To correct this erroneous implementation and breach of the Agreement, BPrequested this Court’s review of the Claims Administrator’s BEL Policy Decisions pursuant tothe terms of the Agreement. On March 5, 2013, however, the Court entered the Order onReview of Issue from Panel affirming the BEL Policy Decisions. Rec. Doc. 8812.3.
The BEL Policy Decisions rupture the basic bargain between BP and the Class.BP did not agree to pay what is already hundreds of millions of dollars, and potentially billions,to claimants with “losses” that do not exist in reality, but result solely from the ClaimsAdministrator’s rewriting of the Agreement. Instead, BP settled this matter for the purpose of compensating those with legitimate claims who were injured by the
Agreement, Ex. 4C; Agreement ¶¶ 188.8.131.52, 38.57; Rec. Doc. 8138 at 31, 60, 86, 87; Rec.Doc. 6266-2.4.
BP seeks to preserve the ability of the Courts to render an effective remedy. If theSettlement Program pays BEL claimants for non-existent losses, then BP will be unable torecover those payments from claimants even if BP ultimately prevails.
Janvey v. Alguire
,647 F.3d 585, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing
Lee v. Bickell
, 292 U.S. 415, 421 (1934));
, 835 F.2d 554, 561-62 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing
Lynch Corp. v. Omaha Nat’l Bank
, 666F.2d 1208, 1212 (8th Cir. 1981));
Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach
, 661 F.2d 328,338 (5th Cir. 1981);
Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC
, 109 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 1996);
Resolution TrustCorp. v. Elman
, 949 F.2d 624, 629 (2nd Cir. 1991).5.
Therefore, BP moves for a preliminary injunction against the ClaimsAdministrator and Settlement Program to enjoin them from implementing the BEL PolicyDecisions and from issuing or paying to claimants any determinations for BEL claims where theamount of the determination depends, in whole or in part, on the BEL Policy Decisions. In the
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 8910-2 Filed 03/15/13 Page 3 of 14