I.B.-- do you know why an agreement not to make any further claims against a defendant in return for payment, is enforceable in the first place?
In case you do not, it’s because state law makes such an agreement enforceable. Thus, Jindal and the legislature are responsible for regulating such relationships in the first place. The instance you’re complaining of, seems to be Jindal trying to either change the law, or influence private parties to enter a particular agreement.
I don’t know the specific merits of what Jindal is supposedly doing. It sounds like you’re overreacting though. Is the sky really falling?
What is happening here is that Obama took $20 billion from BP and put it into the hands of this guy Fienburg to settle claims supposedly on the behalf of BP. Now Jindal wants Fienburg to structure settlements in such a way that claimants can receive more damages latter on for the same claim if, for example, this trial lawyer Jindal has hired launches a class action suit that will give the claimant more money. Now what is right about that? Basically Jindal wants Fienburg to give away BP’s money and give no relief to BP. Would you pay someone who sues you if he can sue you again and again for the same issue??
This is not a typical settlement situation as Troll so flippantly explains. BP has no say here. The government is beating them with a big ole stick. Put $20 billion in this pot or else. Give us $350 million for sand berms or else. Give us $500 million for a seafood inspection agency or else. Give us millions for New Orleans to advertise or else. Pay these $19 billion in fines or else. And BTW meet our trial lawyers Barron and Budd.
No doubt Jindal will look for all kinds of damages to fill the state’s budget shortfall.