El pasado martes 17 de junio advertí a mis compañeros de la LX Legislatura de la construcción de un fondo al amparo de la opacidad con que se manejan los recursos petroleros, tendiente a cooptar los votos que el gobierno federal requiere para lograr la aprobación de su propuesta de reforma energética. Esta práctica no es algo aislado; se repite lo mismo a nivel internacional que nacional. En 2000 Fujimori fue acusado de sobornar a varios legisladores, lo que provocó su huida del Perú. En ese mismo año Fernando de la Rúa, entonces al frente del ejecutivo federal argentino, fue procesado por el pago de “coimas” para que aprobaran la ley de reforma federal durante su gobierno. En el 2003 se desató un escándalo en Brasil por la entrega de apoyos por 1.7 millones de dólares a diversos legisladores para que respaldaran al Presidente de la República. Lo mismo ha ocurrido en nuestro país, como lo podemos ver en el reciente caso de Tabasco No obstante, las reacciones que se dieron a través de los medios no me concedieron al menos el beneficio de la duda. Después que di a conocer el escrito que envié a mis colegas no hubo siquiera la iniciativa de investigar la veracidad y alcance de mis señalamientos (Los Pinos en este país son intocables) a pesar de que el riesgo que señalé se mantiene. A la luz de esa situación, quiero manifestar que me podrán descalificar, satanizar, enlodar, hacerme extrañamientos o inclusive desaforar, pero el problema subsiste: la mayoría simple que el gobierno federal requiere para la aprobación de su propuesta energética, es decir el 11 por ciento que le hace falta, ¿se integrará por el peso de sus argumentos en el debate en el Senado de la República o se alcanzará por la vía de la cooptación? ¿Sentará las bases éticas para sanear a PEMEX o servirá para potenciar la corrupción existente en esa paraestatal? Estaremos alertas.
Dip. Cuauhtémoc Velasco
Justices Cut Damages Award in Exxon Valdez Spill
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million, a decision that could have broader implications for limiting how much courts can order businesses to pay.
The decision was hailed by the business community and decried by environmentalists and Alaskans.
The court ruled that the victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp. that amount to an average of $15,000 for each person who filed a claim against the energy company.
Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, $507.5 million, an amount equal to about four days worth of Exxon Mobil Corp.'s profits last quarter.
The Exxon Valdez case involves reckless action that was ''profitless'' for the company and that has already resulted in substantial recovery for substantial injury, Souter wrote. A penalty should be ''reasonably predictable'' in its severity, he added.
The case grew out of the 1989 crash of the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker that dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, fouling 1,200 miles of coastline.
A jury decided in 1994 that Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. In 2006, a federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.
Exxon asked the Supreme Court to reject the punitive damages judgment altogether, saying the company already has spent $3.4 billion to clean up the spill and compensate Native Alaskans, landowners and commercial fishermen.
Nearly 33,000 plaintiffs are in line to share in the award approved Wednesday, an average of about $15,000 a person. They would have collected an average of $75,000 each under the $2.5 billion judgment.
The Supreme Court was divided on its decision, 5-3. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock.
Amar Sarwal, general litigation counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling gives an ''extraordinary amount of guidance'' to courts beyond the Exxon Valdez case.
Plaintiffs attorneys pushed back, saying that the ruling applies solely to cases involving maritime law.
''Those who claim it stands for a generalized punitive damage limit are wrong,'' said Kathleen Flynn Peterson, president of the American Association for Justice, a national group of plaintiffs attorneys.
Souter wrote that the legal landscape is filled with examples of ratios and multipliers for punitive damages versus compensatory damages, saying most of them fall short of offering reasonable limitations in the Exxon Valdez case.
Osa Schultz of Cordova, Alaska, said she was ''pretty disappointed'' with the amount of the settlement. ''On the other hand, I'm relieved they slapped Exxon in the face,'' Schultz said, adding that a $15,000 award wouldn't even begin to cover the losses to her and her husband's gillnet fishing business.
Exxon has fought vigorously to reduce or erase the punitive damages verdict by a jury in Alaska for the accident that dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. The environmental disaster led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.
In an opinion dissenting from the Souter decision, Justice John Paul Stevens endorsed the $2.5 billion figure for punitive damages, pointing out that Congress has chosen not to impose restrictions in such circumstances.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented, saying the court was engaging in ''lawmaking'' by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses.
''The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress,'' wrote Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar point, opposing a rigid 1 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.
Writing for the majority, Souter said that traditionally, courts have accepted primary responsibility for reviewing punitive damages and ''it is hard to see how the judiciary can wash its hands'' of the problem by pointing to Congress for a solution.
On the question of whether Exxon was on the hook for punitive damages at all, the court split 4-4, which leaves the appeals court opinion saying that Exxon is liable. Had Alito participated, he could have been the deciding vote on the question, possibly leaving the victims with no punitive damages.
The problem for the people, businesses and governments who waged the lengthy legal fight against Exxon is that the Supreme Court in recent years has become more receptive to limiting punitive damages awards. The Exxon Valdez case differs from the others in that it involves issues peculiar to laws governing accidents on the water.
Overall, Exxon has paid $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims and other expenses resulting from the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments involved in the lawsuit have each received about $15,000 so far ''for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages,'' their Supreme Court lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, said when the court heard arguments in February.
First-quarter profits at Exxon Mobil Corp. were $10.9 billion. The company's 2007 profit was $40.6 billion.
------
Associated Press writers Mark Thiessen and Rachel D'Oro in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this story.
Entradas
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario