Exxon still fighting paying fines from Valdez Disaster
gabers
Posts: 2,787
It amazes me they're still fighting this after becoming the most profitable company in the world last year. This spill took away many peoples' livelihoods for years. Most of the money they spent previously spent was just on cleanup and government fines, not compensation for money lost by the local economy. Pay up and move on. It's not like they're not good for it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_exxon_valdez
Court to hear Exxon Valdez case By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.
The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes in the spillage of 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The Exxon Valdez supertanker had run aground on a reef. A federal appeals court already had cut in half the $5 billion in damages awarded by a jury in 1994.
The justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay any punitive damages at all. If the court decides some money is due, Exxon is arguing that $2.5 billion is excessive under laws governing shipping and prior high court decisions limiting punitive damages.
The damages were, by far, the largest ever approved by federal appeals judges, the company said in its brief to the court.
The case probably will be heard in the spring. The court's last ruling on punitive damages, in February, set aside a nearly $80 million judgment against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA. The money was awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon.
Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.
Exxon said it already has paid $3.4 billion in clean-up costs and other penalties resulting from the oil spill, which killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.
"This case has never been about compensating people for actual damages," company spokesman Tony Cudmore said in a statement. "Rather it is about whether further punishment is warranted...We do not believe any punitive damages are warranted in this case."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom are deceased, said the damages award is "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profits." The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses.
The Irving, Texas-based oil company marshaled more than a dozen organizations ranging from groups of shippers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to support its bid for Supreme Court review.
The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship's captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.
The plaintiffs said Exxon knew Hazelwood had sought treatment for drinking, but had begun drinking again. "Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters," they said.
The company has been battling the judgment for over a decade. The company has managed to get the award cut in half from the original $5 billion awarded in 1994 by an Anchorage jury in the class-action suit.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damages because, in part, the company tried to clean up the spill and didn't spill oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez deliberately.
The disaster prompted Congress in 1990 to pass a law banning single-hulled tankers like the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.
Exxon Mobil shares were up $1.61, or about 2 percent, to $93.82 in morning trading.
The case is Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 07-219.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_exxon_valdez
Court to hear Exxon Valdez case By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.
The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes in the spillage of 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The Exxon Valdez supertanker had run aground on a reef. A federal appeals court already had cut in half the $5 billion in damages awarded by a jury in 1994.
The justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay any punitive damages at all. If the court decides some money is due, Exxon is arguing that $2.5 billion is excessive under laws governing shipping and prior high court decisions limiting punitive damages.
The damages were, by far, the largest ever approved by federal appeals judges, the company said in its brief to the court.
The case probably will be heard in the spring. The court's last ruling on punitive damages, in February, set aside a nearly $80 million judgment against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA. The money was awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon.
Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.
Exxon said it already has paid $3.4 billion in clean-up costs and other penalties resulting from the oil spill, which killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.
"This case has never been about compensating people for actual damages," company spokesman Tony Cudmore said in a statement. "Rather it is about whether further punishment is warranted...We do not believe any punitive damages are warranted in this case."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom are deceased, said the damages award is "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profits." The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses.
The Irving, Texas-based oil company marshaled more than a dozen organizations ranging from groups of shippers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to support its bid for Supreme Court review.
The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship's captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.
The plaintiffs said Exxon knew Hazelwood had sought treatment for drinking, but had begun drinking again. "Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters," they said.
The company has been battling the judgment for over a decade. The company has managed to get the award cut in half from the original $5 billion awarded in 1994 by an Anchorage jury in the class-action suit.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damages because, in part, the company tried to clean up the spill and didn't spill oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez deliberately.
The disaster prompted Congress in 1990 to pass a law banning single-hulled tankers like the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.
Exxon Mobil shares were up $1.61, or about 2 percent, to $93.82 in morning trading.
The case is Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 07-219.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Not if it were going to cost the taxpayers millions more dollars and I knew I was guilty as charged the first time around.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Well, it's within their rights in our judicial system to appeal.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Obviously. And, in cases like this, Unfortunately.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
which says a lot about the state of the judicial system.
