As discussed more fully
many of the comparisons to what the GCCF allegedly “accepted” or
“did” are either:
unsupported by the formally promulgated GCCF Methodologies; or
belied by whatthe GCCF actually did, or, more accurately, did
do. Having a formal enforcement mechanism to ensurethat each eligible Class Member actually gets what he or she is entitled to under the written terms of theSettlement Agreement (
§§ 4.3.1, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.4.7 and 6.6) is, in and of itself, a substantial benefit tothe Class.
iithat they would have hypothetically been treated more favorably by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.
The Louisiana Attorney General and his counsel, in this regard, completely ignore not onlythe absence of an enforcement mechanism relative to the GCCF’s stated policies, but also the factthat a Responsible Party is only required to maintain an OPA Claims Process for three years.Despite the AG’s generic references to the Proposed Settlement as a “rebranded” GCCF,neither those attorneys nor any Objector actually disputes the fact that the Court-SupervisedSettlement Program:•Provides the class members with more flexible Benchmark Periodsfrom which to establish loss and, where necessary, causation.•Replaces a vague baseline “loss of income” (LOI) determination withconcrete, objective and transparent methods to establish basecompensation loss, under a two-step process that accounts for both (i)losses, as compared to benchmark earnings periods, and (ii) thedifference between 2010 profit and what the business would haveearned but for the spill.•Identifies specific “fixed” versus “variable” costs to be applied in thecompensation calculations.•Allows for causation presumptions based on industry and location,and, with respect to other classmembers, provides various alternativemethods of establishing, by objective means, that the business or individual suffered a loss deemed to be caused by the spill.•Compensates class members for Coastal and Wetlands PropertyDamages, VoO Charter Compensation, Real Estate Sales Losses, andother damages which were generally not being compensated by theGCCF.
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 7727 Filed 10/22/12 Page 3 of 78