If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   Supreme Court cuts judgement against Exxon for the Valdez disaster from $2.5 billion to $500 million. Reportedly cut because much of the wildlife filing the suit had died   (breitbart.com) divider line 138
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

2830 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2008 at 1:26 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-06-25 10:47:38 AM
this was in the WashPost article:

Nearly 33,000 Alaskans are in line to share in the award, about $15,000 a person. They would have collected $75,000 each under the $2.5 billion judgment

that's still going to buy a lot of liquor and snowmobiles
 
2008-06-25 11:00:33 AM
About the outcome that I expected.
 
2008-06-25 11:04:09 AM
Good corporate citizen.
 
2008-06-25 11:07:51 AM
Just file a motion to substitute a necessary party and get the legal heirs of the deceased wildlife to appear. Jeez, is this stuff so hard?
 
2008-06-25 11:19:23 AM
i236.photobucket.com
 
2008-06-25 11:38:50 AM
Did not read this article, but from the one on Bloomberg:

The $507.5 million award represents about 12 hours of sales for the oil company.
 
2008-06-25 12:06:43 PM
SCOTUS, proud member of the ExxonMobil board of directors.

They're not even going to peg the award to the rate of inflation, are they?

No, why do I even ask.
 
2008-06-25 12:10:55 PM
They are going to need that money to start drilling in ANWR. Do you think rigs are free?
 
2008-06-25 12:36:39 PM
NewportBarGuy

ironically...

The 4-4 split on that question occurred because Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon stockholder, didn't take part in the case.
 
2008-06-25 12:41:21 PM
So I guess the oil really hits the anus.
 
2008-06-25 12:50:05 PM
Derek Force: The 4-4 split on that question occurred because Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon stockholder, didn't take part in the case.

I'm all in favor of giving them a cool million per-year if there is a clause that they have to divest all private investments aside from a principle home, second home, and U.S. government bonds/T-bills.

They are the law of the land. They should not be involved in any way in private business.

(We all know how Alito would vote, but it's the appearance that pisses people off.)
 
2008-06-25 01:31:00 PM
NewportBarGuy: I'm all in favor of giving them a cool million per-year if there is a clause that they have to divest all private investments aside from a principle home, second home, and U.S. government bonds/T-bills

Such restrictions don't solve anything. They can always find a way around it, and you just end up with "chase the money" games while corruption goes on unabated. See: McCain-Feingold.

Besides, SCOTUS isn't corrupt. They're power-hungry.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2008-06-25 01:31:58 PM
NewportBarGuy

There was an article in the Christian Science Monitor recently about the problem caused by Supreme Court justices owning stock and being unable to decide cases as a result.

They're not even going to peg the award to the rate of inflation, are they?

Compensatory damages awards automatically include interest at a substantial rate -- 12% for Massachusetts, lower in some other states. I'm not sure if punitive damages awards do. I know the Exxon award included interest but I don't know if that was on the whole thing or just the punitive damages.
 
2008-06-25 01:33:29 PM
ZAZ: Compensatory damages awards automatically include interest at a substantial rate -- 12% for Massachusetts, lower in some other states.

Well, thank god for that, at least. 20 years without some kind of peg would be ridiculous. Thanks for the info.
 
2008-06-25 01:34:32 PM
img389.imageshack.us
 
2008-06-25 01:35:19 PM
[Main] U.S. Supreme court overturns the $2.5 billion in punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Justics Scalia reportedly commented that "this action will surely secure American lives and provide cheaper oil beginning tomorrow"
 
2008-06-25 01:35:34 PM
GOOD!
Because we CANNOT UPSET THE STOCK HOLDERS... that would DESTROY AMERICA!!

And the TERRORISTS would have won. You know, the terrorist Alaskan fishermen and wildlife.
 
2008-06-25 01:35:36 PM
So that $2 billion they had sitting on the books as the potential lawsuit payout now drops right to the bottom line. Excellent, as the oil companies have really been struggling to show a profit lately.
 
2008-06-25 01:36:20 PM
This was posted by a local in the Anchorage Daily:

"20 years interest at 9% simple on the reduced 2.5 Billion Punitive award is $450 million - what's a generation and vast losses in, and to, the environment worth when the most profitable company in history has to toss less than one day's profits and some interest at 32,677 peasants?

It brings to mind Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities where the French Nobleman tosses a coin out of his carriage window to "compensate" the family of a child he had just run over and killed.

Where is our Mme Defarge? Who is knitting the names of the enemies of American Justice?"

/wish I'd said it
/Exxon's CEO just instructed his assistant to take the punitive award from petty cash drawer and give it to the messenger.
 
2008-06-25 01:36:31 PM
Yay, gas prices will surely drop!


