BP: An Anatomy of the Legal Considerations and Proceedings

Transcription

1 BP: An Anatomy of the Legal Considerations and Proceedings Panelists: Philip F. Cossich, Jr. Cossich, Sumich, Parsiola & Taylor, L.L.C.; Belle Chase, La. Stephen J. Herman Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC, New Orleans, La Evidence and Procedure Seminar LOUISIANA JUDICIAL COLLEGE LOUISIANA ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE February 20, Windsor Court Hotel. New Orleans, Louisiana

2 The BP Oil / Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation: An Overview On April 20, 2010, a blowout, two explosions and a fire on the mobile offshore drilling unit DEEPWATER HORIZON occurred as the vessel was preparing to temporarily abandon the Macondo well, an exploratory well drilled in Block 252, Mississippi Canyon, on the Outer Continental Shelf, approximately 50 miles south of Louisiana. That catastrophe took the lives of eleven men and injured many others. On April 22, after burning for two days, the rig sank into the Gulf of Mexico. For the next 87 days, oil continuously discharged into the Gulf before the well could be capped, on July 15, On May 13, 2010, the owner of the DEEPWATER HORIZON, Transocean, 1 filed a Complaint and Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the Limitation of Shipowners Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C (a) (the Limitation Action ). 2 On August 16, 2010, the Limitation Action was transferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(9) to the Eastern District of Louisiana, where it was assigned to Judge Barbier s Section bearing Case No On August 20, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) (a panel made up of seven sitting district court and appellate judges from around the country who consider whether cases pending in multiple districts arising out of similar facts and circumstances should be consolidated in one single district for pre-trial purposes) centralized in all spill-related federal actions, excluding shareholder suits, and assigned them to Judge Barbier in the Eastern District of Louisiana for pre-trial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C The Limitation Action was consolidated with the MDL on August 24, On October 19, 2010, the Court organized the numerous cases centralized before it by creating pleading bundles for various claims brought by those claiming injury due to the explosion, the oil spill, and its aftermath. 6 The B1 Master Complaint and Amended B1 Complaint were filed on behalf of private plaintiffs asserting economic injuries arising from the 1 Specifically, the named Petitioners in Limitation include: Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Deepwater, Inc. 2 Action No. 4:10-cv (S.D. Tex.). 3 ORDER, In re: The Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset leasing GmbH, et al, No [Rec. Doc. 207] (Aug. 16, 2010). 4 See Rec. Doc. 1. [Unless otherwise specified, the Rec. Doc. numbers refer to the Documents in the record of EDLA Civil Action No. 10-md-2179]. 5 See Rec. Doc See Rec. Doc [Pre-Trial Order No. 11]

3 spill. 7 The B3 Master Complaint and Amended B3 Complaint were filed on behalf of private plaintiffs asserting the need for medical monitoring and/or personal injuries arising from exposure to oil and/or dispersants. 8 These Master Complaints included a Master Answer and Claim in the Transocean Limitation Action, as well as separate claims under maritime law and (in the case of the B1 Complaint) OPA against BP, Halliburton, Cameron, M1-Swaco, and other parties. The Court established a procedure by which people and businesses could file Short Form Joinders which would simultaneously assert a Claim in the Limitation Action as well as a joinder in the B1 and/or B3 Master Complaints. 9 Individual Bundle A Complaints were also filed on behalf of workers and the families of workers aboard the DEEPWATER HORIZON who were injured or killed in the fire and explosion of April 20, In the meantime, BP was formally designated as the responsible party for the spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2702, and waived the potential $75 million limitation of liability under Section 2704(a)(3). 10 On December 15, 2010, the United States filed a civil action against BP, Transocean, Anadarko and MOEX, seeking penalties under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1321, et seq., and for a declaratory judgment with respect to the defendants liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ( OPA ), 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq. 11 The State of Alabama filed two civil actions, 12 as well as an Answer and Claim in the Limitation Action. 13 The State of Louisiana also sought and was granted leave to file an Answer and Claim in the Limitation Action. 14 The Court also established a process by which local governments could join in a Local Government Master Answer and Claim in the Limitation and Master Complaint See Rec. Doc. 879 and See Rec. Doc. 881 and The B3 Master Complaint also includes a breach of contract claim on behalf of clean-up workers who allege that they are owed additional compensation under their Vessel of Opportunity ( VoO ) Charter Agreements with BP or one of its sub-contractors. These actions have largely been settled as part of the Economic & Property Damages Class Settlement, discussed infra. 9 See PTO Nos. 24 and 25. Over 120,000 claims were filed in the Limitation Action, via Short Form Joinder or otherwise. See generally, USDC E.D.La. Case No and Docket No (See also Docket No , relating to the claims made by Local Government entities, referenced infra.) 10 See Rec. Doc Case No Nos and No , Rec. Doc No , Rec. Doc PTO No. 33, and Rec. Doc (These filings were made in USDC E.D.La. Docket No )

