ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

With the legendary Bill Graham aka Wolfgang Grajonca (check his Vaults before it's too late!)
Live Aid Benefit Concert - Philadelphia, PA July 13, 1985
© Unknown Author (Thanks anyway)
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Damn Liberal 9th Circuit Court! Return to archive
22nd December 2006 04:15 PM
monkey_man REDUCING the fine against a corporation???

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damages Reduced by About Half

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ateuWXhn6ZGM&refer=home

By Karen Gullo

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. must pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages to victims of the Valdez oil spill almost two decades ago, a 44 percent reduction for what became the symbol of corporate environmental negligence worldwide.

An appeals court in San Francisco today cut the $4.5 billion punitive award for the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez tanker spill, saying the verdict exceeded U.S. Supreme Court limits on such damages. The court said Exxon's ``reckless misconduct'' in the 1989 accident still warranted severe sanctions.

Exxon, the world's largest oil company, set aside $5.4 billion in a letter of credit to cover any eventual award in the case, according to company filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Exxon had said it should pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages in the case because it has spent $3.5 billion to clean up the spill and compensate victims.

``It's still a significant amount of money, but they've got to be relieved that they're getting the whole thing put to rest,'' said Douglas Christopher, whose largest holding is Exxon Mobil shares in an $8.5 billion portfolio at Crowell Weedon & Co. in Los Angeles. ``This frees up money they can put toward the business of finding and producing oil.''

Exxon, based in Irving, Texas, earned $36.1 billion in 2005, the biggest annual profit for any company in U.S. history.

The money spent on cleaning up the spill mitigates ``at least to some material degree, the reprehensibility in economic terms of Exxon's original misconduct,'' the appeals court said.

Unwarranted Damages

Exxon said in a statement that the facts of the case ``do not warrant an award of this size'' and that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to provide more guidance on punitive damages.

``The plaintiffs have been compensated for damages and most were compensated within one year of the spill,'' the statement said. The spill was a ``tragic accident that ExxonMobil deeply regrets,'' the statement said.

``I'm disappointed that the number was reduced,'' said Davie Oesting, an attorney for the spill victims who sued Exxon. ``I know I will have a substantial number of plaintiffs who will say the award isn't enough and others will say closure is more important than total vindication.''

Oesting said he is considering whether to appeal to a larger panel of the court, which ruled by a 2 to 1 vote.

Exxon's shares fell 46 cents to $75.41 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

The Exxon Valdez spill prompted oil companies, tanker owners and government regulators to favor safer, double-hulled vessels. Many remaining single-hulled tankers were phased out under an international treaty that went into effect last year.

The Accident

The Exxon Valdez tanker ran into a reef in Prince William Sound off Alaska just after midnight on March 24, 1989 spreading oil over 10,000 square miles. The ship, captained by Joseph Hazelwood, spilled oil that devastated wildlife, interrupted commercial fishing and wiped out many businesses.

More than 4,000 sea otters and seals and 500,000 seabirds were killed. More than 100 salmon streams were destroyed, according to the Alaska Wilderness League.

Fisherman, landowners and others sued Exxon and were awarded $287 million in 1994 for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages.

In weighing Exxon's conduct, the appeals court said the company kept Hazelwood in command knowing ``he had relapsed into alcoholism.'' Hazelwood was found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted of negligent discharge of oil, a misdemeanor, fined $50,000 and ordered to complete 1,000 hours of community service in Alaska, according to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.

Initial Verdict

U.S. District Court Judge H. Russell Holland in Anchorage lowered the initial punitive damages award to $4 billion, or 17 times the compensatory damages, after the appeals court ruled in 2001 that $5 billion was too high. Last year, Holland increased the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, after concluding actual harm to the victims was about $500 million.

The $2.5 billion punitive damage award ordered today is five times the compensation Exxon has paid so far to all the victims, including the $287 million compensatory verdict and an additional $213 million from settlements with the company, Oesting said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that even in egregious cases of misconduct, punitive damages usually should be limited to no more than nine times the compensation awarded to plaintiffs for economic loss.

The case is Baker v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 04-35182, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (San Francisco).

To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at [email protected] .

