As recently as December 12, 2012, the Parties appeared before the Court, and BP’s Counsel, Richard Godfrey, again confirmed, to the Claims Administrator, to the PwC and P&N accountants who were present, to Class Counsel, and to the Court, that BP “agreed with the Claims Administrator’s objective analysis of causation with respect to his evaluation of economic damage claims, as previously set forth by Mr. Juneau.”
BP selected and proposed Patrick Juneau to be appointed as Claims Administrator for the Court-Supervised Settlement Program.
Judge Barbier was selected by judges. He has been universally praised by BP and others for his ingenuity, commitment and dedication to the efficient and effective management of this vast and complex litigation.
BP selected and proposed PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as a Program Vendor for the Court-Supervised Settlement Program.
BP also selected and proposed Postlethwaite & Netterville (P&N) to serve as a Program Vendor.
BP’s own Accounting Expert, Holly Sharp, studied the Settlement Agreement and submitted a sworn declaration to the Court in August of 2012 confirming that: “Once a business meets the causation requirements, for purposes of quantifying compensation, all revenue and variable profit declines during the claimant-selected compensation period are presumed to be caused by the spill, with no analysis required to determine whether the declines might have been due, at least in part, to other causes.”
BP’s Counsel, in a letter to the Claims Administrator dated September 28, 2012, reiterated that: “One of the cornerstones of the Settlement Agreement is the use of transparent, objective, data-driven methodologies designed to apply clearly-defined standards to a claimant’s contemporaneously-maintained financial data submitted in compliance with documentation requirements.
This is the factual record. It is clear. It is documented. And it cannot be disputed.
Read more here: