murphy oil usa united states court of appeal fifth circuit case no
TRANSCRIPT
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 1/45
NO.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK JOSEPH TURNER, ET ALPlaintiff-Appellee
v.
MURPHY OIL USA, INC.Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District CourtEastern District of Louisiana
Civil Action No. 05-4206Consolidated Cases
APPELLANT'S ORIGINAL BRIEF FILED ON BEHALF OFMURPHY OIL USA, INC.
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 2/45
KERRY J. MILLER (LSB NO. 24562)JOSEPH N. MOLE (LSB NO. 09538)PAUL C. THIBODEAUX (LSB NO. 29446)FRILOT L.L.C.1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3700New Orleans, LA 70163-3700Telephone : (504) 599-8000Facsimile: (504) 599-8100
-AND-
DANIEL L. DYSART (LSB NO5156)DYSART & TABARY
Three Courthouse SquareChalmette, LA 70043Telephone: (504) 271-8011Facsimile: (504) 271-8020
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,MURPHY OIL USA, INC.
ii
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 3/45
NO. _
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK JOSEPH TURNER, ET ALPlaintiffl Appellee
v.
MURPHY OIL USA, INC.Defendantl Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed
persons and entities have an interest in the outcome of this case. These
representations are made in order that the Judges of this Court may
evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
1. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Defendant-Appellant
2. Sidney D. Torres, III, Liaison Counsel on Behalf of Court
Appointed Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
3. Law Office of Sidney D. Torres, Liaison Counsel on Behalf of
Court Appointed Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
4. Kerry J. Miller, Attorney for Murphy Oil, USA, Inc.
iii
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 4/45
5, Joseph N. Mole, Attorney for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
6, Paul C. Thibodeaux, Attorney for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
7. Frilot L.L.C" Counsel for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
8. Daniel L. Dysart, Attorney for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
9. Dysart & Tabary, Counsel for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Joseph N. Mole
Attorney for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.Defendant -Appellant
Dated:
IV
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 5/45
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Murphy Oil
Corp., a publicly traded company.
JOSEPH N. MOLEATTORNEY FOR MURPHY OILUSA, INC.
v
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 6/45
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
This case presents novel significant issues concerning a class action
defendant's rights to unspent settlement funds, following full payment of all
claims to all class members. The District Court, on the basis of
jurisprudence involving punitive statutes and class actions in which there
were unclaimed settlement funds, found that the defendant, who had spent
approximately $17 million more than anticipated on one phase of the
settlement. was not entitled to reallocation or reversion of the excess of $5
million from another phase of the settlement. After specifically finding that
the class has been fully paid, and can be paid no more, because that would
represent a windfall, the District Court ordered a cy pres procedure
designed to find a donee to whom the rest of the defendant's money can be
given.
This is a complex case involving novel and important issues of
federal class action procedure and law, as well as Louisiana legal
principles of contract interpretation and enforcement. For these reasons,
Appellant respectfully submits, pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.4, that
oral argument would be helpful to the Court.
vi
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 7/45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS iii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT v
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ix
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION xii
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REViEW xiii
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2
III. PROCEEDINGS BELOW 9
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 11
V. STANDARD OF REViEW 13
VI. ARGUMENT 14
A. A cy pres distribution is inappropriate in this case 14
B. Murphy has standing to seek a reversion orreallocation 17
VII
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 8/45
C. The Non-Reversion Clause does not preventreallocation ~ 18
D. Under Louisiana law, it is impossible to furtherperform the Settlement Agreement, and it should berescinded 21
E. The statutory basis for the class action settlement isnot punitive, and does not prevent reversion orremediation 24
F. Murphy is entitled to equity 27
VII. CONCLUSION 29
CERTI FICATE OF COMPLIANCE 31
CERTI FICATE OF SERViCE 32
viii
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 9/45
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 65 S. Ct. 631 (1945) xii
Diamond Chemical Co., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V., 2007WL 2007447 (D.D.C. July '10, 2007) 16
Diamond Chemical Co., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V., 517F.Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. May 14, 2007) 25
In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litigation, 268 F.3d 619,623 (8th Cir. 2001) 14
In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, 424 F.3d 158, 165 (2dCir. 2005) 14, 15
In re Tarrer, 273 B.R. 724, 738 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2002) 29
McCarty COrJ~. v. Pullman v. Kellog, 751 F.2d 750 (5 Cir. 1985) 24
Muncy v. City of Dallas, Texas, 123 Fed. Appx. 601 (C.A. Tex.2005) xii
Peavy-Byrnes Lumber Co. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 55 F.Supp.654 (W.D. La. 1944), aff'd 150 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1944) 19
Powell v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 199 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir. 1997) 14
Sixth District Building & Loan Assn., 181 So. 618 (La. App.Orleans 1938) 24
Turner v. Murphy Oil U.S.A'I Inc., 234 F.R.D. 597 (E.D. La. 2006) 4
Wilson v. Southwest Airlinesl Inc., 880 F.2d 807, 811 (C.A. 51989) 14, 17, 18,25,28,29
IX
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 10/45
STATE CASES