4 In the meantime, Transocean, on February 18, 2011, filed a Third-Party Complaint, in which the BP Defendants, Halliburton, Cameron, M1-Swaco were tendered to the Claimants-in- Limitation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c). 16 Various different Rule 13 crossclaims, Rule 14 third-party claims, and Rule 14(c) tenders were then asserted between and among the Petitioner-in-Limitation and the various other Defendants. 17 On August 26, 2011, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part various motions to dismiss the Amended B1 Complaint on August 26, In sum, the Court found that: (i) OPA did not displace general maritime law with respect to punitive damage or other claims against defendants by plaintiffs with maritime standing; (ii) maritime standing was generally limited under Robins Dry Dock to plaintiffs who were directly affected by oil and/or fell under the commercial fishing exception; (iii) State Law causes of action were preempted by the Clean Water Act; (iv) Plaintiffs had generally stated a cause of action under OPA for what BP and the other defendants alleged were losses caused by the Moratorium; and (v) OPA required all plaintiffs to make presentment in all cases against BP, the responsible party. 18 An order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss the Amended B3 Complaint was entered on September 30, An order granting in part and denying in part the actions of the 20, 21 States of Alabama and Louisiana was entered on November 14, On September 14, 2011, the Court issued Pre-Trial Order No. 41, governing the scope and structure of the Limitation and Liability Trial. Under the Court s original trial plan: Phase One [ Incident Phase] of the Trial will address issues arising out of the conduct of various parties, third parties, and non-parties allegedly relevant to the loss of well control at the Macondo Well, the ensuing fire and explosion on the MODU DEEPWATER HORIZON on April 20, 2010, and the sinking of the MODU DEEPWATER HORIZON on April 22, 2010, and the initiation of the release of oil from the Macondo Well or DEEPWATER HORIZON during those time periods (collectively, the Incident ). Phase One will include issues asserted in or relevant to 16 See Rec. Doc See BP Counter-Complaint, Cross-Complaint and Third-Party Complaint against Transocean, Rec. Doc. 2074; Halliburton Cross-Claim in Limitation against Transocean, No Rec. Doc. 422; Halliburton Cross- Claims against the BP Defendants, M1-Swaco and Cameron, Rec. Doc. 2086; see also, BP v. Halliburton, C.A. No. 4:11cv1526 (S.D. Tex, filed April 20, 2011). 18 See Rec. Doc See Rec. Doc See Rec. Doc Two orders regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the indemnity and release provisions of the BP-Transocean Drilling Contract and the BP-Halliburton Services Agreement were subsequently entered in January of See Rec. Docs and 5493.

5 counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, and/or comparative fault defenses as appropriate. Phase Two [ Source Control Phase] of the Trial will address Source Control and Quantification of Discharge issues. Source Control issues shall consist of issues pertaining to the conduct of various parties, third parties, and non-parties regarding stopping the release of hydrocarbons stemming from the Incident from April 22, 2010 through approximately September 19, Quantification of Discharge issues shall consist of issues pertaining to the amount of oil actually released into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the Incident from the time when these releases began until the Macondo Well was capped on approximately July 15, 2010 and then permanently cemented shut on approximately September 19, Phase Two will include issues asserted in or relevant to counterclaims, cross-claims, third party claims, and/or comparative fault defenses, as appropriate. Phase Three [ Containment Phase] of the Trial will address issues pertaining to the efforts by various parties, third parties, and non-parties aimed at containing oil discharged as a result of the Incident by, for example, controlled burning, application of dispersants, use of booms, skimming, etc. Phase Three of the trial will also address issues pertaining to the migration paths and end locations of oil released as a result of the Incident as carried by wind, currents, and other natural forces and as affected by efforts to contain or direct this migration. Phase Three will include issues asserted in or relevant to counterclaims, cross-claims, third party claims, and/or comparative fault defenses, as appropriate. Pre-Trial Order No. 41 [Rec. Doc. 4033], at pp On October 18, 2011, Cameron filed a Petition for Mandamus challenging the trial plan. The Fifth Circuit took full briefing and heard oral argument on the challenge, but denied the petition. See In re Cameron Int l Corp., No (5th Cir. Dec. 26, 2011). Shortly before the February 27, 2012 trial setting, an agreement-in-principle was announced between the Plaintiff Steering Committee and BP. Ultimately, two formal proposed class action settlements were filed and preliminarily approved. 23 After soliciting from the parties their views on the effect, if any, of the BP Class Settlements on the issues to be tried, the Court, on May 30, 2012, issued a slightly amended Trial 22 The Trial Plan was amended slightly on September 21, See Rec. Doc See Rec. Docs and 6419.

6 Plan. The primary changes were that Anadarko was removed from the Phase One Trial, 24 and the previously outlined Phase Three Trial was replaced with the following: Subsequent Proceedings and Issues. To the extent triable issues pertaining to any parties remain unresolved by Phase One, Phase Two, settlements, motion practice, or stipulation, such trials will be established pursuant to further Order of the Court following further consultation with the parties. 25 On November 1, 2012, 26 and by amendment on January 4, 2013, the Court issued Pre- Trial Order No. 54, setting forth pre-trial procedures, and summarizing the previous Orders governing the presentation or exclusion of evidence during the trial. 27 The Phase One Trial The Phase One Limitation and Liability Trial commenced on February 25, 2013, and concluded on April 17, The Court heard from a total of 62 witnesses, including 42 lay witnesses and 20 experts. In addition, over 160 Deposition Bundles including the designated testimony and high-lighted exhibits of witnesses who were unavailable were submitted into the record. Post-trial briefs and proposed findings and conclusions were submitted by the parties on June 21, 2013, with reply briefs submitted on July 12, Based on the evidence submitted at trial, the Court dismissed defendants Cameron and M1-Swaco. 29 Because Transocean and BP pled guilty to ordinary negligence, 30 and because, as a practical matter, the ordinary negligence of the third remaining defendant, Halliburton, would likely not afford any suing plaintiff or claimant-in-limitation with meaningful relief, 31 the PSC 24 See Rec. Doc. 6592, at p.2 fn See Rec. Doc. 6592, at p Rec. Doc See Rec. Doc See also, Exhibit B Order Excerpts [Rec. Doc ]. 28 The PSC s Post-Trial Brief is Rec. Doc The Plaintiffs Proposed Findings and Conclusions is Rec. Doc The PSC s Post-Trial Reply Brief is Rec. Doc See Rec. Docs. 8969, 9024, and See TREX (Guilty Plea Agreement entered by BP Exploration & Production Inc, BP Corporation North America Inc, and BP plc to eleven counts of Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers, one count of Obstruction of Congress, a violation of the Clean Water Act, and violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in Case No. 2:12-cr-00292, Doc. 2, Nov. 15, 2012), and, TREX (Cooperation Guilty Plea Agreement entered by Transocean Deepwater Inc and Transocean Ltd to negligent discharge of oil in violation of the Clean Water Act in Case No. 2:12-cr-00001, Doc. 3, Jan. 3, 2013). 31 Because BP is strictly liable for all economic compensatory damages as the OPA responsible party and is further responsible for indemnifying Halliburton (and Transocean) for all compensatory damages under the BP- Halliburton Services Agreement (and the BP-Transocean Drilling Contract), as a practical matter, Plaintiffs can and will likely collect all of their compensatory damages from BP. Accordingly, the Court can direct its focus to the

