-Picayune (March 9, 2012).

My clients and all similarly-situated BP oil spill and GCCF victims do not share Feinberg’s great satisfaction.

QUESTION NO. 9

Why does the PSC allow for the E&PD class settlement to provide for a refund of approximately $6 billion to BP while granting excessive compensation to the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing “common benefit” work?

(a) The Refund

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust                                                                             $20  Billion

(Amount set aside by BP to allegedly pay economic

damage claims to individuals and businesses affected

by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.)

Approximate Amount Paid to Claimants by GCCF                                                 $ 6.2 Billion

Cost of the Proposed Settlement                                                                                 $ 7.8 Billion

Amount to be Refunded to BP                                                                         $6.0 Billion

(b) The Excessive Compensation

The PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work in MDL 2179 are not double-dipping; they are triple-dipping. The known sources of compensation received by attorneys allegedly doing common benefit work on behalf of BP oil spill victims in MDL 2179 are:

(a) Six percent (6%) of the gross monetary settlements, judgments or other payments made on or after December 30, 2011 through June 3, 2012 to any other plaintiff or claimant-in-limitation;

N.B. – Plaintiffs’ Counsel received a Final Payment Offer from GCCF on behalf of Plaintiff Pinellas Marine Salvage, Inc. This offer, dated June 3, 2012 and postmarked June 8, 2012, was received by Plaintiffs’ Counsel on June 11, 2012. This offer, along with probably hundreds of other offers made to Claimants by GCCF, is dated one day before Claimants are no longer required to pay six percent (6%) of the gross monetary settlement they receive to the MDL 2179 common benefit fund. Plaintiffs respectfully point out to the Court that June 3, 2012 was a Sunday. These offers were dated June 3rd in order to ensure that the PSC received the maximum amount of payment from the 6% hold-back provision.

(b) BP has agreed to pay any award for common benefit and/or Rule 23(h) attorneys’ fees, as determined by the Court, up to $600 million. In order to be awarded a common benefit fee of $600 million, the MDL 2179 Court would have to believe that the PSC attorneys worked two million hours;

(c) Many attorneys doing common benefit work have their own clients and have also received or will also receive a fee directly from them. (N.B. – On June 15, 2012, the MDL 2179 Court ordered that “contingent fee arrangements for all attorneys representing claimants/plaintiffs that settle claims through either or both of the Settlements will be capped at 25% plus reasonable costs.”); and

(d) Co-counsel fees received by member firms of the PSC for serving as co-counsel to non-member firms of the PSC. For example, on March 13, 2012, Counsel for Plaintiff Salvesen received an unsolicited mass email from a member firm of the PSC. The email stated, in pertinent part, “Co-Counsel Opportunity for BP Oil Spill Cases: News of the recent BP Settlement has caused many individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast to contemplate either filing a new claim or amending a claim that has already been submitted. If you receive inquiries of this nature we would like you to consider a co-counsel relationship with our firm. Even if someone has already filed a claim it is advisable to retain legal counsel to analyze the impact of this settlement on claimants and maximize recovery. If you receive inquiries and are interested in co-counseling with us on the BP claims, please email…”

The Court has been fully briefed in regard to the excessive compensation being paid to the PSC and other counsel performing common benefit work in MDL 2179. (Rec. Doc. 6831-1)

QUESTION NO. 10

Given the above-referenced was not merely the result of poor legal strategy, do you believe the MDL 2179 PSC’s actions constitute legal malpractice?

Since April 8, 2012, our firm has filed: (a) a Motion to Vacate Order and Reasons [As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 Master Complaint]; (b) three Motions to Vacate Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement]; and (c) a Motion to Nullify Each and Every Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”) “Release and Covenant Not to Sue.”

In contrast, as noted supra, the PSC appears to be more interested in maximizing its compensation and ensuring significant economy and efficiency in the judicial administration of the MDL 2179 Court rather than in obtaining justice for the MDL 2179 plaintiffs.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 352-328-7469 or via e-mail at BrianJDonovan@verizon.net. I would be happy to provide the PSC with any and all supporting documentation.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Brian J. Donovan

Brian J. Donovan

cc:        James Parkerson Roy (jimr@wrightroy.com), Brian H. Barr (bbarr@levinlaw.com), Scott Summy (ssummy@baronbudd.com)

Click here to download a copy of this letter.

Tagged with:

BP Oil Spill Victims Opt-Out of the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlements

BP Oil Spill Victims Opt-Out of the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlements

__________________

DHCC Status Report Proves that the Only Beneficiaries Are BP, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and Other “Common Benefit” Attorneys

Tampa, FL (October 15, 2012) – Victims of the BP oil spill have elected to opt-out of the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement and the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement. These victims, represented by The Donovan Law Group, Tampa, FL, decided not to be held as class action hostages by settlements which will never adequately compensate them for their losses.

REASONS TO OPT-OUT

The following is a partial list of reasons why these Claimants/Plaintiffs/Class Action Hostages decided to opt-out. The list will be updated daily until November 1, 2012. After that date, the list will no longer matter.

(1) BP oil spill victims receive grossly inadequate compensation.

The Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”) data indicates that a total of 574,379 unique claimants filed claims with the GCCF during the period from approximately August 23, 2010 to March 7, 2012. The GCCF paid only 221,358 of these Claimants. In sum, the GCCF denied payment to approximately 61.46% of the claimants who filed claims; the average total amount paid per claimant was $27,466.47.

The status report data further indicates that the GCCF paid a total of 230,370 claimants who filed claims with the GCCF during the “Phase II” period. Of these, 195,109 were either Quick Pay or Full Review Final payments; only 35,261 were Interim payments. In sum, the GCCF forced 84.68% of the claimants to sign a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties; only 15.31% of the claimants were not required to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to be paid. See “Gulf Coast Claims Facility Overall Program Statistics” (Status Report, Mar. 7, 2012, p. 1).

The Deepwater Horizon Claims Center (“DHCC”) and the GCCF are virtually identical. Under the GCCF, the evaluation and processing of claims were performed by Garden City Group, Inc., BrownGreer, PLC, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. Under the DHCC, the evaluation and processing of claims shall continue to be performed by Garden City Group, Inc., BrownGreer, PLC, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. Accordingly, although Patrick Juneau has replaced Ken Feinberg, there is no reason to believe that the percentage of claimants denied payment and the average total amount paid per claimant will change under the DHCC.

The DHCC data indicates that a total of 36,468 claimants filed Individual and Business claims with the DHCC during the period from approximately June 4, 2012 to October 5, 2012. The DHCC paid only 71 of these claimants. In sum, the DHCC paid only 0.19% of the claimants who filed claims. Of the 19,338 Individual Economic Loss claims submitted, 79 claimants have received payment offers totaling $860,968, resulting in 6 payments totaling $38,173. This equates to an average payment of only $6,362.17 per Individual Economic Loss Claimant! (DHCC Status Report, Oct. 5, 2012).

“I think it’s a tribute to the GCCF that all the people we used have been retained,” Feinberg said. “I take great satisfaction in that fact.” David Hammer, Louisiana lawyer set to take Kenneth Feinberg’s role in BP oil spill claims process, The Times-Picayune (March 9, 2012). It is unlikely that BP oil spill victims will share Feinberg’s satisfaction.

(2) The class action settlements provide for a refund of approximately $6 billion to BP while granting excessive compensation to the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing “common benefit” work.