Last Updated: December 22, 2006 16:03 EST
[Edited by monkey_man]
22nd December 2006 05:30 PM
rasputin56 Haven't they suffered enough? That coupled with the sacrifices Big Oil made to try and ensure the GOP kept both Houses by dropping prices? I almost feel like setting up a non-profit charity for them to help 'em out a bit.
22nd December 2006 05:59 PM
Riffhard
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Haven't they suffered enough? That coupled with the sacrifices Big Oil made to try and ensure the GOP kept both Houses by dropping prices? I almost feel like setting up a non-profit charity for them to help 'em out a bit.




LOL! Raspy you really do need to take a good look at oil price fluctuations dating back over the last ten years! Here's a sure fire bet for ya. Next summer oil prices are going to once again go through the roof. They will then drop like a rock a couple of weeks after Labor Day. It has happened every year for quite some time now. It's going to happen again next year too. Bank on it. Couple the increased demand from China and India as well as the turmoil in the Middle East,and that explains the prices. Big Oil does not set the price of oil! Wall Street speculators do! Maybe if we could drill more at home,and open a few refineries we could tell the Saudis to fuck off,but there's a party that has no intention of letting that happen. Wonder which party that is? Here's a clue-it's the party that has blocked every shot at opening a new refinery for over thirty years now.




Riffy
22nd December 2006 09:12 PM
Taptrick
And how much of your price per gallon is tax?

22nd December 2006 10:22 PM
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Hillary will solve all the Nation's problems!!
22nd December 2006 11:24 PM
monkey_man
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Here's a clue-it's the party that has blocked every shot at opening a new refinery for over thirty years now.
Riffy



Cool let's let big oil know that you are amenable to having a refinery built near your house in Northern Jersey. It's sure to make your property rise in value. . . .make the call!!
It looks like the 9th circuit court isn't as kooky as right wing talking points would lead you to believe!
23rd December 2006 12:33 AM
sirmoonie
23rd December 2006 03:04 AM
Taptrick
And then Atlas shrugged...



23rd December 2006 04:24 AM
pdog is any of that turmoil in the mideast a result of a really bad decision by G.W. Bush... The one that he alone still thinks is winnable, or we need succes or whatever the fuck stupid words are describing the worst military blunder by the USA, ever!
Next time you think removing the evil despot, who hated Al quieda as much as anyone, was a good idea... Just think what half the money and resources wasted there would've and could've done in Afganistan, and how we could actually have had leverage against Iran... There's your security and long term safety... Gione b/c bush doessn't listen to people who actually know what's going on. He's so fucking convinced he's right he's willing to let people continue to die for a few more years for nothing...
23rd December 2006 05:22 AM
corgi37 Er, Riffy, i thought OPEC set the price of oil?
23rd December 2006 08:47 AM
lotsajizz shhhh...don't confuse him...
23rd December 2006 08:52 AM
rasputin56
quote:
Riffhard wrote:



LOL! Raspy you really do need to take a good look at oil price fluctuations dating back over the last ten years! Here's a sure fire bet for ya. Next summer oil prices are going to once again go through the roof. They will then drop like a rock a couple of weeks after Labor Day. It has happened every year for quite some time now. It's going to happen again next year too. Bank on it. Couple the increased demand from China and India as well as the turmoil in the Middle East,and that explains the prices. Big Oil does not set the price of oil! Wall Street speculators do! Maybe if we could drill more at home,and open a few refineries we could tell the Saudis to fuck off,but there's a party that has no intention of letting that happen. Wonder which party that is? Here's a clue-it's the party that has blocked every shot at opening a new refinery for over thirty years now.




Riffy



LMAO! The good ol' refinery thing! Too funny! Let's see, who controlled Congress and/or the White House for the better part of those 30 years? More Republican failures, I guess. Didn't matter anyways, the oil companies purposely didn't push for refineries in the mid-90's (you know, when Republicans were in charge of Congress) because, as certain leaked memos revealed, it was better for their profit margins if they didn't build them.



Oh, and a very Merry Christmas, end of Hannukah and Kwanza, whatever the hell that is, to all!
23rd December 2006 05:22 PM
Taptrick

That damned big business and their damn train monopolies - they are doing nothing for America - oh sorry wrong generation.



23rd December 2006 06:35 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:
Mahatma Kane Jeeves wrote:
Hillary will solve all the Nation's problems!!



Her and hydrogen.

Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)