7 suggested that the Court focus first and foremost on whether the employees of each of the primary defendants, Transocean, Halliburton and BP, acted with willful or reckless disregard, which will simultaneously answer the three critical questions of: (i) whether compensatory damages are subject to the OPA cap; (ii) whether the contractual releases entered between and among the defendants prior to the incident are void as a matter of public policy; and (iii) whether a general predicate has been established for the potential imposition of punitive damages. With respect to each defendant for whom the Court concludes an employee acted with willful or reckless disregard, Plaintiffs suggest the Court turn next to the question of whether such willful or reckless conduct was either the result of a corporate policy or was otherwise known to, made by, or subsequently ratified by an official with policymaking authority. This general framework, the PSC suggested, will allow the Court to address the ultimate questions to be answered for private plaintiffs and local government entities asserting claims in the Limitation, namely: The seaworthiness of DEEPWATER HORIZON. Whether Transocean has established the absence of privity or knowledge for limitation purposes. Whether Transocean s conduct exposes the company to punitive damages. Whether Transocean s conduct invalidates its pre-suit release from liability by BP. Whether BP s conduct exposes the company to punitive damages. 32 Whether Halliburton s conduct exposes the company to punitive damages. Whether Halliburton s conduct invalidates its pre-suit release from liability by BP. At this point in time, the Phase One evidence is still under consideration. The Phase Two Trial is scheduled to commence on September 30, issue of willful and reckless disregard, as set forth herein. Nevertheless, the ordinary negligence of Halliburton, (as well as BP and Transocean), is implicitly sought, and noted in the PROPOSED FINDINGS, out of an abundance of caution. (For example, Plaintiffs with Robins Dry Dock standing should be able to collect compensatory damages from Halliburton (or Transocean) under the general maritime law in the event that BP were to become insolvent or file for Bankruptcy.) 32 BP has formally waived the $75 million limitation of liability under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(3). See Rec. Doc Plaintiffs, out of an abundance of caution, suggested in their PROPOSED FINDINGS that the Court conclude that BP is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct under 2704(c)(1)(A) and/or violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction or operation regulation under 2704(c)(1)(B), in the event that BP might, at some point, with respect to some claim, attempt to repudiate or challenge the applicability of its prior stipulation.