(a) The Refund

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust                                                                                                               $20  Billion

(Amount set aside by BP to allegedly pay economic

damage claims to individuals and businesses affected

by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.)

Approximate Amount Paid to Claimants by GCCF                                                                                   $6.2 Billion

Cost of the Proposed Settlement                                                                                                                   $7.8 Billion

Amount to be Refunded to BP                                                                                                                       $6.0 Billion

(b) The Excessive Compensation

The PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work in MDL 2179 are not double-dipping; they are triple-dipping. The known sources of compensation received by attorneys allegedly doing common benefit work on behalf of BP oil spill victims in MDL 2179 are:

(a) Six percent (6%) of the gross monetary settlements, judgments or other payments made on or after December 30, 2011 through June 3, 2012 to any other plaintiff or claimant-in-limitation;

N.B. – Plaintiffs’ Counsel received a Final Payment Offer from GCCF on behalf of Plaintiff Pinellas Marine Salvage, Inc. This offer, dated June 3, 2012 and postmarked June 8, 2012, was received by Plaintiffs’ Counsel on June 11, 2012. This offer, along with probably hundreds of other offers made to Claimants by GCCF, is dated one day before Claimants are no longer required to pay six percent (6%) of the gross monetary settlement they receive to the MDL 2179 common benefit fund. Plaintiffs respectfully point out to the Court that June 3, 2012 was a Sunday. These offers were dated June 3rd in order to ensure that the PSC received the maximum amount of payment from the 6% hold-back provision.

(b) BP has agreed to pay any award for common benefit and/or Rule 23(h) attorneys’ fees, as determined by the Court, up to $600 million. In order to be awarded a common benefit fee of $600 million, the MDL 2179 Court would have to believe that the PSC attorneys worked two million hours;

(c) Many attorneys doing common benefit work have their own clients and have also received or will also receive a fee directly from them. (N.B. – On June 15, 2012, the MDL 2179 Court ordered that “contingent fee arrangements for all attorneys representing claimants/plaintiffs that settle claims through either or both of the Settlements will be capped at 25% plus reasonable costs.”); and

(d) Co-counsel fees received by member firms of the PSC for serving as co-counsel to non-member firms of the PSC. For example, on March 13, 2012, Counsel for Plaintiff Salvesen received an unsolicited mass email from a member firm of the PSC. The email stated, in pertinent part, “Co-Counsel Opportunity for BP Oil Spill Cases: News of the recent BP Settlement has caused many individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast to contemplate either filing a new claim or amending a claim that has already been submitted. If you receive inquiries of this nature we would like you to consider a co-counsel relationship with our firm. Even if someone has already filed a claim it is advisable to retain legal counsel to analyze the impact of this settlement on claimants and maximize recovery. If you receive inquiries and are interested in co-counseling with us on the BP claims, please email…”

Click here for a list of the attorneys appointed to the PSC by Judge Barbier.

(3)  These class action settlements are not “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and have not been entered into without collusion between the parties.

For the following reasons, these class action settlements are not “fair, adequate, and reasonable” (at least not for the “Class Members”) and have not been entered into without collusion between the parties:

(a) Prior to the class action settlements, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust had a balance of approximately $13.8 billion from which BP oil spill victims believed they would be compensated by the GCCF for all “legitimate” claims.

(b) After the class action settlements, the proposed “Settlement Trust” has only a balance of $7.8 billion from which BP oil spill victims are being told they will be compensated by the DHCC “so long as they execute an individual release.”

(c) As noted above, under the class action settlements, BP will receive a refund of approximately $6 billion; the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work will receive $600 million.

(d) The E&PD class action settlement doesn’t actually provide for funds to be distributed to Class Members; it merely gives BP oil spill victims the right to submit, yet again, a claim for economic and property damages. BP oil spill victims have to ask, “Where’s the settlement?

(e) “……within 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the BP Parties shall irrevocably pay into the Common Benefit Fee and Costs Fund an amount equal to 6 % (six percent) of the aggregate Settlement Payments paid under the Economic Agreement in respect of Claimants that have executed an Individual Release.” In sum, the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work are financially motivated to have as many Claimants execute an Individual Release as expeditiously as possible regardless of whether the negotiated settlements reflect the true value of the claims.

Click here to read the PSC’s INCOMPREHENSIBLE Reply in Response to Objections and in Further Support of Final Approval of the E&PD Class Settlement (Dated: October 22, 2012). 

(4) Judicial efficiency has replaced justice in MDL 2179.

In order to efficiently manage MDL 2179, Judge Barbier consolidated and organized the various types of claims into several “pleading bundles” for the purpose of the filing of complaints, answers and any Rule 12 motions. The “B1” pleading bundle includes all claims for private or “non-governmental” economic loss and property damages.”

On December 15, 2010, the PSC filed a B1 Master Complaint. On January 12, 2011, the MDL 2179 Court issued PTO No. 25, in order to clarify “the scope and effect” of the “B1″ Master Complaint. The Court held that any individual plaintiff who is a named plaintiff in a case that falls within pleading bundle “B1″ “is deemed to be a plaintiff in the “B1″ Master Complaint.” Also, “the allegations, claims, theories of recovery and/or prayers for relief contained within the pre-existing petition or complaint are deemed to be amended, restated, and superseded by the allegations, claims, theories of recovery, and/or prayers for relief in the respective “B1″ Master Complaint(s) in which the Defendant is named.”

On February 9, 2011, the PSC filed a First Amended Master Complaint. Rather than allege claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) (which governs the MDL 2179 cases alleging economic loss due to the BP oil spill) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) (which governs the MDL 2179 personal injury and wrongful death actions and borrows the law of the adjacent state as surrogate federal law), the PSC made the unfathomable decision to allege claims under admiralty law. In the B1 First Amended Master Complaint, the PSC clearly states, “The claims presented herein are admiralty or maritime claims within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs hereby designate this case as an admiralty or maritime case, and request a non-jury trial, pursuant to Rule 9(h).”

The PSC appears to be more interested in ensuring significant economy and efficiency in the judicial administration of the MDL 2179 court rather than in obtaining justice for the MDL 2179 plaintiffs.

As noted above, in its B1 First Amended Master Complaint, the PSC alleges claims under general maritime law, not under OPA and OCSLA, thereby assisting the MDL 2179 Court in expeditiously being able to:

(a) Find, “State law, both statutory and common, is preempted by maritime law, notwithstanding OPA’s savings provisions. All claims brought under state law are dismissed.”

(b) Find, “…. That nothing prohibits Defendants from settling claims for economic loss. While OPA does not specifically address the use of waivers and releases by Responsible Parties, the statute also does not clearly prohibit it. In fact, as the Court has recognized in this Order, one of the goals of OPA was to allow for speedy and efficient recovery by victims of an oil spill.”

(5) As Judge Barbier aptly stated in his Order of August 26, 2011, “The long term effects [of the BP oil spill] on the environment and fisheries may not be known for many years.” (p. 31, Rec. Doc. 3830).

Requiring Class Members to prematurely waive their right to sue in exchange for a miniscule single final settlement payment is unconscionable.

(6) The E&PD class action settlement violates the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”).

BP and the PSC cherry-pick OPA’s provisions for their benefit at the detriment to Plaintiffs. Contrary to the intent of Congress, the E&PD class action settlement defines “Class Members” by geographic bounds and certain business activities while requiring proof of a heightened, vague standard of causation.

