and the lawyers for plaintiffs in the trial over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have agreed to settle their case.
Judge Carl J. Barbier of Federal District Court in New Orleans issued an order late Friday night stating that the two sides “have reached an agreement on the terms of a proposed class settlement which will be submitted to the court,” and announcing that the first phase of the trial, scheduled to begin on Monday, is adjourned indefinitely while the next steps are worked out.
BP issued a statement from the company’s chief executive, Robert Dudley, saying, “The proposed settlement represents significant progress toward resolving issues from the Deepwater Horizon accident and contributing further to economic and environmental restoration efforts along the Gulf Coast.” The company estimated that paying the claims would cost $7.8 billion — but it did not state that the estimate represented an upper limit on what it would pay. It said it had already paid out more than $8 billion to claimants, and had spent some $14 billion in responding to the spill.
The two lawyers who led the plaintiffs’ steering committee, Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy, said, “This settlement will provide a full measure of compensation to hundreds of thousands — in a transparent and expeditious manner under rigorous judicial oversight.”
The plaintiffs’ group that reached the agreement with the company represents businesses and individuals affected by the spill.
The agreement does not include the biggest plaintiff in the BP case: the federal government. Nor does it include the state and local governments along the coast, which are also suing. The federal government stands to recover billions of dollars in environmental fines, but the extent to which the Justice Department is involved in negotiations with BP is unclear.
The explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig in April 2010 killed 11 rig workers and began a spill that for months spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, fouling beaches, killing wildlife and disrupting the economies of Gulf Coast States.
Investigations in the ensuing months found a series of errors by BP, the owner of the well, as well as by Transocean, the owner of the rig, and by Halliburton, which performed the cement job. The first phase of the trial was intended, in part, to apportion blame among the defendants.
The agreement calls for replacing the $20 billion fund created by BP to compensate victims of the spill, and to pay natural resources damages and state and local response costs. The fund, called the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and run by Kenneth R. Feinberg, a lawyer, would become a new fund administered by the court. Mr. Feinberg has paid more than $6 billion from the fund to some 200,000 individuals and businesses. The company announced that payments to people making claims under the Feinberg fund would continue to be paid during the transition.
“Ken Feinberg has overseen the GCCF since it began operating in August 2010, and we thank him and his team for their dedication and professionalism,” Mr. Dudley said in the news release.
Along with the settlement for economic damages, BP and the plaintiffs’ committee reached an agreement on medical issues related to the spill, and will provide compensation and medical services for 21 years.
Though all sides have said they are ready to go to trial, the incentives to settle have been enormous.
David M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section from 2000 to 2007, said, “The plaintiffs’ steering committee really needs to reach a settlement with BP” because otherwise it could face years of litigation and might obtain less at trial than it could receive in a settlement.
At the same time, said Mr. Uhlmann, now a professor at the University of Michigan law school, said, “BP really needs to reach a settlement with the government” which could extract many more billions from the company in civil and criminal proceedings. Moreover, he said, the company would like to avoid the embarrassment of having its mistakes paraded in open court.
Some people outside of the litigation, particularly representatives of environmental groups, say that whether the case ends at a negotiating table or in a courtroom, they want to see a large amount of the environmental fines go to restoring the Gulf Coast. “Our goal is money to the gulf, as quickly as possible,” said Courtney Taylor, policy director of the Mississippi River Delta program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
The groups support a bill introduced by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, and Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, that would dedicate 80 percent of the fines collected under the Clean Water Act in the case to gulf restoration. “The country should not use this as an excuse to profit off of the heartbreak and suffering and bankruptcies that resulted from the spill and the follow-up actions,” Ms. Landrieu said.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: March 3, 2012
An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect amount of money spent by BP responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It was $14 billion, not million.
This article, “Accord Reached Settling Lawsuit Over BP Oil Spill,” originally appeared at the New York Times News Service.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 8 days to add 460 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.