*crickets*
 
2008-06-25 01:36:43 PM
The reduction in penalties wouldn't be a big deal if they had actually cleaned it all up. Pic from a year ago:

i174.photobucket.com
 
2008-06-25 01:37:20 PM
I haven't read the opinion yet, but it will be interesting to see how the majority justifies reducing a single-digit multiplier of compensatory damages to a 1:1 ratio. What law are they finding, exactly?
 
2008-06-25 01:38:59 PM
its okay, it will be reduced again to a settlement of a free gallon of gas for everyone instead. big oil will be okay.
 
2008-06-25 01:39:35 PM
Wow... so they're down to 10% of what they were initially responsible for, and all it cost was a few million per judge. Brilliant!
 
2008-06-25 01:43:05 PM
Hell those folks should be paying Exxon not the other way around with all the free oil they got dropped on thier beach.
 
2008-06-25 01:43:14 PM
Farkin' ridiculous.
 
2008-06-25 01:43:39 PM
Well thank goodness. I was afraid those poor oil company executives were going to have to make do with piddly little Gulfstream Vs and 550s, instead of being able to afford the new Gulfstream 650. But now they won't have to fire their jowl-waxers or the Negro children they use as footstools (the better to cure the gout). And imagine the horror if they had to start drinking Scotch that was aged only 27 years, or smoking machine-rolled Cuban cigars instead of those rolled on the naked bellies of lithe virgins.
 
2008-06-25 01:43:51 PM
EvilEgg
They are going to need that money to start drilling in ANWR. Do you think rigs politicians are free?


FTFY
 
2008-06-25 01:44:40 PM
Dadgum Activist Ju....oh wait. It was Scalia.

"Bout time some judge put a stop to them thar trial lawyers and their shenanigans"
 
2008-06-25 01:45:09 PM
Phew. Now Exxon can spend all of that money on alternative energy sources!
 
2008-06-25 01:45:13 PM
caddisfly: This was posted by a local in the Anchorage Daily:

"20 years interest at 9% simple on the reduced 2.5 Billion Punitive award is $450 million - what's a generation and vast losses in, and to, the environment worth when the most profitable company in history has to toss less than one day's profits and some interest at 32,677 peasants?

It brings to mind Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities where the French Nobleman tosses a coin out of his carriage window to "compensate" the family of a child he had just run over and killed.

Where is our Mme Defarge? Who is knitting the names of the enemies of American Justice?"


I thought the statistic was that it was less than a day's sales, not profits. Also, they have already paid billions on the cleanup. This case isn't the entirety of the coin they are tossing away.

Not that I wouldn't take the money if I lived in Alaska.
 
2008-06-25 01:45:59 PM
Exxon should be given the option to pay the full amount, or build a wind farm that could power all of Alaska.
 
2008-06-25 01:46:18 PM
DId anyone see the documentary re: Exxon Valdez? It was on one of those History Channel? series - it was pretty balanced in its assessment of all factors involved (including the human factor and ongoing lawsuits.)

I just can't remember the name of the series that has all kinds of these topics. SOmething like : "Case Closed" or "THe final Verdict" or something.

Anyone know?
 
2008-06-25 01:47:11 PM
Oh yeah - n/m - it is the "Final Report" on Nat Geo.
 
2008-06-25 01:47:32 PM
So.... Let's say I'm a corporation....and I fark up. Really badly. And as a result I harm, say, 1 million people. I'm ok and will have a reduction in fines if instead of simply maiming I eliminate them all? Is that what they're saying (and no, I didn't RTFA yet)? So it actually behooves them to kill more than to simply injure?

Wow.

Seems to me, we all need to incorporate ourselves and go on a crime spree.
 
2008-06-25 01:49:43 PM
And Exxon will pass the savings on to you!
 
2008-06-25 01:49:43 PM
I'm kind of surprised all of you farkers aren't for this opinion. Isn't this the website where everyone biatches every time there's a large punitive damages award? On and on we go about trial lawyers. I realize its easier here, because Exxon is unlikeable, but this decision is a good thing in general.

Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are. Its equivalent to when a doctor gets sued and the jury awards the plaintiff $50 million. Its usually far out of line with lost pay, pain and suffering, etc.

One can make the argument that the original damages award wasn't enough, but something bad happening to someone should not be the equivalent of winning the lottery.
 
2008-06-25 01:54:18 PM
Thank God. Now gas prices can come back down. Thank you Justice Scalia!
 
2008-06-25 01:54:29 PM
stevekahuda: I'm kind of surprised all of you farkers aren't for this opinion. Isn't this the website where everyone biatches every time there's a large punitive damages award? On and on we go about trial lawyers. I realize its easier here, because Exxon is unlikeable, but this decision is a good thing in general.

Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are. Its equivalent to when a doctor gets sued and the jury awards the plaintiff $50 million. Its usually far out of line with lost pay, pain and suffering, etc.