(7) The “Plaintiffs'” Steering Committee (“PSC”) misleads “Class Members.”

(a) Statute of Limitations

The PSC intentionally fails to counsel those claimants who may opt-out of the Proposed Settlements that a lawsuit brought against BP and/or a non- Responsible Party, e.g., a lawsuit asserting claims for gross negligence, fraud, etc. against Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al, may be barred by the statute of limitations.

Under OPA, an action for damages shall be barred unless the action is brought within three years after the date on which the loss and the connection of the loss with the discharge in question are reasonably discoverable with the exercise of due care. 33 U.S.C. § 2717(f)(1)(A).

In federal question cases, the federal court will apply the specific statute of limitations period established by the federal statute under which the plaintiff is seeking relief. Federal courts that are hearing a controversy based on diversity of citizenship of the parties must apply the applicable state law of the forum state. In this case, a lawsuit which could be brought against a non-Responsible Party may be barred by the statute of limitations.

(b) The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”)

The PSC intentionally fails to counsel those claimants who may opt-out of the Proposed Settlements that they will not be able to pursue their claims via the OSLTF.

The OPA provides the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”) to pay for oil spill costs when the responsible party cannot or does not pay. The OSLTF, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard through its National Pollution Funds Center (“NPFC”), is primarily financed through a tax on petroleum products, and is subject to a $1 billion cap on the amount of expenditures from the OSLTF per incident. For any one oil pollution incident, the OSLTF may pay up to $1 billion. Victims of the BP oil spill are at risk as a result of this cap. The cap is for total expenditures. This $1 billion expenditure limit applies even if the OSLTF is fully reimbursed by the responsible party and net expenditures are zero. OSLTF expenditures for natural resource damage assessments and claims in connection with a single incident are limited to $500 million of that $1 billion. NPFC administers the OSLTF by disbursing funds to government agencies to reimburse them for their oil spill cleanup costs (cost reimbursements), monitoring the sources and uses of funds, adjudicating claims submitted by individuals and businesses to the OSLTF for payment (claims), and pursuing reimbursement from the responsible party for costs and damages paid from the OSLTF (billing the responsible party).

On March 9, 2012, Mr. Craig A. Bennett, Director – NPFC, provided the following OSLTF status report in regard to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident:

Deepwater Horizon OSLTF Costs = $619 million

Deepwater Horizon Pending Claims = $410 million (for 1,659 claims received)

On March 9, 2012, total OSLTF expenditures (paid + pending claims) in regard to the Deepwater Horizon was $1.019 billion. In sum, since the OSLTF has exceeded, or will very shortly exceed, its $1 billion expenditure cap for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident, the OSLTF cannot pay valid individual or business claims which are not paid by BP.

(8) The MDL 2179 Court has inexplicably reaffirmed its ruling that the E&PD class action settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and “free of collusion.”

Since April 8, 2012, our firm has filed: (a) a Motion to Vacate Order and Reasons [As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 Master Complaint]; (b) three Motions to Vacate Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement]; and (c) a Motion to Nullify Each and Every Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”) “Release and Covenant Not to Sue.”

Click here to read the memorandum in support of Motion (a).

Click here to read the first memorandum in support of Motion (b).

Click here to read the second memorandum in support of Motion (b).

On October 10, 2012, Judge Barbier issued the following two-sentence Order:

“Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions to Nullify Each and Every Gulf Coast Claims Facility “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” and Vacate Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement]. (Rec. Docs. 7473, 6902, 6831). Having considered the motion, the applicable law, and the relevant record, IT IS ORDERED that the Motions (Rec. Docs. 7473, 6902, 6831) are DENIED.”

(9) The MDL 2179 Court has overreached its authority.

The Supreme Court has held that a district court conducting pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(a) has no authority to invoke 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to assign a transferred case to itself for trial. Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998).

(10) Illegally excluding approximately 200,000 claimants from the proposed settlement greatly decreases the bargaining power of the “Class Members.”

GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violates OPA: (a) by requiring the release of future damages as requirement for receiving a payment from the GCCF claims process, in contravention of 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2); and (b) Feinberg, et al. intentionally failed to provide a process for presenting, processing and paying interim, short-term damages, in contravention of 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2).

The text and the legislative history of the OPA statute are clear. OPA expressly prohibits Responsible Parties from engaging in a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy wherein the victims of an oil spill are starved and ultimately forced to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to receive a miniscule payment amount for all damages, including future damages, they incur as a result of the oil spill.

GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violates State contract law because it: (1) was obtained through the use of economic duress; (2) was obtained without free consent (Claimants did not consent to the release by choice, because the only option for receiving payment required Claimants to sign a release, the terms of which they had no opportunity to negotiate.); (3) was obtained through fraud; (4) requires Claimants to discharge, waive and release future claims (including those resulting from gross negligence) for costs and damages (including punitive damages) that are unknown and have not yet arisen; (5) was obtained in exchange for inadequate consideration; and (6) has as its objective the circumvention of the OPA.

Accordingly, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” is void ab initio.

In sum, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” and the Proposed Settlement’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violate federal law, State contract law, and are contrary to public policy. Illegally excluding approximately 200,000 Claimants from the Proposed Settlement also greatly decreases the bargaining power of the Class Members and results in an increased loss of faith in the federal judicial system.

Click here to read the Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Nullify Each and Every Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF”) “Release and Covenant Not to Sue.”

(11) A class action may not be brought in a limitation proceeding.

The MDL 2179 Court may not certify a class in the limitation action because it would contravene the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Lloyds Leasing Ltd. v. Bates, 902 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1990). In Lloyds Leasing, the Fifth Circuit squarely held that a class action may not be brought in a limitation proceeding. Id. at 370. In affirming the district court’s denial of class certification, the Fifth Circuit reasoned as follows: First, the class action interferes with the concursus contemplated by the limitation of liability proceeding. . . . Second, the notice requirements of the limitation proceeding are more restrictive than the notice requirements of the class action. . . . Third, the entire thrust of Supplemental Rule F is that each claimant must appear individually and this is obviously inconsistent with the class action. Staring, Limitation Practice and Procedure, 53 Tul.L.Rev. 1134, 1150 (1979). In sum, “[t]he two rules are incompatible, and class representation in the sense of Rule 23 should therefore not be allowed in limitation proceedings.” Id.

Following Lloyd’s Leasing, courts in this district have routinely stricken class action allegations when they are filed within a limitation proceeding or dismissed class action complaints when they are filed after a limitation proceeding has been instituted. See, e.g., In re: Ingram Barge Co., No. 05-4419, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79403, 2006 WL 5377855, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2006) (striking class allegations pursuant to Lloyd’s Leasing); In re: River City Towing Servs., Inc., 204 F.R.D. 94, 97 (E.D. La. 2001) (same); Humphreys v. Antillen, N.V., Nos. 93-3799, 93-3714, 1994 WL 682811, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 31, 1994) (dismissing class action complaint filed after limitation proceeding). The limitation proceedings need not be resolved and limitation of liability upheld in order to dismiss class action allegations. For example, Judge Berrigan in Ingram Barge and Judge Feldman in Humphreys struck or dismissed class action allegations before deciding the limitation issue. See Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (America), Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27180.

