Op-Ed Columnist Getting Skewered in New Orleans By JOE NOCERA Published: July 19, 2013 NEW ORLEANS — “All rise,” boomed the bailiff as the Honorable Carl J. Barbier strode to the bench in his courtroom here. It was 8:35 Friday morning. Barbier was frowning. The federal judge overseeing the civil litigation related to the BP oil spill, Barbier had called this hearing because BP had asked for a temporary halt to the payments it was making through a claims process overseen by the court. The judge wasn’t a bit happy about it. When I first delved into this subject last week, my main point was that it sure looked as though the local plaintiffs’ lawyers who had originally sued BP had — how should I put this? — a home-court advantage. Although BP has paid some $11 billion to spill victims since 2010, a group of local plaintiffs’ lawyers had sued and succeeded in wresting a settlement from the London-based company that was expected to cost an additional $7.8 billion. The settlement made clear that many businesses were going to get money even though their losses had nothing to do with the spill. For BP, this was the cost of peace with the powerful Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, as it is called. (It also agreed not to contest lawyers’ fees up to — are you sitting down? — $600 million.) What BP hadn’t expected was that Patrick Juneau, the Louisiana lawyer administering the claims, would come up with an interpretation for calculating losses at odds with normal accounting practices, driving the potential cost into the stratosphere. When BP complained to Barbier, the Louisiana judge stood by Juneau. (BP is currently appealing.) But there was another plot twist: Two of Juneau’s senior lawyers, Lionel “Tiger” Sutton III and Christine Reitano, a husband-and-wife team, had represented claimants before joining Juneau’s staff. Incredibly, while on the claims administration staff, they had allegedly solicited fees from the law firm that now holds their former claims. (Juneau’s third senior lawyer, by the way, is his son.) Recently, Sutton resigned and Reitano was terminated, and Barbier brought in Louis Freeh, the former director of the F.B.I., to conduct a wide-ranging investigation. That inquiry continues. Given the undeniable taint that now surrounds Juneau’s operation, BP’s request to stop the payments temporarily seems pretty reasonable. As BP’s lawyer Jeff Clark put it, “We think we are asking for something fairly modest.” He argued that it would be impossible to get back any money that went out the door improperly, and, besides, wouldn’t it be better to see what Freeh uncovered before starting up payments again? Barbier was having none of it. From the start of the hearing, he constantly badgered Clark — a lawyer from (uh-oh) Washington, D.C. — demanding proof that there was something wrong with the claims process. “Where is your evidence?” he demanded. “Respond to my question!” Barbier went through a litany of what is required to get a claim approved to show Clark that the process was incorruptible, even if Juneau had employed a few allegedly corrupt lawyers. Indeed, at one point he objected to Clark’s use of the word “corruption.” “Let’s use another word that is not as inflammatory,” he said. Ah, but then it was time for Juneau’s lawyer, Rick Stanley, to speak, and the mood in the courtroom suddenly changed. I had interviewed Juneau the day before, and he had told me that he was essentially a bystander in disputes between BP and the plaintiffs’ lawyers, willing to do whatever the court instructed him. Yet here was his lawyer — a Louisianian, it goes without saying — making the plaintiffs’ arguments for them: That BP’s money should continue to flow to claimants. Juneau had done his own investigation, he said, showing that no claims had been tainted and that there was no evidence of other problems. After a series of softball questions from Barbier, Stanley took his seat. What was left for Stephen Herman, representing the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, to argue? Not a thing! So, instead, he simply stood at the podium, while Barbier made a speech that had nothing to do with the case at hand. He praised Juneau, and complained about those in the news media who had denigrated him. He went on a long rant about how Juneau had come to be chosen. Later, after he had kicked Clark around a little more, he denied the motion, made yet another speech about the wonderful Patrick Juneau, and described recent remarks by Bob Dudley, BP’s chief executive, who had gone on TV to complain about the settlement, as “offensive.” He blamed BP for spreading “misinformation” about a settlement that, it was now clear, he was deeply invested in. He, and I should add, all the Louisiana lawyers in his courtroom. “The court reminds the parties that it retains exclusive jurisdiction” over the BP case, said Barbier in conclusion. That sounded like a threat to me. But what do I know? I’m from New York.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 06:06:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015