(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Exxon still arguing in court that they shouldn't have to pay for the Valdez disaster.

The penalties are equivalent to *three week's profit*, and they've spent 19 years appealing the ruling against them.

Comments

[argaive.livejournal.com]

...they've spent 19 years appealing the ruling against them.

Which probably cost them a lot more than three weeks' profit.

It's obvious they're more concerned about creating a precedent than the actual money involved.

A.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Lawyers on retainer, man...

And not even they make $700M a week.

[mightycodking.livejournal.com]

They might even disagree with the ruling, which is why people usually appeal.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm sure they do disagree with it.

I'm also sure that they're unambiguously wrong on the facts, which is why their argument now is that "We've delayed so long that things are starting to get better on their own, so we shouldn't have to pay up".

Which is bullshit.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

"Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong in this case and paid dearly for it"

Well, of course not; the question is, what did they stand to gain if it had gone right. The idea of punitive damages, in my opinion, is to stack up the payoff-probability matrix in favor of following the rules.