(12) The DHCC Data

The DHCC data, dated October 26, 2012, indicates that a total of 41,235 claimants have filed Individual Economic Loss, Individual Periodic Vendor or Festival Vendor Economic Loss, Business Economic Loss, Start-Up Business Economic Loss, and Failed Business Economic Loss claims with the DHCC. The DHCC paid only 407 of these claimants. In sum, the DHCC paid only 0.99% of the claimants who filed claims.

Of the 21,058 Individual Economic Loss claims submitted, 204 claimants have received payment offers totaling $2,190,404, resulting in 43 payments totaling $599,428. This equates to an average payment of only $13,940.19 per Individual Economic Loss Claimant!

What is life worth? According to BP and Feinberg, et al., the life of an individual BP oil spill victim wasn’t worth very much. According to BP/PSC and Juneau, et al., the life of an individual BP oil spill victim is worth even less!

CONCLUSION

The opt-out deadline for the Deepwater Horizon class action settlements is November 1, 2012. After that date, the game is over; BP has won, BP oil spill victims who do not opt-out are left out in the cold, and the PSC and other “common benefit” attorneys are extremely well-compensated.

___________

HOW TO OPT-OUT

Not surprisingly, the Class Action Settlement Notices do not provide “Class Members” with an “Opt-Out” form. Furthermore, the information required to properly opt-out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement, and the mailing address to where the opt-out notice must be sent, differs from the information required and the mailing address to properly opt-out of the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement.

Click here to download a sample Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Notice.

Click here to download a sample Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Notice.

________________

Approximately 200,000 BP Oil Spill Victims Are Being Illegally Excluded From Proposed Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement

Approximately 200,000 BP Oil Spill Victims Are Being Illegally Excluded

From Proposed Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement

Plaintiffs File Motion to Nullify Each and Every Gulf Coast Claims Facility “Release and Covenant Not to Sue”

Tampa, FL (September 24, 2012) – Plaintiffs Pinellas Marine Salvage, Inc., John Mavrogiannis, and Selmer M. Salvesen, on behalf of themselves and other Class Members of the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement who are victims of the “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy of Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al., have filed a 25-page Motion to Nullify Each and Every Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF”) “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” with the MDL 2179 Court. The motion also requests the Court to vacate its Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement], Rec. Doc. 6418 dated May 2, 2012.

The motion explains that GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue,” which excludes approximately 200,000 BP oil spill victims from the proposed Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement, and the Proposed Settlement’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violate federal law, State contract law, and are contrary to public policy.

Click here to download the memorandum of law in support of the motion.

The following is an excerpt from Plaintiffs’ Motion to Nullify and Vacate.

I.  BACKGROUND

A. The GCCF Payment Methodology

During GCCF Phase I, the GCCF implemented a claims process by which eligible claimants would receive compensation for the loss of earnings or profits, removal and clean-up costs, real or personal property damage, loss of subsistence use of natural resources and physical injury or death caused by the Spill by submitting a lesser level of documentation than would be required in later stages of the GCCF. This was known as the Emergency Advance Payment (“EAP”) claims process. The GCCF accepted EAP claims from August 23, 2010 through November 23, 2010. A claimant who received an EAP was not required to execute a release and covenant not to sue BP or any other party.

During GCCF Phase II, known as the “Interim Payment/Final Payment” claims process, the GCCF received the following three types of claims:

(a) Interim Payment Claim: An eligible claimant could elect to file an Interim Payment Claim to receive compensation for documented past losses or damages caused by the Spill for which the claimant previously had not been compensated by the BP-operated facility, the GCCF or the Real Estate Fund. A claimant seeking an Interim Payment was not required to sign a release and covenant not to sue and, therefore, was able to file future Interim Payment, Quick Pay Final Payment and Full Review Final Payment Claims. According to the protocol, a claimant was permitted to file only one Interim Payment Claim per quarter.

(b) Quick Payment Final Claim: A claimant who had received a prior EAP or Interim Payment from the GCCF could file for a Quick Payment Final Claim and receive, without further documentation of losses caused by the Spill, a one-time final payment of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for businesses. Prior amounts received by the claimant from the BP-operated facility and/or the GCCF were not subtracted from this payment amount. Claimants seeking a Quick Payment were required to submit with their claim form a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties.

(c) Full Review Final Payment Claim: An eligible claimant could also file a Full Review Final Payment Claim to receive payment for all documented past damages and estimated future damages resulting from the Spill. Claimants wishing to accept a Final Payment were required to sign and submit a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties. Additionally, any Full Review Final Payment awarded to a claimant was decreased by the amount of any previous payments received from the GCCF, the BP-operated facility or the Real Estate Fund.

Claim forms for Phase II became available to the public on December 18, 2010. The GCCF began receiving Interim Payment and Final Payment Claims shortly thereafter; however, the assessment of claimant eligibility and calculation of losses for those claims did not begin until February 18, 2011. Independent Evaluation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, Report of Findings & Observations, BDO Consulting (June 5, 2012).

B. The “Delay, Deny, Defend” Strategy of Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al.

Pinellas Marine Salvage, Inc., et al. v. Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al. and Selmer M. Salvesen v. Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al. are the only two cases of their kind filed in any court in the country. In each case, the complaint alleges, in part, that Defendants Kenneth R. Feinberg, Feinberg Rozen, LLP, and GCCF misled Plaintiffs by employing a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy against them. This strategy, commonly used by unscrupulous insurance companies, is as follows: “Delay payment, starve claimant, and then offer the economically and emotionally-stressed claimant a miniscule percent of all damages to which the claimant is entitled. If the financially ruined claimant rejects the settlement offer, he or she may sue.” In sum, Plaintiffs allege that BP is responsible for the oil spill incident; Feinberg, et al. (independent contractors), via employment of their “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy, are responsible for not compensating, and thereby financially ruining, Plaintiffs and other victims of the BP oil spill.

C. GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue”

The ultimate objective of the “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy of Feinberg, et al. was to obtain a signed “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” from as many BP oil spill victims as possible. Here, the GCCF Status Report as of March 07, 2012 is instructive.

The status report data indicates that the GCCF paid a total of 230,370 claimants who filed claims with the GCCF during the “Phase II” period. Of these, 195,109 were either Quick Pay or Full Review Final payments; only 35,261 were Interim payments. In sum, the GCCF forced 84.68% of the claimants to sign a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties; only 15.31% of the claimants were not required to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to be paid. See “Gulf Coast Claims Facility Overall Program Statistics” (Status Report, Mar. 7, 2012, p. 1) (a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit C).

II.  LAW AND ARGUMENT

In his Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Barbier writes, “The Court preliminarily approves the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement filed with this Court on April 18, 2012 (Rec. Doc. 6276-1), as amended as set forth in Interim Class Counsel’s and BP’s Joint Supplemental Motion Related to the Economic and Property Damages Settlement, as fair, reasonable, adequate, entered in good faith, free of collusion, and within the range of possible judicial approval……The Parties engaged in a multi-month, extensive, arms-length settlement process, free of collusion, and overseen by Magistrate Judge Shushan.” (p. 29, Rec. Doc. 6418). Plaintiffs respectfully disagree.

A. GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” and the Proposed Settlement’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” Violate the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

The proposed Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement excludes:

“2.2.6. Any Natural Person or Entity who or that made a claim to the GCCF, was paid and executed a GCCF RELEASE AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE..” (Rec. Doc. 6276-1, p. 11).

