From Wikipedia:
"...Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.[30] On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes. Justice Samuel Alito, who at the time, owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.[31] In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law. Exxon's actions were deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious."[32] The judgment limits punitive damages to the compensatory damages, which for this case were calculated as $507.5 million.[33] The basis for limiting punitive damages to no more than twice[clarification needed] the actual damages has no precedent to support it.[citation needed] Some lawmakers, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, have decried the ruling as "another in a line of cases where this Supreme Court has misconstrued congressional intent to benefit large corporations."[34]
Exxon's official position is that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound."[35]
Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims associated with the grounding of the Exxon Valdez.[36][37] Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet, separate financial settlement of damages with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's effect on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven, but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages awarded in other civil proceedings. The $5 billion in punitive damages was awarded later, and the Seattle Seven's share could have been as high as $750 million if the damages award had held. Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement,[38] and when it came to light, Judge Holland ruled that Exxon should have told the jury at the start that an agreement had already been made, so the jury would know exactly how much Exxon would have to pay.[39]..."
Also this side note: "...In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.[citation needed] To protect itself in case the judgment was affirmed, Exxon obtained a $4.8 billion credit line from J.P. Morgan & Co. J.P. Morgan created the first modern credit default swap in 1994, so that Morgan's would not have to hold as much money in reserve (8% of the loan under Basel I) against the risk of Exxon's default.[29]..."
More links to local news outlets and TV here:
The fishing ban will apply in the following dates and areas:
From 25 April to 10 August, 2012 in the region from the mouth of the river Bravo (Tamaulipas) to the mouth of the river Coatzacoalcos (Veracruz);
From 1 to 28 February, 2013 in the area ranging from the river Bravo to the mouth of the river Coatzacoalcos;
From 25 April to 7 November, 2012 in marine waters ranging from the mouth of the river Coatzacoalcos to the border with Belize.
Dems have nothing to offer but fear. This is all BS.
All we’re hearing about around the gulf coast is the possible invasion of asian tiger shrimp which are cannibalistic, big, and the threat they might pose to our normal shrimp population.
Well that makes sense ...
Lets let all the deformed / mutated seafood live so that the gene pool is NOT cleansed ...
Who cares if the shrimp is deformed. Does it still taste good with cocktail sauce on it?
spilled oil doesn’t do this. if it did, then sealife would be deformed constantly
the source of the problem is the crap they poured into the gulf to “break up and disperse” the oil
(remember how “well” 0failure dealt with it??)
I wouldn't blindly accept the writings of a lawyer who makes it his career "fighting major oil companies and other polluters." And neither should you.
Shrimp is great when it is sauteed in 10W-30.
Your blog posting smells like Dem party propaganda
Your blog posting smells like Dem party propaganda
Remove this garbage post
You posted a Ambulance chasing trials lawyers BS website nonsense !
Who are u trying to scam here ?
Blind shrimp should be easier to catch! Bigger catches, lower prices. Mmmmm, eyeless shrimp, skewered and basted in butter, chili powder and lime juice on my new Green Egg.
The ambulance-chasing attorney blog this is from has no links.
And you linked to Democracy Now - a rabid left-wing news site - and claim it is balanced.
Forget oil spills, I smell ozone.
much of the punatives were overturned on appeal.
The exxon case continues to work its way through the court system.
Motive: Al Jazeera wants to reduce U.S. energy production so that we become more dependent upon Middle east crude.