Adle v. Prudhomm~, 16 La. Ann. 343 (La. 1861) 24
Castano v. Bellina, 503 SO.2d 195 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998), writdenieq, 506 SO.2d 1226 (La. 1987) 23
Durbin v. Cockerham, 442 SO.2d 634 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983) 25
Pittman v. Pittman, 836 SO.2d 369, 372 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002),writ denied, 853 SO.2d 642 (La. 2003) 24
FEDERAL STATUTES
28 U.S.C. §1291 xii
28 U.S.C. §1331 xii
28 U.S.C. §1332(a) xii
33 U.S.C. §2701 xii
STATE STATUTES
LA. CIV. CODEart. 667 (Westlaw 2009) 26
LA. CIV. CODEart. 1877 (Westlaw 2009) 22
LA. CIV. CODEart. 1948 (Westlaw 2009) 24
LA. CIV. CODEart. 1949 (Westlaw 2009) 23
LA. CIV. CODEart. 1952 (Westlaw 2009) 24
LA. CIV. CODE art. 1966 (Westlaw 2009) 22
LA. CIV. CODEart. 2050 (Westlaw 2009) 19
LA. CIV. CODEart. 2301 (Westlaw 2009) 23
LA. CIV. CODEart. 2315 (Westlaw 2009) 26
x
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 11/45
LA. CI\!. CODE art. 2317 (Westlaw 2009) 26
LA. CIV. CODE art. 2322 (Westlaw 2009) 26
LA. CI\!. CODE art. 3082 (Westlaw 2009) 24
LA. REV. STAT. § 30:2015.1 (Westlaw 2009) 26
FEDERAL RULES
FED. R. CIV. P. (23)(b)(3) 4
FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2) " 4
FED. R. CIV. P. 23(d) 10
Fifth Circuit Local Rule 28.2.4 vi
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Litvinoff, 5 CIVIL LAWTREATISE,LAWOFOBLIGATIONS§16.61 (2009) 22
Rubenstein, Alba Conte and Newberg, 3 NEWBERGONCLASSACTIONS § 10: 15, 10:24 (2008) 16, 18
MISELLANEOUS
2003 La. Acts No. 1166 §1 26
xi
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 12/45
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This is a class action resulting from the crude oil spill that occurred
during Hurricane Katrina at the Murphy Refinery in Meraux, Louisiana.
Jurisdiction in the District Court was based on 28 U.S.C. §1332(a),
inasmuch as it involved a plaintiff class made up of present and former
residents of S1. Bernard Parish, and well over $5 million was at issue.
Subject matter jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because it was
brought, in part under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. §2701, et seq.
Appellate Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1291. The order
appealed from is a post-judgment final order that decided Murphy's motion
for a reversion of unused settlement funds. Catlin v. United States, 324
U.S. 229, 65 S. Ct. 631 (1945); Muncy v. City of Dallas, Texas, 123 Fed.
Appx. 601 (C.A. 5 Tex. 2005).
xii
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 13/45
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Did the District Court commit error when it denied Murphy's
Motion to Revert/Reallocate Surplus Compensation Funds, and
instead ordered a cy pres disposition of $5 million in Murphy's
unused compensation funds when one hundred percent of all
compensation claims were already fully paid out?
2. Has the Settlement Agreement between Murphy and the Class
Members become impossible to perform due to the fact that all
Class Members have been fully compensated?
3. Should the Settlement Agreement be rescinded due to
Murphy's error in calculating the amount necessary to fully
compensate the Class Members?
xiii
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 14/45
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal arises from a class action Settlement Agreement (the
"Agreement") approved by the District Court on January 30, 2007. Under
that Agreement, Murphy agreed to pay a total of $330 million to victims of a
crude oil spill that occurred in its refinery in S1. Bernard Parish, Louisiana
as a result of Hurricane Katrina in August-September, 2005. The victims
were residents and homeowners in Meraux, Louisiana whose property was
affected by the spill. Prior to the Settlement Agreement, and even prior to
certification of the class, Murphy began a process of remediation and buy
out of area homes (hereinafter, the "Voluntary Settlement Program"). As
part of the Agreement, Murphy agreed to fund compensation payments to
individual Class Members totaling $120 million, based on a formula that
included average home size and average number of occupants per
residence. Murphy and the PSC used average occupancy and square
footage figures derived from Murphy's experience in its Voluntary
Settlement Program.
Murphy also agreed to pay an estimated $72 million in remediation
funds. The Court recognized that Murphy had already voluntarily spent $52
million for remediation. The $20 million for remaining remediation efforts
was an estimate. Murphy agreed to pay whatever was required above that
1
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 15/45
number, regardless of the estimate. As of the date of the Order appealed
from, Murphy had spent $95 million in remediation, or $23 million more
than estimated, due to unforeseen complications such as disruption due to
returning residents and rebuilding efforts, and the escalating costs of labor
and materials. The compensation program cost only $115 million, or $5
million less than allocated to the program. As a result, on August 20, 200B,
Murphy filed a motion entitled Murphy Oil USA, Inc.'s Motion to
Revert/Reallocate Surglus Comgensation Funds, or, Alternatively, to
Reform the Settlement Agreement. Murphy sought the following alternative
relief: (1) a reversion of the unspent $5 million in the Compensation
Program; (2) reallocation of the $5 million to partially offset the $23 million
excess spent on remediation; or (3) reformation of the Settlement
Agreement to conform the amount of Murphy's compensation payment to
the amount actually spent on full payment of all compensation claims. By
Order dated February 13, 2009, the District Court denied Murphy's motion
and instead indicated it would "appoint a committee to recommend a cy
pres distribution .... " Rec. Doc. 2736. Murphy appeals from that Order.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. ("Murphy") operates a refinery in St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana. The Appellee is the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
2
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 16/45
("PSC") appointed by the District Court on January 30, 2006 to represent
the interests of the class certified by the Court on January 30, 2006,
consisting or residents and property owners who were affected by the spillof crude oil from Murphy's refinery during Hurricane Katrina.
The oil spill in question occurred as a result of the catastrophic
flooding of St. Bernard Parish during and after Hurricane Katrina, which
struck Louisiana on August 29, 2005. The resulting floodwaters caused
one of the crude oil storage tanks on Murphy's refinery to lift off its
foundation and to spill crude oil onto the surrounding property. The crude
oil mixed with floodwaters caused damage to property in the area
surrounding the Murphy refinery. Immediately after the catastrophe, in
early September, 2005, Murphy undertook cleanup and remediation efforts
in public spaces and for homeowners in the surrounding area, and it
undertook its program of voluntary settlements with residents in the area of
its refinery.
On September 9, 2005, the first of many lawsuits regarding this
accident was filed against Murphy. Ultimately, a total of 27 class action
suits were consolidated into a single class action before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Under the management
of the District Court, Murphy negotiated with the Class Action Plaintiffs
3
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 17/45
through their executive committee and their liaison counsel. Following
extensive discovery, testing, and motion practice, on January 12 and 13,
2006, the Court held a two day class certification hearing and certified thematter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3). See Turn~r v. Mur~hy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 234 F.R.D. 597 (E.D. La.
2006). The District Court certified a class composed of residents and
property owners within specific geographic boundaries adjoining the
Murphy refinery. The District Court directed the issuance of appropriate
notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and it provided a procedure to permit class members to opt out of the class
action litigation.
On September 25, 2006, Murphy and the PSC notified the District
Court that they had come to an amicable resolution of the case, and on
October 9, 2006, the parties presented a Final Settlement Agreement and
Notice Program to the Court. The Settlement Agreement was approved by
the District Court by Order and Reasons dated January 30,2007. The total
tentative amount that Murphy agreed to pay in connection with the
settlement was $330 million, comprised of four separate categories, as
follows:
4
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 18/45
Compensation Program $120 million
Voluntary Settlement Program $ 83 million
Buy-Out Program $ 55 million
Remediation Program $ 72 million
TOTAL $330 million
In its opinion approving the Settlement Agreement, the District Court
noted that the Agreement creates an allocation plan that divides the class
members geographically into zones based on levels of contamination. P.
29. Murphy was required to spend $55 million on purchasing homes and
property in the "Buyout" Zone, at the approved price of $40 per square foot.
Id.
The Settlement Agreement allocates $120,000,000 for compensation
for class members. The amount of compensation paid to each class
member depended first on the zone in which his or her property was
located, then on the total square footage of property, the number of
persons who resided at the property, and the commercial loss. The
Settlement Agreement sets a price per square foot and per person in each
zone (eJ1. $19.25 per square foot and $3,375 per occupant in Zone One).
The District Court found that the compensation formula was "within the
reasonable range of recovery" and "reasonable." Rec. Doc. 1072 at p. 30.
5
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 19/45
Murphy also agreed to remediate the entire area certified as
containing the class. Properties were to be "remediated to the satisfaction
of governmental regulators and this Court .... " Rec. Doc. 1072 at pp. 31-32. The cost of this element of the Settlement Agreement was only
estimated at $52 million, and Murphy agreed to pay the full cost of
remediation, whatever it turned out to be. "This feature of the Settlement
Agreement's remediation provision is important because it ensures the
health and safety of the community and places it at the highest level of
priority." kL at 32.
The Settlement Agreement acknowledged that Murphy had paid
$83,264,000 "in past compensation payments" in the voluntary program
undertal<en by Murphy.
The Settlement Agreement recites that its
total value is currently estimated at $330,126,000.00 (may bemore or less depending on actual remediation costs). It is theintent of the Recovery Program to compensate ClassMembers for crude oil related damageonly.
Rec. Doc. 742-1 at p. 14 (emphasis added). The "Recovery Program"
consists of the Buy-Out and Compensation Programs. The District Court
specifically found that as a whole the Settlement was fair, reasonable and
adequate, and "squarely falls within the reasonable range of relief for
6
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 20/45
property damage and fully addresses the Plaintiff class members' claims."
Rec. Doc. 1072 at p. 32.
None of the settlement funds described in the Settlement Agreement
were set aside, segregated, or pre-paid by Murphy into any sort of separate
account, or into the custody of the Plaintiffs or the PSC or any third party.
Rather, the parties agreed upon a payment Agent, and Murphy forwarded
specific individual settlement and expense items as requested by the Agent
as claims were settled. All "unpaid" settlement amounts are still part of
Murphy's general operating funds.
One of the key provisions of the Agreement that is at issue in this
appeal is item VI(5), at p. 16: "Non-reversion - All future payments
under the Buyout and Compensation Programs will be spent for the
benefit of Class Members" (hereinafter the "Non-Reversion Clause").
It is uncontested that Murphy has spent far more than $330 million
under the Agreement. The Remediation Program, which was estimated at
$72 million, has actually cost $95 million, or $23 million more than the
parties' best estimate in January, 2007. This was largely due to the added
cost of performing remediation in a community that experienced rapid and
unexpected repopulation and rebuilding, and to the escalating costs of
labor and materials.