The Preliminary Approval Order states,

“Those who accept payments under the Proposed Settlement are required to release their claims against BP, government oil spill liability funds, and all other Defendants in MDL 2179 (except Transocean and Halliburton)…………If preliminary approval is given, the Settlement Program will process claims and make settlement payments to class members so long as they execute an individual release.” (Rec. Doc. 6418, pp. 6-7).

The Honorable Carl J. Barbier addressed the issue of whether OPA prohibits Responsible Parties from requiring victims of an oil spill to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to be paid for their damages. Judge Barbier stated in his Order of August 26, 2011:

“…….nothing prohibits Defendants from settling claims for economic loss. While OPA does not specifically address the use of waivers and releases by Responsible Parties, the statute also does not clearly prohibit it. In fact, as the Court has recognized in this Order, one of the goals of OPA was to allow for speedy and efficient recovery by victims of an oil spill.” See Order and Reasons [As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 Master Complaint] (Document 3830, pp. 34, 35).

Plaintiffs respectfully disagree with Judge Barbier’s novel interpretation of OPA. OPA expressly prohibits Responsible Parties from engaging in a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy wherein the victims of an oil spill are starved and ultimately forced to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to receive an inadequate, miniscule payment amount for the damages they incurred as a result of the oil spill.

1. The Text of the OPA Statute

OPA is a strict liability statute. In order to recover damages, a claimant merely needs to show that his or her damages “resulted from” the oil spill. OPA provides,

“Each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages that result from such incident.” 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a).

The damages referred to in 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a) include, but are not limited to:

“Damages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant.” 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(E) (Emphasis added).

OPA further provides,

(a) “Payment or settlement of a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled shall not preclude recovery by the claimant for damages not reflected in the paid or settled partial claim.” 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) (Emphasis added); and

(b) “Payment of such a claim [i.e. payment to a claimant for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled] shall not foreclose a claimant’s right to recovery of all damages to which the claimant otherwise is entitled under this Act or under any other law.’’ 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2) (Emphasis added).

“Shall” means shall. The Supreme Court has made clear that when a statute uses the word “shall,” Congress has imposed a mandatory duty upon the subject of the command. See United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 607, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989) (by using “shall” in civil forfeiture statute, “Congress could not have chosen stronger words to express its intent that forfeiture be mandatory in cases where the statute applied”); Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 569-70, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (Congress’ use of “shall” in a housing subsidy statute constitutes “mandatory language”); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc. 450 U.S. 728, 739 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981) (same under Fair Labor Standards Act); United States v. Myers, 106 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir.) (“It is a basic canon of statutory construction that use of the word ‘shall’ [in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) ] indicates mandatory intent.”), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1270, 117 S.Ct. 2446, 138 L.Ed.2d 205 (1997); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1233 (5th ed. 1979) (“As used in statutes … [shall] is generally imperative or mandatory.”); Environmental Defense Ctr. v. Babbitt, 73 F.3d 867 (9th Cir.1995) (“We believe our ‘shall’-means-shall approach has been implicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit); Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding a strict statutory construction); Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922 (10th Cir. 1999) (agreeing with Forest Guardians in finding a strict requirement to force agencies to act under certain circumstances).

2. The Legislative History of the OPA Statute

OPA’s legislative history is shot through with general statements indicative of congressional intent to ensure that all oil spill victims are fully compensated. 135 CONG. REC. H7959 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1989) (statement of Rep. Tauzin) (“ensure that all victims are fully compensated”); 135 CONG. REC. H7964 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1989) (statement of Rep. Hammerschmidt) (“ensure that all justified claims for compensation are satisfied”); 135 CONG. REC. H7969 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1989) (statement of Rep. Dyson) (“assurances that damages arising from spills will be completely compensated”); 136 CONG. REC. H336 (daily ed. Feb. 7, 1990) (statement of Rep. Carper) (“ensure that those people or those businesses that are damaged by these spills are fairly and adequately compensated”); 136 CONG. REC. S7752 (daily ed. June 12, 1990) (statement of Sen. Mitchell) (“ensure the fullest possible compensation of oil spill victims”); S. REP. NO. 101–94, at 12 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722, 734. (“These provisions are intended to provide compensation for a wide range of injuries and are not so narrowly focused as to prevent victims of an oil spill from receiving reasonable compensation.”); 135 CONG. REC. H7893 (daily ed. Nov. 1, 1989) (statement of Rep. Quillen) (“full, fair, and swift compensation for everyone injured by oil spills.”).

As the Supreme Court explained,

“[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others. We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992).

The GCCF essentially stopped processing or paying OPA-mandated interim claims from BP oil spill victims on November 23, 2010. Ending this interim claims program was in direct contravention of OPA’s mandates, as that Act only envisions a claims process for presentment of interim claims.

GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violates OPA: (a) by requiring the release of future damages as requirement for receiving a payment from the GCCF claims process, in contravention of 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2); and (b) Feinberg, et al. intentionally failed to provide a process for presenting, processing and paying interim, short-term damages, in contravention of 33 U.S.C. § 2705(a) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(b)(1) and (2).

The text and the legislative history of the OPA statute are clear. OPA expressly prohibits Responsible Parties from engaging in a “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy wherein the victims of an oil spill are starved and ultimately forced to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to receive a miniscule payment amount for all damages, including future damages, they incur as a result of the oil spill.

B. GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” and the Proposed Settlement’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” Violate State Contract Law.

Releases, compromises and settlement agreements are contracts and the rules of construction applicable to all contracts are used in the interpretation of such agreements. Dore Energy Corp. v. Prospective Inv. & Trading Co. Ltd., 570 F.3d 219, 225 (5th Cir. 2009).

GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violates State contract law because it:

(1) was obtained through the use of economic duress;

(2) was obtained without free consent (Claimants did not consent to the release by choice, because the only option for receiving payment required Claimants to sign a release, the terms of which they had no opportunity to negotiate.);

(3) was obtained through fraud;

(4) requires Claimants to discharge, waive and release future claims (including those resulting from gross negligence) for costs and damages (including punitive damages) that are unknown and have not yet arisen;

(5) was obtained in exchange for inadequate consideration; and

(6) has as its objective the circumvention of the OPA.

Accordingly, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” is void ab initio.

C.  The Severability Clause in the Proposed Settlement is Not an Adequate Solution.

The Proposed Settlement includes a Severability Clause that specifically references the unconscionable releases used by the GCCF and the Release proposed for use in the Proposed Settlement’s claims process. The Severability Clause states:

“21.1. In the event that the Release contained in Section 10 above, or the Individual Releases as to all Economic Class Members contained in Section 4 above, or any portion or provision thereof, shall for any reason be held in whole or in part to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision, or portion thereof, if the BP Parties elect in their sole discretion in writing to proceed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision, or portion thereof, had never been included in this Agreement. Alternatively, the BP Parties, in these circumstances, may elect in writing that the entire Agreement be rendered null and void consistent with the terms described in Section 21.3 below.” (Rec. Doc 6276-1, p. 82).

An illegal condition within a contract annuls the entire agreement “only to the extent to which the agreement depends on it.” Lebouef v. Liner, 396 So.2d 376, 378 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1981); La. Civil Code Ann. Art. 1893.

