Should The U.S. Appeals Court Alter BP’s Settlement Agreement?

While we wait for the U.S. Appeals Court’s ruling on whether BP can alter the way that business economic loss claims are being paid out under its Deepwater Horizon Settlement Agreement, there are a number of arguments being made on both sides of the fence.  Here are some of the most popular arguments:

Arguments against BP

1. BP simply made a mistake and poorly estimated the cost of the deal
2. BP underestimated the total number of claimants that would be eligible
3. BP negotiated and agreed to the Settlement Agreement’s terms
4. The settlement is unambiguous on how to calculate a loss and uses objective formulas
5. BP knew that certain businesses would qualify as “false positives” based on the agreed upon formulas
6. BP is paying a small price for the economic and environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico that is still not fully known at this point
7. These larger settlement amounts are necessary to deter BP from similar wrongdoing in the future considering BP’s billion dollar profits

Arguments for BP

1. It is simply unfair that some businesses are being compensated for losses unrelated to the oil spill
2. The terms of the settlement are being misinterpreted
3. The economy is recovering and growing in these regions around the Gulf, and BP should not have to pay out more
4. The spill was an accident and BP is being victimized

Feel free to share your own arguments for or against BP.