7
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 21/45
The Compensation Program, estimated at $120 million by both
parties, has cost only $115 million. The principal reason is that the $120
million estimate was based on Murphy's experience with its Voluntary
Settlement Program. In this pre-settlement program, Murphy's experience
was that each household contained an average of 2.9 residents and was
2,000 square feet in size. By contrast, under the Agreement's
Compensation Program, Murphy compensated an average of slightly less
than 2.9 persons per household and the average actual residence was
closer to 1,900 square feet. As a result, the parties overestimated the
amount needed to fund the compensation formula set out in the
Agreement. There is no more to be spent.
The actual cost of the Agreement funded by Murphy is as follows:
Compensation ProgramSettlement PaymentsBuyout Program
Voluntary Settlement Program
Remediation Program
Environmental Testing
TOTAL
$114 million$ 55 million
$ 83 million
$ 95 million
$ 18 million
$365 million
In addition to the $365 million in damages actually paid by Murphy,
the District Court ordered, and Murphy has paid, a total of $33,746,241 in
8
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 22/45
the Class Members' attorneys' fees and costs. Ree. Doc. 2545. Thus,
Murphy has expended a total of almost $400 million.
Every class member eligible for the buyout or compensation has
been paid the full amount due to him or her, based on the geographic
location and size of his or her residence in each zone defined in the District
Court's class certification order. The remediation program has been fully
funded and has been completely successful. In total, Murphy has spent
$23 million more on remediation than estimated. By contrast, it cost $5
million less than estimated to fund the Compensation Program. There are
no "silent" class members and no unclaimed settlement funds. There is
nothing left on which to spend the $5 million.
III. PROCEEDINGS BELOW
As a result of this imbalance, Murphy filed its Motion to
Revert/Reallocate Surplus Compensation Funds or, Alternatively, Reform
the Settlement on August 20, 2008. Rec. Doc. 2453. Murphy sought a
return of the approximately $5 million in excess funds allocated to the
Compensation Program. It argued:
1. All Class Members and Class Counsel have been fully paid;
2. Murphy has paid approximately $23 million more than
estimated on remediation and testing;
9
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 23/45
3. Murphy has a good equitable claim to these funds; and
4. The Non-Reversion Clause could not have been intended to
cover this situation, or, alternatively, should be reformed basedon error.
The PSC opposed based principally on the Non-Reversion Clause,
and suggested a cy pres distribution. Rec. Doc. 2472. The District Court
agreed, and denied Murphy's motion.
The District Court first refused to reform the Settlement Agreement in
light of the Non-Reversion Clause. It noted that the intent of that clause is
that ail compensation funds be spent for the benefit of the class. It then
noted Rule 23(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives the court
great discretion to manage a class action and to decide the disposition of
unclaimed funds, and that Federal Courts have listed five possible
alternatives for distribution of unclaimed class action funds:
Federal courts have held that a district court's alternatives fordistributing unclaimed class action funds include: (1) pro ratadistribution of the funds to located or claiming class members;(2) reversion to defendants; (3) distribution as additionalattorneys' fees to class counsel; (4) escheat to a governmental
body: and 95) cy pres distribution.
Order and Reasons, Rec. Doc. 2736 at p. 7 (citations omitted).
The District Court ruled out escheat, as neither party sought it. It also
held that neither party has a legal claim to the remaining balance of the
10
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 24/45
fund and that "all class members who presented their claims received full
payment due them,"
While the District Court held that it would be inappropriate to give the
money to the claimants who had already been compensated "because that
would give them a windfall", and that class counsel have already been fully
compensated, it also held that it would be inappropriate to give the funds to
Murphy because it was charged with "environmental wrongdoing,
deterrence is one component of the legislative policy underlying the
claimants' suit, the Settlement Agreement reflects the intent of the parties
that all funds would be used for the benefit of the class, and the purpose of
redressing the destruction of the community for the benefit of the class has
not been fully consummated," Rec. Doc. 2736 at pp. 11-12, In light of
these factors, the District Court held it was appropriate to distribute the
remaining compensation funds under the cy pres doctrine, "in a manner
which will benefit the community devastated by the incident giving rise to
this lawsuit." ~ at p. 13.
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Recovery Program is ambiguous, in light of the facts, in that it
provides for non-reversion of Compensation Funds but also provides that
the "intent of the Recovery Program [is] to compensate Class Members for
11
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 25/45
crude oil related damage only," The words of the Non-Reversion Clause
are also impossible to implement under the District Court's ruling. The
Non-Reversion Clause mandates that "all future payments under the
Buyout and Compensation Programs will be spent for the benefit of Class
Members." The District Court itself recognized that it could not spend the
$5 million excess compensation funds on behalf of the Class Members,
who have already been fully compensated. However, a cy pres payment of
such funds for the indirect benefit of non-class members who have not
suffered crude oil damages will in effect be a forced punitive payment by
Murphy as well as violation of the stated intent of the Recovery Program.
The reallocation and partial set-off of the $5 million excess
compensation funds against Murphy's $23 million remediation payment in
excess of the amount estimated in the Agreement would be the use most
consistent with the parties' expressed intent. Such a use would represent
an allowable indirect compensation to the Class Members for "crude oil
related damages only."
The District Court was wrong in its conclusion that Murphy could
receive no benefit whatsoever from this process because of "the deterrent
component of the legislative policy underlying the claimants' suit. ... " To
the contrary, the code provisions and statutes that underlie the Class
12
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 26/45
Action are not punitive in nature, but have as their purpose the
compensation of those who suffered damages due to the negligence of
others, and provide only for remediation of these damages. The District
Court was wrong when it based its denial of Murphy's motion on the
mistaken premise that the Settlement Agreement requires Murphy to
redress "the destruction of the community for the benefit of the class" and
that Murphy has not yet done that. Murphy is not responsible for the
destruction of St. Bernard Parish by Hurricane Katrina, and the Settlement
Agreement recognizes that its purpose is to offer redress only to those who
suffered physical damages due to a crude oil spill that was caused by the
hurricane. To the extent that Murphy is responsible for redress of harm in
relation to this catastrophe, such redress is owed only to those whom the
Court defined in a precise geographical area that was damaged by the spill.