Any class action settlement that incorporates an unconscionable “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” for the purpose of excluding approximately 200,000 Claimants from the settlement benefits, is not “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” However, Plaintiffs respectfully point out to this Honorable Court that merely nullifying the unconscionable releases used by the GCCF, and severing the Release proposed for use in the Proposed Settlement’s claims process, and allowing the BP Parties “to proceed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision, or portion thereof, had never been included in this Agreement” is not an adequate solution. The Proposed Settlement would still: (a) have resulted from the B1 Master Complaint which was inexplicably filed under admiralty law rather than the OPA (a strict liability statute); (b) be in violation of the Lexecon Rule; (c) be in violation of Lloyds Leasing Ltd. v. Bates; (c) not be “free of collusion;” (d) still not be “fair, reasonable, and adequate;” and (e) still violate the OPA. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

In sum, GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” and the Proposed Settlement’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” violate federal law, State contract law, and are contrary to public policy. Illegally excluding approximately 200,000 Claimants from the Proposed Settlement also greatly decreases the bargaining power of the Class Members and results in an increased loss of faith in the federal judicial system.

____________________

UPDATE

Inadequate Consideration

Feinberg, et al. cannot justify limiting payments under the Quick Payment Final Claim program to just $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for businesses. There is no evidence that these amounts even remotely represent adequate consideration to compensate Claimants for the damages that Claimants did or will suffer as a result of the BP oil spill.

This inadequate compensation and GCCF’s “Release and Covenant Not to Sue” are the product of Claimants’ lack of bargaining power and Feinberg et al.’s use of coercion and economic duress.

The “Delay, Deny, Defend” strategy, although unconscionable, has proven to be very effective for Feinberg, et al. The numbers do not lie: the GCCF forced 84.68% of the claimants to sign a release and covenant not to sue in which the claimant agreed not to sue BP and all other potentially liable parties; only 15.31% of the claimants were not required to sign a release and covenant not to sue in order to be paid. The GCCF denied payment to approximately 61.46% of the claimants who filed claims. The average total amount paid per Claimant by GCCF was $27,466.47.

“BP has estimated the cost of the proposed settlement to be approximately $7.8 billion.” (p. 156, Rec. Doc. 6266-2). Here, Judge Barbier’s admonition in his Order of August 26, 2011 is instructive: “The long term effects [of the BP oil spill] on the environment and fisheries may not be known for many years.” (p. 31, Rec. Doc. 3830) (Emphasis added). Since the long term effects, and therefore the associated costs, of the BP oil spill on the environment and fisheries may not be known for many years, BP can only estimate its cost by multiplying the approximate number of Claimants by an average amount BP is willing to pay each claimant.

What is life worth? According to BP and Feinberg, et al., the life of an individual BP oil spill victim isn’t worth very much.

Is the BP Oil Spill Proposed Class Action Settlement Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate?

Is the BP Oil Spill Proposed Class Action Settlement Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate?

_____________________________

Plaintiff Files Motion to Vacate Preliminary Approval Order

Tampa, FL (July 4, 2012) – On April 18, 2012, the MDL 2179 Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) and BP filed their Proposed Settlement. The Proposed Settlement allegedly intends to resolve certain claims by private individuals and businesses for economic loss and property damage resulting from the “Deepwater Horizon Incident.” The Proposed Settlement defines “Deepwater Horizon Incident” as the events, actions, inactions and omissions leading up to and including (i) the blowout of the MC252 Well; (ii) the explosions and fire on board the Deepwater Horizon on or about April 20, 2010; (iii) the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon on or about April 22, 2010; (iv) the release of oil, other hydrocarbons and other substances from the MC252 Well and/or the Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances; (v) the efforts to contain the MC252 Well; (vi) Response Activities, including the VoO Program; (vii) the operation of the GCCF; and (viii) BP public statements relating to all of the foregoing.

On May 2, 2012, the MDL 2179 Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement].

On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff Selmer M. Salvesen, a clam farmer in Florida, filed a Motion to Vacate Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement], Rec. Doc. 6418 dated May 2, 2012, with the MDL 2179 Court.

The following is an excerpt from Plaintiff Salvesen’s Motion to Vacate.

A. The Proposed Settlement Is Not Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate.

Rule 23(e) places the burden of persuasion on the movers that the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”  In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 2012 WL 92498, at *7 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2012). If the proposed settlement “discloses no reason to doubt its fairness, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, does not grant excessive compensation to attorneys, and appears to fall within the range of possible approval, the court should grant preliminary approval.” In re OCA, Inc. Sec. & Deriv. Litig., No. 05-2165, 2008 WL 4681369, at *11 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 2008).

1.  The Proposed Settlement Provides Misleading Information to Class Members.

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (‘OPA”), claims for damages must be presented first to the responsible party. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a). In the event that a claim for damages is not paid by the responsible party within 90 days, the claimant may elect to commence an action in court against the responsible party or to present the claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(c).

“The Court is satisfied that, pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Settlement, Class Members who opt out or who possess reserved claims will be able to pursue those claims effectively outside the Class Settlement.” (p. 26, Rec. Doc. 6418). BP and the PSC have misled this Honorable Court and Class Members.

(a)  The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund

The OPA provides the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”) to pay for oil spill costs when the responsible party cannot or does not pay. The OSLTF, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard through its National Pollution Funds Center (“NPFC”), is primarily financed through a tax on petroleum products, and is subject to a $1 billion cap on the amount of expenditures from the OSLTF per incident. For any one oil pollution incident, the OSLTF may pay up to $1 billion. Victims of the BP oil spill are at risk as a result of this cap. The cap is for total expenditures. This $1 billion expenditure limit applies even if the OSLTF is fully reimbursed by the responsible party and net expenditures are zero. OSLTF expenditures for natural resource damage assessments and claims in connection with a single incident are limited to $500 million of that $1 billion. NPFC administers the OSLTF by disbursing funds to government agencies to reimburse them for their oil spill cleanup costs (cost reimbursements), monitoring the sources and uses of funds, adjudicating claims submitted by individuals and businesses to the OSLTF for payment (claims), and pursuing reimbursement from the responsible party for costs and damages paid from the OSLTF (billing the responsible party).

On March 9, 2012, Mr. Craig A. Bennett, Director – NPFC, provided the following OSLTF status report in regard to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident:

Deepwater Horizon OSLTF Costs     =          $619 million

Deepwater Horizon Pending Claims =          $410 million (for 1,659 claims received)

On March 9, 2012, total OSLTF expenditures (paid + pending claims) in regard to the Deepwater Horizon was $1.019 billion. In sum, since the OSLTF has exceeded, or will very shortly exceed, its $1 billion expenditure cap for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident, the OSLTF cannot pay valid individual or business claims which are not paid by BP.

(b)  The Litigation Option

OPA, a strict liability statute, governs the MDL 2179 cases alleging economic loss due to the BP oil spill. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) governs the MDL 2179 personal injury and wrongful death actions and borrows the law of the adjacent state as surrogate federal law.