One can make the argument that the original damages award wasn't enough, but something bad happening to someone should not be the equivalent of winning the lottery.


It is just liberal Farkheads crying about the "evil" big oil companies. It was an accident, get over it. I mean, how many people really suffered, and how much money did they lose? oil spills suck, but the people living around the area really lose 450 million dollars personally?
 
2008-06-25 01:56:14 PM
stevekahuda: I'm kind of surprised all of you farkers aren't for this opinion. Isn't this the website where everyone biatches every time there's a large punitive damages award? On and on we go about trial lawyers. I realize its easier here, because Exxon is unlikeable, but this decision is a good thing in general.

Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are. Its equivalent to when a doctor gets sued and the jury awards the plaintiff $50 million. Its usually far out of line with lost pay, pain and suffering, etc.

One can make the argument that the original damages award wasn't enough, but something bad happening to someone should not be the equivalent of winning the lottery.


Except in this case, Exxon is as disgusting as they come. They raped a national treasure, deprived many alaskans of their livelihoods and have not even finished with the clean up, while each year, their profits have soared into the unbelievable range.

There is a thing called karma, and if it truly exists, one day, the shareholders of Exxon, the Board of Directors and pretty much anyone associated with that company, will get 50,000 volts delivered to the groin.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2008-06-25 01:56:35 PM
I think punitive damages should be abolished and the criminal justice system be used instead for punishment. This is a start. In compensation, defendants should be liable for attorney's fees in cases of outrageous conduct that would be punished by punitive damages under current law.
 
2008-06-25 01:56:41 PM
farkin' pathetic. Way to maintain your integrity Alito...
 
2008-06-25 01:57:57 PM
alcoholwasinvolved: The reduction in penalties wouldn't be a big deal if they had actually cleaned it all up. Pic from a year ago:

Oil just seeping up from the ground? First thing you know old Jed's a millionaire.
 
2008-06-25 01:57:59 PM
stevekahuda: Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are. Its equivalent to when a doctor gets sued and the jury awards the plaintiff $50 million. Its usually far out of line with lost pay, pain and suffering, etc.


Punitive damages are generally higher than compensatory damages, generally in the range of 4:1. When the punitive awards get real high (10:1 or higher) the courts usually strike them down.
 
2008-06-25 01:58:13 PM
stevekahuda: I'm kind of surprised all of you farkers aren't for this opinion. Isn't this the website where everyone biatches every time there's a large punitive damages award? On and on we go about trial lawyers. I realize its easier here, because Exxon is unlikeable, but this decision is a good thing in general.

Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are. Its equivalent to when a doctor gets sued and the jury awards the plaintiff $50 million. Its usually far out of line with lost pay, pain and suffering, etc.

One can make the argument that the original damages award wasn't enough, but something bad happening to someone should not be the equivalent of winning the lottery.


They only paid for the oil cleanup, the site has never been rehabilitated and thus a fishing economy is much smaller than it would have been if Exxon had not been negligent.

Punitive damages might not have been the best classification, but its better to accept that than let taxpayers pay for Exxon's expenses
 
2008-06-25 01:58:58 PM
stevekahuda: Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are. Its equivalent to when a doctor gets sued and the jury awards the plaintiff $50 million. Its usually far out of line with lost pay, pain and suffering, etc.

I don't think you quite understand the term "punitive." It's a punishment, not a reimbursement. There are two parts to award, one is compensation, the second is punishment (called punitive). The point of the compensation is to make up for damages, lost wages, whatever. The part of the punishment is to hurt, to teach a lesson, to encourage the person to keep from making the same mistake over again. 12 hours worth of sales doesn't sound like it will teach the company a lesson.

This is a great segway to my soapbox... punishment in this country is not severe enough. People should want to avoid punishment, it should be a deterrent, but it's not.
 
2008-06-25 01:59:16 PM
Thunderpipes: stevekahuda:

It is just liberal Farkheads crying about the "evil" big oil companies. It was an accident, get over it. I mean, how many people really suffered, and how much money did they lose? oil spills suck, but the people living around the area really lose 450 million dollars personally?


Sorry, try again. Card Carrying Reagan Zombie here...Exxon sucks. PERIOD.
 
2008-06-25 01:59:45 PM
Lt. Cheese Weasel: There is a thing called karma, and if it truly exists, one day, the shareholders of Exxon, the Board of Directors and pretty much anyone associated with that company, will get 50,000 volts delivered to the groin

many pension funds are invested in exxon or are in funds that are invested in exxon. if you have a pension fund, you just may be one of them.

get your groin prepared
 
2008-06-25 01:59:47 PM
I submitted this with a better headline.... Damnit.
 
2008-06-25 02:01:16 PM
stevekahuda: ...

Punitive damages should be around what actual damages are.


No, that is compensatory damages. Punitive damages are designed to inflict punishment and should be based on the perpetrators net worth.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report