It seems to me that if the company is still trying to repair its image this isn't the best way to go about it. While they're still fighting this in the courts, thousands of people lost their way of life, without any means of compensation. Is that fair?
awful analogy ... more like if you were caught for speeding and your speeding caused someone's home to be without heat in winter ... would you fight it and prolong someone's access to heat?
anyways - the math on the cleanup costs are dodgy ... most of the cleanup costs were recovered through insurance and tax write offs ... and the actual results of the cleanup have been massaged from some fantasy world ...
exxon is a great example of how much power and influence a company has in this world and how devastating it can be when it chooses greed over people ...
Are there still people who are without heat because Exxon hasn't paid the fines?
You have to allow for the judicial system and there's a reason we have that system in place. Most people and companies do go through appeals when judgments have been levied against them.
I'm not defending what they did, but I do defend the judicial system that's in place and their right to follow it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
not to mention that alot of those that worked on the clean-up crews were left with permanent illnesses as a result of that clean-up work. my sister and brother-in-law lived in Seward at the time and from what i've heard from them about what alot of these workers are left having to deal with is just horrible :(
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
people lost their livelihoods and they haven't been compensated yet ... so, technically - yes they have no heat ...
like most systems - the judicial system works in certain conditions ... the only reason why exxon hasn't paid the damages is because they have so much cash they can pay lawyers and clog up the courts to stall what they should be doing ... you and i may have that opportunity under relative circumstances but we would go broke ...
Good points. With regard to people not being compensated yet, I did see this paragraph in the CNN article which is stated slightly differently than the Yahoo article:
"This case has never been about compensating people for actual damages. Rather it is about whether further punishment is warranted in a case where the company voluntarily compensated most plaintiffs within a year of the spill, and has spent over $3.5 billion, including compensatory payments, cleanup payments, settlements and fines."
Apparently there is some merit to their appeal or the Supreme Court wouldn't have agreed to hear it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
that quote sounds like it came from the PR office of exxon ... the reality is that the damages were awarded based on a class action suit filed by some 33,000 plaintiffs ... to date they have received zero compensation 18 years after the spill ... of those 33,000 - 6,000 of them are dead ...
this is the context by which we judge corporations
Not sure where it came from, but it's interesting how it can be different in a CNN story than the Yahoo story.
I hope it gets resolved soon. It sounds like it will be early next year before the Supreme Court resolves it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Speeding doesn't decimate environment nor does it cost tens of thousands of people their annual livelihood.
Know1 ~ I appreciate your support of our judicial system but this case and Exxon's continuous appeals provide a glaring example of abuse of the judicial system. Perhaps I'm biased because I live in Alaska, but Exxon has filed appeal after appeal after appeal while many of the plantiffs in the class action, as previously mentioned, have died. They were originally found guilty by a group of our peers and were ordered to pay $5.5 billion in damages. More appeals and more appeals ensued and the punitive damages were cut in half. I know a lot of commercial fisherman and people in other industries that revolve around Prince William Sound who lost a lot, if not everything, because for that year they lost their cumulative annual income. Take your argument that they have every right to appeal to the man who lost his boat because he couldn't make payments when the salmon season was shut down.
On a side note... our state legislature has convened a special session to review the PPT (Petroleum Profits Tax) that was passed last year in lieu of bribery scandals that have rocked the state; a few of our representatives received favors for their votes to pass a tax favorable to the oil industry and our governor feels the legislation is not legitimate based on the votes of a few dirty pols. I'm not going to rant and rave about Alaska getting shortchanged; if you wish to do some research about the taxation of oil companies in foreign areas housing non-renewable resources in comparison to those levied in Alaska, you'll find that they have a pretty good deal going up here. Exxon representatives had the audacity to suggest Alaska lower its PPT now that the legislature is focused on this issue. This coming from the fucks who finally have to face the music only now they get to do so with a pro-corporation Supreme Court. Our television and radio ads are getting peppered by the oil industry implying that higher taxation is going to equal less investment in the state. At over $90 a barrel, that ain't happening.
Exxon can go fuck themselves.