Judge Barbier aptly stated in his Order dated August 26, 2011, “The Court finds that the text of OPA clearly requires that OPA claimants must first “present” their OPA claim to the Responsible Party before filing suit….The text of the statute is clear. Congress intended presentment to be a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit….There are likely large numbers of B1 claimants who have completely bypassed the OPA claim presentation requirement, others who have attempted to present their claims but may not have complied with OPA, and others who have properly presented their claims but have been denied for various reasons. Claimants who have not complied with the presentment requirement are subject to dismissal without prejudice, allowing them to exhaust the presentment of their claims before returning to court. In the ordinary case, the Court would simply dismiss those claims without prejudice. However, as the Court has previously noted, this is no ordinary case….. A judge handling an MDL often must employ special procedures and case management tools in order to have the MDL operate in an orderly and efficient manner. In this massive and complex MDL, the Court is faced with a significant practical problem. It would be impractical, time-consuming, and disruptive to the orderly conduct of this MDL and the current scheduling orders if the Court or the parties were required to sort through in excess of 100,000 individual B1 claims to determine which ones should be dismissed at the current time. Moreover, such a diversion at this time would be unproductive and would not advance towards the goal of allowing the parties and the Court to be ready for the limitation and liability trial scheduled to commence in February 2012. No matter how many of the individual B1 claims might be dismissed without prejudice, the trial scheduled for February would still go forward with essentially the same evidence…..In summary on this issue, the Court finds that presentment is a mandatory condition precedent with respect to Plaintiffs’ OPA claims. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged presentment in their B1 Master Complaint, at least with respect to some of the Claimants.” (pp. 29, 30, 31, Rec. Doc. 3830) (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Settlement, “Regardless of whether the Agreement becomes effective, Claims with a sum certain and some documentation and/or other proof that are submitted to the Settlement Program shall be deemed to satisfy presentment and all requirements of 33 U.S.C. § 2713.” (pp. 62-63, Rec. Doc. 6276-1); “OPA Process shall mean the claims presentment procedure pursuant to the OPA, including claims that have been submitted to the BP Parties or claims that have been submitted to the GCCF as part of the OPA Process.” (p. 104, Rec. Doc. 6276-1); “Economic Class Members with expired offers from the GCCF who Opt-Out of the Economic Class shall be deemed to have satisfied the presentment requirements under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”).” (p. 15, Rec. Doc. 6276-1).

BP and the PSC clearly understand that, under OPA, Congress intended presentment to be a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit. However, yet again, the parties mislead this Honorable Court and Class Members by intentionally failing to counsel those Claimants who may opt-out of the Proposed Settlement that, under OPA, claims for damages must be presented first to the responsible party. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a). In the event that a claim for damages is not paid by the responsible party within 90 days, the claimant may elect to commence an action in court against the responsible party. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(c). If a Claimant files a Complaint against BP under OPA prior to first presenting his, her, or its claim to BP and then waiting 90 days, the case will be subject to dismissal and the claimant will again be left out in the cold.

BP and the PSC are obviously aware that the OSLTF is not a viable alternative for Claimants who opt-out and, for many opt-out Claimants, filing a suit against BP under OPA will be either thwarted or delayed by the OPA presentment requirement. However, the Proposed Settlement “generously” provides that, “Any Economic Class Member may revoke his, her or its Opt Out from the Economic Class and thereby receive the benefit of this Economic and Property Damage Settlement up until three (3) days prior to the Fairness Hearing; or later, if the BP Parties consent in their sole and unilateral discretion..” (p. 40, Rec. Doc. 6418).

(i)  The Statute of Limitations

The PSC further misleads Class Members by intentionally failing to counsel those Claimants who may opt-out of the Proposed Settlement that a lawsuit brought against a non-Responsible Party, e.g., a lawsuit asserting claims for gross negligence, fraud, etc. against Kenneth R. Feinberg, et al, may be barred by the statute of limitations. In federal question cases, the federal court will apply the specific statute of limitations period established by the federal statute under which the plaintiff is seeking relief. Federal courts that are hearing a controversy based on diversity of citizenship of the parties must apply the applicable state law of the forum state. In this case, the statute of limitations for a suit brought against a non-Responsible Party may be only two years.

2.  The Proposed Settlement Grants Excessive Compensation to Attorneys.

The question is whether the Proposed Settlement grants excessive compensation to the PSC and other counsel performing common benefit work in MDL 2179. This issue can be determined by a simple two-prong comparison test: First, by comparing the common benefit fees received by attorneys in MDL 2179 with the average total payment amount received by the claimants; and Second, by comparing the common benefit fees received by attorneys in MDL 2179 with the common benefit fees received by attorneys in comparable MDLs.

(a)  The Average Total Payment Amount Received From GCCF by Claimants

GCCF Overall Program Statistics (Status Report as of March 7, 2012)

Total Amount Paid                                           = $6,079,922,450.47

Total No. of Paid Claimants                           = 221,358

Average Total Amount Paid Per Claimant  = $27,466.47

The GCCF data indicates that a total of 574,379 unique claimants filed claims with the GCCF during the period from approximately August 23, 2010 to March 7, 2012. The GCCF paid only 221,358 of these Claimants. In sum, the GCCF denied payment to approximately 61.46% of the claimants who filed claims. See “Gulf Coast Claims Facility Overall Program Statistics” (Status Report, Mar. 7, 2012) (a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A).

On March 8, 2012, this Honorable Court terminated the GCCF claims process and appointed Patrick Juneau as the Claims Administrator of the Transition Process and the proposed Court Supervised Claims Program (“CSCP”). On May 2, 2012, Patrick Juneau was appointed as Claims Administrator to oversee the Claims Administration Vendors, who will process the claims in accordance with the Proposed Settlement. Under the CSCP, the evaluation and processing of claims shall continue to be performed by Garden City Group, Inc., BrownGreer, PLC, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the percentage of claimants denied payment and the average total amount paid per claimant will change under the CSCP.

(b)  The Common Benefit Fees Received by Attorneys in Comparable MDLs

In order to determine an appropriate common benefit fee, this Court looks to comparable MDL set-aside assessments and awards of common benefit fees. E.g., In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 553 F. Supp. 2d at 442, 457-58, 491-96 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (describing 9% federal and 6% state assessments later reduced to 6% and 4%, respectively; awarding less than total fund created by assessments); In re Zyprexa, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 261-63 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2007) (1% and 3% of separate settlement amounts); In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis & Knee Prosthesis Liab. Litig., 268 F. Supp. 2d at 907, 909, 919 n.19 (N.D. Ohio 2003) (awarding common benefit fees out of $50,000,000 fund created through assessment representing 4.8% of settlement value); In re Protegen Sling & Vesica Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1387, 2002 WL 31834446, at *1, *3 (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2002) (9% federal, 6% coordinated state assessments); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1348, 2002 WL 441342, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2002) (6% withholding in federal cases, 4% in participating state cases); See also William B. Rubenstein, On What a “Common Benefit Fee” Is, Is Not, and Should Be, 3 Class Action Att’y Fee Dig. at 87 (2009) (collecting cases and concluding that most common benefit assessments range from 4% to 6%); 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 14:9 (4th ed. 2002) (“Most [MDL] courts have assessed common benefit fees at about a 4-6% level, generally 4% for a fee and 2% for costs.”); Paul D. Rheingold, Litigating Mass Tort Cases § 7:35 (2010) (“[P]ercentages awarded for common funds in recent MDLS … were in the 4-6% range.”)(citation omitted). In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 760 F. Supp. 2d 640 (E.D. La. 2010) (“October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons”).

The Court’s analysis in the Vioxx MDL case is instructive. In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig. (“MDL 1657”) involves the prescription drug Vioxx. Merck, a New Jersey corporation, researched, designed, manufactured, marketed and distributed Vioxx to relieve pain and inflammation resulting from osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, menstrual pain, and migraine headaches. On September 20, 2004, Merck withdrew it from the market after data indicated that the use of Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events such as myocardial infarction (heart attack) and ischemic stroke. Thereafter, thousands of individual suits and numerous class actions were filed against Merck in state and federal courts throughout the country.