A cy pres distribution as contemplated by the District Court would be both
an excess compensation to the already fully paid class members, and a
punitive payment for the benefit of non-class members.
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The District Court has "broad supervisory powers" with respect to the
administration and allocation of settlement funds. This exercise of these
powers is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. In Re
13
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 27/45
Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, 424 F.3d 158, 165 (2d Cir. 2005);
Powell v. G.eorgia Pacific Corp., 199 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir. 1997); Wilson
v. Southwest Airlines. Inc., 880 F.2d 807, 811 (C.A. 5 1989). A District
Court's interpretation of a class action Settlement Agreement is reviewed
de novo. In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litigation, 268 F.3d 619,
623 (8th Gir. 2001).
VI. ARGUMENT
A. A cy pres distribution is inappropriate in this case.Most of the cy pres or reversion cases cited by the District Court and
by the PSC in its opposition to Murphy's motion dealt with unclaimed
settlement funds that had been paid into an escrow or other separate
account, and which were no longer in the custody and control of the
defendant. The funds in those cases were unclaimed because there were
"silent" members of the class who could not be found or who failed to make
a claim to their share of the settlement.
There are two facts that make this case unique. First, there are no
funds that are unclaimed by "silent" class members who failed to participate
in the claims process. All eligible class members in the Buyout Zone have
appeared and have been fully compensated. There is an excess of $5
million in the compensation portion of the Settlement Agreement because
14
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 28/45
the parties made a mistake in estimating the amount necessary to satisfy
all compensation claims. As the District Court noted, it is inappropriate to
distribute the excess compensation funds to the class, because it has
already been fully paid.
The second fact unique to this case is that the settling defendant,
Murphy, was not ordered and did not deposit the $330 million Settlement
Amount in an escrow account or any other account controlled by a third
party. Rather, upon approval of the Agreement by the District Court,
Murphy paid into a settlement account only the amount of settlement
payments that had been agreed upon and liquidated as of that date.
Thereafter, and up to the present, Murphy has paid from its own general
operating funds the amount of each claim as that claim emerges from the
Proof of Claim Process. See Rec. Doc. 742-1 at p. 17,11V1.7. Thus, if the
District Court's order is not reversed, and a cy pres charitable payment is
approved, Murphy will issue a check or wire transfer for $5 million from its
own account to whatever donee the District Court selects.
Murphy's situation is completely distinguishable from those cases that
have used a cy pres procedure to dispose of unclaimed class action
settlement funds. For example, in In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation,
424 F.2d 158 (2d Cir. 2005), the court created a discrete $1.25 billion
15
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 29/45
settlement fund, $100 million of the fund was allocated to class members
who were "not susceptible to individualized claims," As a result, a cy pres
distribution was approved for the benefit of needy Jewish, Roma,Jehovah's Witness, disabled and homosexual survivors of the holocaust.
In Diamond Chemical Co., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V., 2007 WL
2007447 (D,D.C. July 10, 2007), the district court approved a cy pres
distribution of the unclaimed portion of an antitrust settlement fund. As
recognized in NEWBERGON CLASS ACTIONS, a cy pres distribution is
appropriate when "there is an adjudicated aggregate class recovery which
results in unclaimed funds", or when "all members [of a class] cannot be
located or do not claim their recovery," Rubenstein, Alba Conte and
Newberg, 3 NEWBERGONCLASSACTIONS § 10:15, 10:24 (2008). In such
cases, a cy pres distribution helps to vindicate the "compensatory functions
of the substantive cause of action that is being enforced in a class action
format" Id. In this case, there are no individuals whose claims were "not
susceptible to individualized claims." To the contrary, all persons who were
harmed by the spill were identified and included in the class. There is no
one left to compensate, directly or indirectly.
If the District Court orders Murphy to make a $5 million cy pres
payment to a charity for the indirect benefit either of the class or of non-
16
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 30/45
class members, that will violate two other principles: First, such a forced
payment by Murphy would violate Clause VI of the Settlement Agreement,
which reads: "It is the intent of the Recovery Program to compensate class
members for crude oil related damages only." Rec. Doc. 742-1 at p. 14.
Murphy has fully paid all remediation costs due to the crude oil spill, and it
has fully paid all compensation claims. There are no further crude oil
related damages suffered by the class. Second, such a forced payment
would violate the District Court's own holding that "[i]t would be
inappropriate to give the money exclusively to claimants who have already
been compensated because that would give them a windfall." Ree. Doc.
2736 at p. 11. It is a windfall to give already-compensated class members
any more direct or indirect benefits. There are no "silent" class members
for whom a cy pres payment will be an indirect benefit. In short, there is no
possible cy pres payment that can be consistent with the Settlement
Agreement's stated principle that it is intended to compensate class
members for crude oil related damages only.
B. Murphy has standing to seek a reversion orreallocation.
The District Court found that Murphy has no legal right to the
"remaining funds". It cited Rubenstein, Alba Conte and Newberg, 3
NEWBERG ONCLASSACTIONS§10:21 (4th ed. 2002) and Wilson v. Southwest
'17
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 31/45
Airlines, Inc., sUQr~,at 880 F.2d 811. However, as noted in NEWBERG, that
has been the ruling in some class actions "because the defendant, who
paid the judgment, was not the rightful owner of the unclaimed portion of
the judgment deposited in the escrow account." NEWBERG, §upra at
§10:24. That was the case in Wilson, where the defendant, Southwest
Airlines, was seeking a reversion of part of a fund established by a consent
decree following trial of liability. The decree stated:
The fund shall become nonrefundable to Defendant upon thisdecree becoming a final non-appealable judgment. Anyresidual fund may be utilized, after all payment of back pay, asthe Court directs.
880 F.2d at 810. In this case, by contrast, Murphy does not seek
"reversion" in the literal sense, because there is no separate fund. It seeks
to prevent payment of $5 million more of its own funds, when it has alreadypaid out $23 million more than contemplated by the Agreement. Murphy
clearly has standing to contest the spending of more of its money than
needed to satisfy the Settlement Agreement, and it has the legal right to
claim money in its own possession and control. It seeks to resist payment
of more than it owes to satisfy all claims against it.
C. The Non-Reversion Clause does not preventreallocation.
18
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 32/45
The "Non-Reversion" Clause simply states: "All future payments
under the Buyout and Compensation Programs will be spent for the benefit
of Class Members." Clause VI. 7 provides that Murphy only pays claimsunder the Compensation Program as they are approved as part of the
Proof of Claim process. Clause VI states that it is the intent of the
Recovery Program that only class members will be paid, and only for
damages caused by the crude oil spill. Since all compensation payments
have been or will be made to class members, and there is no "fund" in the
control of a third party that has not been distributed, there is nothing to
"revert" to Murphy. Since all class members have been paid, there are no
more "future payments" contemplated by the Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement provides that it is to be interpreted under
Louisiana law. Rec. Doc. 741-1 at p. 29. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2050
provides that "Each provision in a contract must be interpreted in light of
the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the
contract as a whole." Where there are conflicting provisions in two different
paragraphs of the agreement, the one appearing in the first paragraph in
sequence prevails. Peavy-Byrnes Lumber Co. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 55
F.Supp. 654 (W.O. La. 1944), aff'd 150 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1944). Clause VI,
which limits recovery to class members for crude oil damage only, comes
19
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 33/45
first in the Settlement Agreement. Notwithstanding this rule, it is possible to
interpret Clauses VI and VI.5 consistently, if Clause VI.5 is interpreted
literally so as to apply only to "future payments" and not to payments not
yet requested and not necessary to the Compensation Program. Article
2049 of the Louisiana Civil Code is of assistance:
A provision susceptible of different meaning must be interpretedwith a meaning that renders it effective and not with one thatrenders it ineffective.
Under the buyout provisions of the Agreement, it is spelled out that if
Murphy does not spend all of the $55 million allocated for buyouts on
properties in the Buyout Zone, then it is required to buy properties outside
the "class area". Rec. Doc. 742-1, Clause VI.1.b, p. 15. There is no similar
provision requiring Murphy to spend the remainder of the $120 million
compensation fund on anything.
In this case, since there is no "fund" and no provision allowing the
Court to utilize any residual or unclaimed portion as it sees fit, the best way
to render the Settlement Agreement effective and consistent as a whole is
to consider the unspent $5 million portion of the Compensation Program as
a partial offset of the excess $23 million already expended above the
amount estimated for the purpose in the Settlement Agreement.
20
----~-------- .. -----------
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 34/45
D. Under Louisiana law, it is impossible to furtherperform the SettlementAgreement, and it should berescinded.
Murphy's Agreement to pay a total of $330,126,000.00 for the
"Compensation Program" is set forth in the Settlement Agreement in
Section VI, entitled Recovery Program. This section gives the details of
and the sums allocated to each part of the overall program. These are the
"Buyout Program" ($55 million), the "Compensation Program" ($120
million), the "Remediation Program" ($51,862,000 in "past mediation" andan estimated $20 million in "future mediation") and the "Past Compensation
Program" ($83,264,000). The preamble to Section VI states: "It is the
intent of the Recovery Program to compensate Class Members for
crude oil related damage only." Subsection 5 of the Settlement
Agreement states that "All future payments under the Buyout and
Compensation Programs will be spent for the benefit of Class
Members."
It is impossible to spend the last $5 million of Murphy's Compensation
Fund consistently with the above provisions of the Settlement Agreement,
which clearly state the intent and condition that such funds can be spent
only for crude oil related damages suffered by Class Members. Louisiana
law provides for such an eventuality:
21
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 35/45
When a fortuitous event has made a party's performanceimpossible in part, the court may reduce the other party'scounterperformance proportionally, or, according to thecircumstances, may declare the contract dissolved.
LA.CIV. CODE art 1877 (Westlaw 2009).
In a unilateral contract when fUliher performance is rendered
impossible, the simple solution is to consider the contract extinguished.
Litvinoff, 5 CIVIL LAW TREATISE, LAW OF OBLIGATIONS§16.61 (2009).
(Louisiana cases have no trouble finding that a contract "comes to an end
when the performance of the obligation of one of the parties becomes
impossible.") The Agreement, having already been performed in excess of
Murphy's original obligation, should be brought to an end.
In addition, any further payment by Murphy would be without legal
cause. An obligation undertaken without lawful cause is a nullity. LA. CIV.CODE art. 1966 (Westlaw 2009). In this case, Murphy has no lawful
obligation to pay what has turned out to be $5 million more than it owed for
compensation to class members. See Castano v. Bellina, 503 SO.2d 195
(La. App. 4 eir. 1998), writ deniec!, 506 SO.2d 1226 (La. 1987). An
obligation that does not exist cannot be the lawful cause of an agreement
to pay. Id.; LA. CIV. CODE 2301 et seq.
Finally, Murphy's undertaking to pay more than it owed was based on
error. LA. CIV. CODEart. 1949 (Westlaw 2009). Murphy's calculation of the
22
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 36/45
amount needed to fully fund its compensation obligations was based on the
average size and average occupancy rate of residences experienced
during the Voluntary Settlement Program. A list of all information
concerning Murphy's payments under this program, including the recipients
of each payment, the amount of each payment and the address to which
the payment applied was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit
4. This information led to the calculation of $120 million as the proper
amount for compensation. The actual average square footage and
occupancy of residences subject to the Settlement Agreement turned out to
be slightly less than the corresponding averages for the residences subject
to the voluntary compensation program. This Voluntary Settlement
Program information was available to and used by both sides, and is the
direct cause of the erroneous calculation of the compensation component
of the Agreement. Certainly, the size and occupancy of the residences are
facts entirely within the control of and imputable to the Class Members who
owned and lived in those residences.
"Consent to a contract may be vitiated by error. ... " LA. CIV. CODE
art. 1948 (Westlaw 2009). When consent is lacking, the contract may be
annulled. LA. CIV. CODE art. 1952 (Westlaw 2009). In the case of a
unilateral error, a contract is voidable if there was justifiable reliance on an
23
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 37/45
error that bears upon a principal cause of the contract, and if the other
party knew or should have "known that the erroneous facts within their
control could be relied upon." ~; McCarty Corp. v. Pullman v. Kellog, 751F.2d 750 (5 Cir. 1985).
The fact that the contract in question is a settlement agreement is
immaterial. "A compromise may be rescinded for error, fraud, and other
grounds for the annulment of contracts .... " LA. CIV. CODE art. 3082
(Westlaw 2009). A clerical mistake in calculation is sufficient to rescind a
settlement Sixth District Building & Loan Assn~, 181 So. 618 (La. App.
Orleans 1938). A compromise can be annulled based on a mistake in
calculation. Adle v. Prudhomme, 16 La. Ann. 343 (La. 1861). A
compromise in the form of a stipulated judgment may be rescinded if it is
based on an error concerning the matter in dispute. Pittman v. Pittman,
836 SO.2d 369, 372 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002), writ denied, 853 SO.2d 642 (La.
2003); Durbin v. Cockerham, 442 SO.2d 634 (La. App. 1 eir. 1983).
E. The statutory basis for the class action settlement isnot punitive, and does not prevent reversion orremediation.
The District Court based its denial partly on the reasoning that the
"legislative policy underlying [the claims against Murphy] operates to deter
injury and unlawful activity, disgorge unjust enrichment, and compensate
24
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 38/45
victims." Ree. Doc. 2736 at p. 11. Accordingly, the District Court held that
it would be inappropriate to give the unclaimed $5 million to Murphy
because of this deterrent intent, and because "the purpose of redressing
the destruction of the community for the benefit of the class has not been
fully consummated." In Diamond _Chemical CO'1 Inc. v. Akzo Nobel
Chemicals B.V., 517 F.Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. May 14, 2007), which
involved a class action settlement based on claims of price fixing under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the District of Columbia trial court
distinguished this Court's decision in Wilson v. Southwest Airlines, supra,
which allowed a reversion, as follows:
Indeed, a number of the cases that Defendants cite in supportof their claim for reversion - cases which arise in context otherthan under the antitrust laws - specifically distinguishthemselves from situations involving the Sherman Act Forinstance, in VVilson v. Southwest Airlines, a case involving ajudgment that the defendant violated Title VII, the Court allowedreversion to the defendant, noting "we find a situation here verydifferent from [one in which] the defendants have violated theSherman Act, the overriding policy of which is punishment anddeterrence. Here, [defendant] was found in violation of Title VII,the policy of which ... is compensatory rather than punitive."Wilson, 880 F.2d at 815. See also Friedman v. LansdaleParking Auth., No. Civ. A. 92-7257, 1995 WL 141467, *3-4
(E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 1995) (allowing reversion to defendant ofsettlement funds in an action brought under Rule 1O(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act, and distinguishing Folding Carton onthe grounds that it was brought under the Sherman Act).
25
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 39/45
517 F.Supp. 2d at 219. The Sherman Act is literally punitive, since it
mandates treble private damages. In some sense, all statutes that impose
liability for damages based on fault have a deterrent effect and intent, but
the distinction drawn by the courts is between expressly punitive statutory
intent on the one hand and causes of action that are compensatory or
remedial on the other. If Title VII of the civil rights act is compensatory and
not inconsistent with a reversion, then so are the legal bases for this suit.
The District Court certified the class under specific causes of action
based on Louisiana tort and environmental law. This included negligence,
strict liability, nuisance, trespass, and ground water contamination under
Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315, 667, 2317 and 2322 and LSA-R.S.
30:2015.1 Rec. Doc. 226 at pp.12-1 9. The listed code articles all speak in
terms of compensation. For example, article 2315, the basis of Louisiana
tort law recites:
Every act whatever of man that causes damage to anotherobliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.