8 Economic & Property Damages Class Settlement with BP 33 The Class Settlement was approved by the District Court on December 21, 2012, 34 and affirmed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 10, In the meantime, BP appealed the District Court s interpretation of variable profit within the Business Economic Loss (BEL) Framework, arguing that expenses needed to be matched to the corresponding revenues within the Benchmark and Compensation Periods. 36 After further consideration, the District Court agreed, and instructed the Claims Administrator to devise a policy for matching such expenses. 37 Contrary to what is suggested in BP s unprecedented media campaign, the only issue technically before the Fifth Circuit was whether expenses from outside the Benchmark and/or Compensation Periods should be matched to the revenue associated with those expenses. BP had previously conceded, and did not technically appeal, the notion that causation is established by the objective formulas (or presumptions) set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and that, once established, all losses derived under the Compensation Framework shall be deemed to have been caused entirely by the Spill, without any inquiry into potential alternative causes. 38 BP has also filed an extremely unusual Petition for Rehearing En Banc with respect to the approval of the Class Settlement, despite the fact that BP was a prevailing party on appeal. If the Class Settlement continues to be affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, the deadline to file claims will be six months from the date on which the judgment becomes final. 39 If approval of the Class Settlement is ultimately reversed, the Settlement Program will continue to process the claims submitted as of that date. 40 A recent update on the Court-Supervised Settlement Program which was filed with the Claims Administrator s January 21, 2014 Status Report is attached hereto The original Settlement Agreement (with Exhibits) was filed into the record as Rec. Doc thru Rec. Doc Rec. Docs. 8138, In re: Deepwater Horizon, U.S. Fifth Circuit Appeal No (Jan. 10, 2014) [Doc ]. 36 Deepwater Horizon I, 732 F.3d 326 (5 th Cir. 2013). 37 ORDER AND REASONS (Dec. 24, 2013) [Doc ], at pp See generally, In re: Deepwater Horizon, U.S. Fifth Circuit Appeal No (Jan. 10, 2014) [Doc ] at pp.5-7; ORDER AND REASONS (Dec. 24, 2013) [Doc ], at pp.6-18, 32-35, 39-43; OPPOSITION TO BP S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION, U.S. Fifth Circuit Appeal No (Nov. 22, 2013) [Doc ], at pp.14-27; LETTER BRIEF TO BEL PANEL, No (Jan. 20, 2014) [Doc ]. 39 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, Section SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, Section 21.3; see also, Section 4.4.8, and, Exhibit 26, See Rec. Doc

9 Public Statistics for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Case 2:10-md CJB-SS January Document 11, Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 6 Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau has announced that the Settlement Program began issuing payments on July 31, 2012, and has been issuing outcome Notices since July 15, The Program will issue Notices on a rolling basis as we complete reviews, and they will include Eligibility Notices, Incompleteness Notices, and Denial Notices. Each Notice will provide information explaining the outcome. We will post Notices on the secure DWH Portal for any law firm or unrepresented claimant who uses the DWH Portal. We will notify firms and unrepresented claimants by at the end of each day if we have posted a Notice that day. Firms and unrepresented claimants may then log onto the DWH Portal to see a copy of the Notice(s). Law Firms or claimants who do not use the DWH Portal will receive Notices in the mail. Claimants who receive an Eligibility Notice and qualify for a payment will receive that payment after all appeal periods have passed, if applicable, and the claimant has submitted all necessary paperwork, including a fully executed Release and Covenant Not to Sue. Filings by State of Residence Table 1 Registration Forms Claims State Form Begun Form Submitted Total % Chart 1: Filings by State of Residence Form Begun Form Submitted Total % 1. Alabama ,004 39,849 19% 1,677 46,618 48,295 18% 2. Florida 2,140 69,019 71,159 34% 5,438 74,123 79,561 30% 3. Louisiana 1,646 47,186 48,832 23% 2,473 65,767 68,240 26% 4. Mississippi ,545 27,082 13% 1,000 29,808 30,808 12% 5. Texas ,421 10,688 5% ,003 14,705 6% 6. Other 1,038 11,495 12,533 6% 1,320 19,625 20,945 8% 7. Total 6, , , % 12, , , % Number of Claims by Claim Type Table 2 Claim Type Claims Unique Claimants Form Begun Form Submitted Total % with Form Submitted 1. Seafood Compensation Program ,551 24,970 10% 10, Individual Economic Loss 6,595 36,752 43,347 17% 36, Individual Periodic Vendor or Festival Vendor Economic Loss <1% Business Economic Loss 2,834 89,583 92,417 35% 71, Start-Up Business Economic Loss 304 4,999 5,303 2% 4, Failed Business Economic Loss 285 3,382 3,667 1% 3, Coastal Real Property ,696 33,534 13% 22, Wetlands Real Property ,069 13,232 5% 2, Real Property Sales 184 1,472 1,656 1% 1, Subsistence ,090 33,757 13% 33, VoO Charter Payment 91 8,676 8,767 3% 6, Vessel Physical Damage 66 1,407 1,473 1% 1, Total 12, , , % 176,771 Page 1 of 6

10 Public Statistics for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Case 2:10-md CJB-SS January Document 11, Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 6 Chart 2: Number of Claims by Claim Type Filings by Claimant Assistance Center Table Claimant Assistance Registration Forms Claims 3 Center Form Begun Form Submitted Total % Form Begun Form Submitted Total % 1. Apalachicola, FL 28 1,473 1,501 5% 41 2,089 2,130 6% 2. Bay St. Louis, MS % % 3. Bayou La Batre, AL 22 1,019 1,041 3% 48 1,123 1,171 3% 4. Biloxi, MS 36 1,472 1,508 5% 67 1,866 1,933 5% 5. Bridge City, TX % % 6. Clearwater, FL 73 2,394 2,467 8% 361 1,962 2,323 6% 7. Cut Off, LA % % 8. Fort Walton Beach, FL 10 1,323 1,333 5% 49 1,820 1,869 5% 9. Grand Isle, LA <1% % 10. Gretna/Harvey, LA 40 2,074 2,114 7% 48 2,123 2,171 6% 11. Gulf Shores, AL 18 2,118 2,136 7% 69 2,787 2,856 8% 12. Houma, LA % 42 1,046 1,088 3% 13. Lafitte, LA % % 14. Mobile, AL 70 7,415 7,485 25% 189 8,038 8,227 23% 15. Naples, FL 26 1,328 1,354 5% 41 1,236 1,277 4% 16. New Orleans CBD BG, LA % % 17. New Orleans East, LA 44 2,019 2,063 7% 104 2,385 2,489 7% 18. Panama City Beach, FL 22 2,201 2,223 8% 95 3,349 3,444 10% 19. Pensacola, FL 28 1,332 1,360 5% 72 1,659 1,731 5% 20. Total ,251 29, % 1,338 34,683 36, % Page 2 of 6

11 Public Statistics for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Case 2:10-md CJB-SS January Document 11, Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 6 Chart 3: Number of Claims by Claimant Assistance Center Table 4 Claim Type Eligible - Eligible - No Incomplete Payable Payment Exclusion Denials Notices Issued Prior GCCF Release Denial Causation Denials Other Denials Incomplete Denials Total Claims Opt-Outs Withdrawn Closed Issued Notice 1. Seafood Compensation Program 9,077 1,119 1, , ,622 1,186 2,650 1,422 24, Individual Economic Loss 4,734 1,180 4,891 2,712 1, , ,579 34, Individual Periodic Vendor or Festival Vendor Economic Loss Business Economic Loss 12, , , , ,204 1,372 44, Start-Up Business Economic Loss , , Failed Business Economic Loss , Coastal Real Property 22, ,464 1, ,570 31, Wetlands Real Property 2, , , Real Property Sales , Subsistence 1, , , , , VoO Charter Payment 6, , Vessel Physical Damage , Total 62,133 2,635 32,491 3,572 7,122 3,163 9,116 28,718 3,459 7,014 8, ,166 Page 3 of 6