On February 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) conferred MDL status on Vioxx lawsuits filed in various federal courts throughout the country and transferred all such cases to this Court to coordinate discovery and to consolidate pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005).

On November 9, 2007, Merck and the Negotiating Plaintiffs’ Counsel (“NPC”) formally announced that they had reached a Settlement Agreement. The private Settlement Agreement established a pre-funded program for resolving pending or tolled state and federal Vioxx claims against Merck as of the date of the settlement, involving claims of heart attack (“MI”), ischemic stroke (“IS”), and sudden cardiac death (“SCD”), for an overall amount of $4.85 billion. In Vioxx, Judge Fallon stated, “The Settlement Agreement created a $4.85 billion fund for the compensation of Vioxx claimants. The Court finds no reason to omit any portion of that settlement fund from consideration with respect to the reasonable amount of common benefit fees. Accordingly, $4.85 billion is the appropriate amount for calculation of a reasonable percentage of common benefit fees.”

The Vioxx Court awarded a common benefit fee of $315,250,000, which is equivalent to 6.5% of $4,850,000,000. In Vioxx, unlike MDL 2179, the attorneys came from states across the country. Accordingly, the Court found that an average hourly billable rate of $443.29 was reasonable.

There are two significant differences between MDL 1657 and MDL 2179:

(i)  The Time and Labor Required

The PSC and other counsel performing common benefit work in MDL 1657 documented and submitted over 560,000 hours of work during the course of the litigation. The PSC operated on many fronts, preparing pleadings and Master Class Action complaints, taking over 2,000 depositions, reviewing and compiling over 50,000,000 documents, briefing and arguing over 1,000 discovery motions, assembling a trial package, conducting bellwether trials, negotiating the global Settlement Agreement, and implementing the payout under the Agreement.

In contrast, “In the 20 months that have passed since the JPML’s centralization order, the parties [in MDL 2179] have engaged in extensive discovery and motion practice, including taking 311 depositions, producing approximately 90 million pages of documents, and exchanging more than 80 expert reports on an intense and demanding schedule……..BP and the PSC report that in February 2011 settlement negotiations began in earnest for two distinct class action settlements: a Medical Benefits Settlement and an Economic and Property Damages Settlement.” (p. 3, Rec. Doc. 6418).

In sum, the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work in MDL 2179 only took 311 depositions and initiated settlement negotiations “in earnest” merely six (6) months after the JPML created MDL 2179.

The MDL 1657 Court conducted six Vioxx bellwether trials. During the same period that the Court was conducting six bellwether trials, approximately thirteen additional Vioxx-related cases were tried before juries in various state courts.

The MDL 2179 Court did not conduct a single bellwether trial.

(ii)  The Results Obtained

Attorneys doing common benefit work on behalf of Vioxx users in MDL 1657 achieved a favorable and meaningful global resolution. The Settlement Agreement ensured fair and comprehensive compensation to all qualified participants. In only 31 months, the parties to the Vioxx case were able to reach a global settlement and distribute $4,353,152,064 to 32,886 claimants, out of a pool of 49,893 eligible and enrolled claimants.

In contrast, attorneys doing common benefit work on behalf of BP oil spill victims in MDL 2179 did not remotely achieve “a favorable and meaningful global resolution.” The MDL 2179 Proposed Settlement does not ensure fair and comprehensive compensation to all qualified participants. This conclusion is supported by the following comparison:

Average Total Amount Paid Per Claimant in MDL 1657 =  $132,370.98

Average Total Amount Paid Per Claimant in MDL 2179 =  $  27,466.47

(c)  The Common Benefit Fees Received by Attorneys in MDL 2179

The PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work in MDL 2179 are not double-dipping; they are triple-dipping.

The known sources of compensation received by attorneys allegedly doing common benefit work on behalf of BP oil spill victims in MDL 2179 are:

(a) Six percent (6%) of the gross monetary settlements, judgments or other payments made on or after December 30, 2011 through June 3, 2012 to any other plaintiff or claimant-in-limitation. (p. 3, Rec. Doc. 5274);

(b) BP has agreed to pay any award for common benefit and/or Rule 23(h) attorneys’ fees, as determined by the Court, up to $600 million. (p. 10, Rec. Doc. 6418);

(c) Many attorneys doing common benefit work have their own clients and have also received or will also receive a fee directly from them. (N.B. – On June 15, 2012, the MDL 2179 Court ordered that “contingent fee arrangements for all attorneys representing claimants/plaintiffs that settle claims through either or both of the Settlements will be capped at 25% plus reasonable costs.”) (Rec. Doc. 6684); and

(d) Co-counsel fees received by member firms of the PSC for serving as co-counsel to non-member firms of the PSC. For example, on March 13, 2012, Counsel for Plaintiff Salvesen received an unsolicited mass email from a member firm of the PSC. The email stated, in pertinent part, “Co-Counsel Opportunity for BP Oil Spill Cases: News of the recent BP Settlement has caused many individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast to contemplate either filing a new claim or amending a claim that has already been submitted. If you receive inquiries of this nature we would like you to consider a co-counsel relationship with our firm. Even if someone has already filed a claim it is advisable to retain legal counsel to analyze the impact of this settlement on claimants and maximize recovery. If you receive inquiries and are interested in co-counseling with us on the BP claims, please email…”

Over the years courts have employed various methods to determine the reasonableness of an award of attorneys’ fees. These methods include the “lodestar” method, which entails multiplying the reasonable hours expended on the litigation by an adjusted reasonable hourly rate, Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 624 F.2d 575, 583 & n.15 (5th Cir. 1980); the percentage method, in which the Court compensates attorneys who recovered some identifiable sum by awarding them a fraction of that sum; or, more recently, a combination of both methods in which a percentage is awarded and checked for reasonableness by use of the lodestar method.

(i)  The Percentage Method

As noted above, “percentages awarded for common funds in recent MDLS … were in the 4-6% range.” Given that the PSC and other counsel allegedly performing common benefit work in MDL 2179 only took 311 depositions and initiated settlement negotiations “in earnest” merely six (6) months after the JPML created MDL 2179, the appropriate percentage should be no greater than 4%.

BP has estimated the cost of the proposed settlement to be approximately $7.8 billion. (p. 156, Rec. Doc. 6266-2). A 4% award would yield $312 million for common funds.

(ii)  The Lodestar Cross-Check

The lodestar analysis is not undertaken to calculate a specific fee, but only to provide a broad cross-check on the reasonableness of the fee arrived at by the percentage method.

This Court has previously used a range of $300 to $400 per hour for members of a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and $100 to $200 per hour for associates to “reasonably reflect the prevailing [billable time] rates in this jurisdiction.” Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 472 F. Supp. 2d at 868-69 (E.D. La. 2007).

Amount Awarded                      Billable Hourly Rate                      Hours Required to Have Been Expended

$312,000,000.00                             $300/hr.                                                       1,040,000 hours

$600,000,000.00                            $300/hr.                                                       2,000,000 hours

In sum, in order to be awarded a common benefit fee of $312 million, this Honorable Court would have to believe that the PSC attorneys worked more than one million hours; in order to be awarded a common benefit fee of $600 million, this Honorable Court would have to believe that the PSC attorneys worked two million hours. Both of these fee amounts, which do not include the aforementioned (a), (c), and (d) known sources of compensation, fail the reasonableness test.

%d bloggers like this: