First, Exxon’s lawyers weren’t working for free. So you are partially correct about litigating and foot dragging being incredibly profitable… if you’re a lawyer representing them.
Second, it would have been cheaper for them to settle in the first place. Cite: Exxon paid the Seattle Seven $63.75 million for their stake of the eventual settlement. After the SCOTUS ruling cutting the final judgment to $507.5 million, that stake was worth appx $116 million. Attorneys' Fees Plummet Following Exxon Valdez Decision This figure is probably adjusted for the interest due, but they wouldn’t needed to pay for 20 years of lawyering to arrive at it. Note that punitive damages come from a trial, not a settlement fund, which I believe is exactly what BP is attempting to avoid.
Third, according to Wikipedia, Exxon paid $2-3 billion in related clean up costs and civil penalties. BP obviously won’t be avoiding cleanup costs, but when the civil penalties are doled out they can argue a good-faith response to remedy their actions should mitigate their liability. Whether this holds up or not is a different story.
It would have been cheaper for them to settle in the first place. Just like BP is purportedly doing now.
3rd party arbitration, which is what is going to happen, is pretty standard in a situation such as this. The statements made by the President were for public dissemination and not meant to convey any legal power.
The president can demand anything he wants. Just like you or me. the only difference is he is leader of the free world and one of the most powerful man on the planet. BP will probably listen regardless of his legal authority
Besides once the money has been set up and spent what is to stop the justice department from suing anyway? Other then no one trusting his administration again
As noted, Obama’s demands probably are or will be more of the “You really ought to do XYZ or Really Bad Things will surely happen to your company, which is hated in the U.S. right now” rather than the “I have the legal authority to make you do XYZ, and thus you must obey me” variety. Although he won’t be President, at the latest, after January 20, 2017, any agreement he signs with BP’s corporate leadership can be formalized, filed in court and made binding upon the U.S. government and his Oval Office successors.
Only criminal laws cannot be ex post facto in application. Civil laws can be and frequently are.
BP has zero chance of winning, even partially, any negligence lawsuit. All that would happen is a loss of whatever good will they have left. They won’t try to defend one even in the earliest stages; everything will be a negotiated settlement. Obama’s just boxing BP in as part of setting the groundwork for any such negotiations.
Over and above what has already been said, a great deal of the discussion here has turned on whether Pres. Obama has the constitutional authority to make such a demand. Do not forget that he is Chief Executive, charged with ensuring that the laws be duly administered and executed. If there is any provision requiring the EPA, or DHS, or some other Federal agency, to act in reference to oil spills, and I will bet wallabies to euroes there is, he may very well have statutory suthority to make this or a similar demand, in the name of the U.S. There will undoubtedly be a great deal of economic hardship on the Gulf Coast from this spill; the man who works seasonally doing maintenance for the chain motel, or crews a shrimp boat at need, or conducts swampland tours from a pirogue, is not in a position to sue BP – and will need help to survive and recover. Local businesses will be hurting. Major ports will be losing business. Even the other oil companies may have valid claims against BP for lost production and/or business. An Executive Order requires constitutional or statutory authority underlying it, to be sure, but Presidents are customarily accorded a great deal of deference in how they choose to carry out their duties, including the issuance of such Executive Orders as they see fit.
A lot of posters have made this general point. And it’s very true.
Khodorovsky tried resisting Putin and look what happened to him. A lot of things were “legally” decided that didn’t exactly work out for him.
But it’s a scary thought, if it might one day be you confronting the PTB.
Right now BP is not very popular, so off with their heads by whatever authority necessary and find some way to make it legal. But guess what: you might not be so popular one day yourself. Consider.
They were reporting that somebody said they had the authority.
Pretty damn dubious, coming from the press secretary without a cited statute. I’d like to see where in the US Code the president is given actual statutory authority to make BP set up aside an escrow fund for this purpose. If he had such authority, he would have just issued an executive order exercising it, because it would have looked even tougher than summoning BP to the White House and demanding that they do it.
Yeah, I’m curious too as to what specific laws or statues give him the authority. So far the only person I’ve heard made those comments are his press secretary.
Elendil’s Heir is right - the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies to criminal penalties, not civil penalties. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). When your company is in the middle of the first of many outraged congressional hearings over having caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history and the United States Attorney General’s boss is telling you that it’s in your best interest to start thinking of restitution now rather than later, it carries a little weight.
I don’t know about US pollution law. In Australia the relevant authorities can demand financial security against expected oil pollution prevention/cleanup costs. Maybe something similar is behind Obama’s statement.
I’m actually surprised there’s any debate at all on this. Of course the President has the right to “inform” people of anything he wants. Hell - he can even “demand” people do stuff. He can pretty much “demand” anything he wants from anyone.
Now - he might not be able to “force” BP to do anything. But he sure has hell can inform or demand of them.
As it turns out - President’s “Demanding” stuff is pretty common. From a very quick Google search:
As I said earlier, I guess I am parsing words too narrowly.
I think I am a well educated and informed person. When Obama said that he would “inform” the chairman to set aside funds, I assumed that he had such an authority. It seems that Gibbs feels that the President has that type of legal authority.
Now I see from other posters that he was merely using the bully pulpit to persuade him to do so, and it seems to have worked.
BTW, your links about Bush “demanding” things are only journalists’ takes on the situation. No way does a President demand that Congress passes anything.
Actually, in one of the links I provided, Gibbs is saying that the President does have the legal authority to compel them to set aside money for the funds. I have no clue if it’s true or not, but that’s the assertion being made by the White House.