12 Table 5 Claim Type Eligibility Notices Issued with Payment Offer Payment Information Accepted Offers Payments Made Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Unique Claimants Paid 1. Seafood Compensation Program 9,077 $1,110,586,072 7,869 $1,088,532,782 7,420 $1,066,513,006 4, Individual Economic Loss 4,734 $62,040,041 4,192 $56,344,437 3,831 $45,778,235 3, Public Statistics for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Case 2:10-md CJB-SS January Document 11, Filed 01/21/14 Page 4 of 6 Individual Periodic Vendor or Festival Vendor Economic Loss 8 $77,085 8 $77,085 8 $77, Business Economic Loss 12,459 $3,062,018,817 11,912 $2,897,902,711 9,909 $2,071,505,914 9, Start-Up Business Economic Loss 519 $121,337, $114,710, $94,775, Failed Business Economic Loss 37 $3,438, $2,977, $1,733, Coastal Real Property 22,547 $126,008,543 21,686 $121,854,704 21,072 $119,061,506 16, Wetlands Real Property 2,484 $148,431,317 2,284 $100,789,844 2,258 $100,077, Real Property Sales 571 $28,942, $28,326, $28,093, Subsistence 1,949 $14,064,207 1,768 $13,073,322 1,684 $12,523,686 1, VoO Charter Payment 6,960 $278,840,045 6,913 $278,137,553 6,842 $275,734,961 5, Vessel Physical Damage 788 $12,428, $12,212, $11,396, Total 62,133 $4,968,214,015 58,492 $4,714,939,120 54,780 $3,827,272,082 40,920 Appeals Received Table 6 Resolved Appeals Appeal Status BP Appeals Claimant Appeals Total Appeals 1. Resolved by Panel decision 1, , Resolved by parties Withdrawn Administratively Closed Inactive Under Reconsideration/Re- Review Remand to Claims Administrator Total 2, ,045 Pending Appeals 8. In Baseball Process 1, , In Non-Baseball Process Submitted to Panel Under Discretionary Court Review Total 1, ,051 Grand Total 13. 3,903 1,193 5,096 Page 4 of 6

13 Public Statistics for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Case 2:10-md CJB-SS January Document 11, Filed 01/21/14 Page 5 of 6 Chart 4: Registration and Claim Forms Filed by Month Chart 5: Notices Issued by Month Chart 6: Payments Made by Month Chart 7: Appeal Resolutions by Month Page 5 of 6

14 Legend: Public Statistics for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Case 2:10-md CJB-SS January Document 11, Filed 01/21/14 Page 6 of 6 1. Form Begun - Includes electronically filed registration or claim forms for the period of time between the moment a claimant or his attorney has initiated the submission of a form and moment they complete that filing by submitting the electronic signature. This definition also includes hard copy registration or claim forms where the DWH Intake Team is in the process of linking the scanned images and has not yet completed the data entry on that form. 2. Form Submitted - Includes electronically filed registration or claim forms after the claimant or his attorney completes the electronic signature and clicks the submit button. This definition also includes hard copy registration or claim forms where the DWH Intake Team has completed both the linking of scanned images and the data entry on that form. 3. Unique Claimants with Form Submitted - Counts the unique number of claimants with at least one Claim Form Submitted for each Claim Type. Because claimants may file claims for more than one Claim Type, the sum of all Claim Types will not equal the count of total unique claimants. 4. Notices Issued - The count of Notices Issued in Table 4 counts each unique claim issued a Notice only once. For claims issued multiple Notices, this report uses the following hierarchy when counting the claim: (1) Eligibility Notice if the claim has been paid; (2) Most recent active Notice if the claim has not been paid; (3) If the claim has been closed it will not be counted as an Eligibility Notice unless the claim has been paid. The count of Notices Issued in Chart 5, counts all Notices Issued and reports claims with multiple Notices once for each Notice issued. Because of this, the totals reported in Table 4 do not match the totals reported in Chart Payment Information - The timing of payment can be affected by a number of factors. Even after the DHECC receives a Release, delay in receipt of a W-9, or in receipt of the Attorney Fee Acknowledgment Form can delay payment. In addition, any alterations or omissions on the Release Form, or an assertion of a third-party lien against an award amount, can delay payment. As a result, this report will show a higher number of Accepted Offers than Amounts Paid. 6. Appeals Received - Excludes Appeals closed pursuant to 4/24/2013 Court Order. 7. Note: The Claims Administrator continually monitors the status of all claim filings. Through this process, the Claims Administrator may find duplicate claims from the same claimant. In such cases, the Claims Administrator will close the duplicate claim and only process the remaining valid claim. This report excludes duplicate claims from all counts of claims filed. Page 6 of 6