Appeals court to review approval of BP settlement

A year ago, lawyers for BP and Gulf Coast residents and businesses took turns urging a federal judge to approve their settlement for compensating victims of the company's massive 2010 oil spill.

On Monday, however, the one-time allies will be at odds when an appeals court hears objections to the multibillion-dollar deal. That's because several months after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier approved the settlement, BP started complaining that the judge and court-appointed claims administrator were misinterpreting it. The London-based oil giant is worried it could be forced to pay billions of dollars more for bogus or inflated claims by businesses.

Plaintiffs' attorneys who brokered the deal want the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the class-action settlement.

As of Friday, payments have been made to more than 38,000 people and businesses for an estimated $3.7 billion. Tens of thousands more could file claims in the coming months.

The settlement doesn't have a cap, but BP initially estimated that it would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve the claims. Later, as it started to challenge the business payouts, the company said it no longer could give a reliable estimate for how much the deal will cost.

The dispute centers on money for businesses, not individuals. Awards are based on a comparison of revenues and expenses before and after the spill. BP says a "policy decision" that claims administrator Patrick Juneau announced in January has allowed businesses to manipulate those figures in a way that leads to errors in calculating their actual lost profits.

German Court Begins Hearing Afghan Airstrike Case

A court in Germany has begun hearing a civil case brought by relatives of some of the 91 Afghans killed in a NATO airstrike four years ago.

Bonn regional court spokesman Philipp Prietze said Wednesday that the court reviewed video recorded by two U.S. fighter jets involved in the airstrike in the Afghan province of Kunduz on Sept. 4, 2009.

The strike was ordered by a German colonel fearful that insurgents would use two stolen fuel tankers to attack his troops.

Germany paid $5,000 each to victims' families, but some are seeking additional compensation. Most of the dead were civilians.

Separately, Germany said it would offer refuge to 182 Afghan translators and drivers who could face persecution after Western troops leave Afghanistan because they worked for the German military.

Meet Our Founder - Cowan Law group

Joe Cowan founded our firm over 20 years ago.  The following are some questions and answers that discuss his unique qualities and why so many individuals and businesses trust our firm with their legal and business needs.

 

Q.    What inspired you to found the Cowan Law Group?

A.    When I originally went to law school, I intended to use my legal training to help me with the construction business I started.  However, I found I have a real passion for helping individuals and small to medium-sized companies resolve their legal and business problems in ways that make good business sense.

Q.    How is the Cowan Law group different from other law firms?

A.    There are far too many firms that provide little to no value to their clients, and many that create more problems than they resolve.   In many instances, the attorneys are good, smart people, but they don’t have the background or business savvy necessary to provide truly strategic, cost-effective legal solutions to their clients.  This is a real problem because a good attorney who understands not just the legal issues, but also his client’s business challenges and objectives, is a tremendous resource and strategic advantage.  With that in mind, I created the Cowan Law Group, whose main mission is to provide legal services that are smart, creative, and practical.

Q.    So what makes you a good lawyer and advisor?

A.    I have benefitted greatly from a first class college and legal education.  What I believe is even more important, however, is my life experience.  Starting at a very young age, I have had to overcome many challenges both personally and in business.  As a lawyer and advisor, these experiences have been invaluable because, through them, I have developed an ability to look at problems and challenges and know how to navigate through them in ways that are smart and effective.

But what is most telling is what my clients say.  Over the course of my legal career, I have successfully resolved over $700 million of legal disputes in many different areas, including general business, real estate, construction, employment, and trade secret litigation, and I have handled a large number of business transactions.  My clients often tell me that I provide counseling that is practical and mindful of business priorities, and that I handle legal issues in ways that make good business sense.  I’m very proud of this feedback, and I’m very lucky to have so many truly terrific clients.

Court favors Abercrombie in Okla. suit over hijab

A federal appeals court has dismissed claims by an Oklahoma woman who says she wasn't hired by Abercrombie & Fitch because her headscarf conflicted with the retailer's dress code, which has since been changed.

A federal judge initially sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Samantha Elauf. The EEOC alleged that Elauf wasn't hired in 2008 at an Abercrombie store in Tulsa's Woodland Hills Mall because her hijab violated the clothing retailer's "Look Policy."

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Tuesday. The court said Elauf never told Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation, even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview.

The Ohio-based company changed its policy three years ago. It recently settled similar lawsuits in California.

Supreme Court term begins amid government shutdown

The Supreme Court began its new term Monday by turning away hundreds of appeals, including Virginia's bid to revive its anti-sodomy law.

The justices took the bench just past 10 o'clock on the first Monday in October, even as much of the rest of the government was coping with a partial shutdown.

Chief Justice John Roberts formally opened the new term without any reference to the partisan impasse over the budget and the new health care law that his vote helped uphold in 2012.

The court has announced it will operate normally at least through the end of this week. The justices are hearing six arguments, including a challenge to limits on campaign contributions.

Among the appeals denied Monday was Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's request to review a federal appeals court ruling that threw out the state's ban on oral and anal sex. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law in a case involving two adults. Virginia argued that the Texas ruling did not apply to sex acts between adults and minors.

The justices did not comment in rejecting that argument Monday.

The court also declined to hear, at least for now, Argentina's appeal of a ruling that orders it to pay hedge funds that bought up some of the country's unpaid debt from its default in 2001. The country is continuing to pursue its case in federal court in New York and could file another appeal with the Supreme Court.

The new term may be short on the sort of high-profile battles over health care and gay marriage that marked the past two years, but the court already has agreed to hear important cases about campaign contributions, housing discrimination, government-sanctioned prayer and the president's recess appointments. Abortion, contraceptive coverage under the new health care law and cellphone privacy also may find their way onto the court's calendar.