The legislative intent behind LSA-R.S. 30:2015.1 is "interpretative,
remedial, and procedural.. "2003 La. Acts. No. 1166 §1, eff. July 2,
2003.
In holding Murphy responsible for "redressing the destruction of the
community," the District Court has gone beyond the express purpose the
26
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 40/45
Settlement Agreement it approved, and it blurred the distinction between
the crude oil spill caused by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Katrina itself.
There is no evidence that the spill caused any damages outside the classarea. The Settlement Agreement strictly limits Murphy's payment
responsibility to the carefully drawn geographic area impacted by the crude
oil spill, and there is no portion of either the underlying statutory scheme or
the Settlement Itself that can be characterized as punitive.
F. Murphy is entitled to equity.
There is no dispute that Murphy has "stepped up to the plate" in
connection with the Hurricane Katrina disaster. As the District Court noted
in its Order and Reasons certifying the class:
Since the spill, Defendant Murphy Oil has worked with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and LouisianaDepartment of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to assess thescope of the damage and to recover the oil that was spilled.Additionally, Murphy has developed a "settlement zone" andhas undertaken a massive settlement program with residents ofthe area near the spill. Murphy has also begun cleanup andremediation efforts in public areas and for homeowners whohave settled their claims with Murphy.
Rec. Doc. 226 at p. 2. All this happened before a class was certified.
Since then, Murphy has voluntarily paid more than was estimated, and has
paid every compensation and buy-out claim without the District Court's
intervention. In order to settle, Murphy abandoned its defenses that but for
27
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 41/45
the hurricane and the negligence of the Corps of Engineers, there would
have been no spill, and that the class members' considerable losses were
due to the storm surge and not crude oil, since all of their homes were well
under water at the time of the spill. The money Murphy has poured into St.
Bernard Parish through its payments to the class members and to the
numerous contractors employed to effectuate remediation, buy-outs and
the settlement program has contributed significantly to the revitalization of
the parish.
Murphy's case is similar to but stronger than that of Southwest in
Wilson y. Southwest Airlines, Inc., supra. This Court held that Southwest
had a "substantial equitable claim" to a reversion from a Title VII sex
discrimination based settlement fund, notwithstanding a non-reversion
clause and a judgment of liability, and the fact that Southwest sought
reversion from a separate escrow fund to which it had no legal claim. This
was due to Southwest's voluntary settlement program:
Southwest's equitable claim is premised on the fact that all themoney in the fund originally belonged to it. Southwest turnedover the money for the specific and limited purpose ofcompensating the class. It did so in the expectation thatcompensating the class would exhaust the fund. The record ofthe fairness hearing reveals that Southwest and class counselboth wrongfully assumed that claims alone would amount to$900,000 or more of the fund, exclusive of expenses. SinceSouthwest turned over its money in the clear and reasonableexpectation that the money was required for the specific
28
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 42/45
purpose of compensating the class, its equitable claim to anymoney remaining after the accomplishment of that purpose iscompelling.
880 F.2d at 813. The principal distinguishing characteristic in Wilson is thatclass counsel approved Southwest's claim, because it entered into a
settlement with Southwest in which it received a share of the unclaimed
funds, and here, the PSC has already been fully paid, and can receive no
more, and has opposed a reversion.
In light of these facts, it would be inequitable to order Murphy to
surrender its property rights to its own money for the indirect benefit of
either class members who have been paid, or non-class members who
suffered no harm. See In re Tarrer, 273 B.R. 724, 738 (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
2002).
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, it is respectfully suggested that the
District Court's Order of February 13, 2009 should be reversed and
vacated, and that any further obligation of Murphy to fund the Remediation
Program should be extinguished and rescinded, or, alternatively, set off
against the mediation costs it has incurred in excess of the original
estimate described in the Settlement Agreement.
29
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 43/45
Respectfully submitted,
KERRY J. MILLER (LSB NO. 24562)JOSEPH N. MOLE (LSB NO. 09538)PAUL C. THIBODEAUX (LSB NO. 29446)FRILOT L.L.C.1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3700New Orleans, LA 70163-3700Telephone: (504) 599-8000Facsimile: (504) 599-8100
-AND-
DANIEL L. DYSART (LSB NO5156)DYSART & TABARYThree Courthouse SquareChalmette, LA 70043Telephone: (504) 2"11-8011Facsimile: (504) 271-8020
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,MURPHY OIL USA, INC.
30
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 44/45
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I ceriify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed.
R. App. P. 32 (a)(7)(8) because this brief contains words,
excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
The brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R, App. P. 32(a)(6)
because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface
using Microsoft Word 8.0 in Arial 14 pt.
The undersigned understands a material misrepresentation in
completing this certificate, or circumvention of the type-volume limits in
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7), may result in the Court's striking the brief and
imposing sanctions against the person signing the brief.
JOSEPH N. MOLEATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
31
8/14/2019 Murphy Oil USA United States Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Case No
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphy-oil-usa-united-states-court-of-appeal-fifth-circuit-case-no 45/45
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I cetiify that on this _ day of , 2009, a copy of the
foregoing pleading as well as a labeled CD containing an electronic copy of
the forgoing pleading have been served on the following persons via United
States Mail, properly addressed and First Class postage prepaid, at the
addresses below:
Honorable Eldon E. Fallon
District Court JudgeUnited States District Court,Eastern District of Louisiana500 Poydras Street, Room C456New Orleans, LA 70130
JOSEPH N. MOLE