It was dismantle included a separate bathroom ifa mediation proposal came in after the first set of talks failed leading to an announcement that something had been worked out around january 8, 2023. That settlement, however, was challenged as invalid when a panel of three judges from the Fifth Circuit found in August 2023 that there actually is no enforceable deal because it wasn’t put into writing.
Plaintiffs Seek Rehearing
The plaintiffs said that all had agreed upon the basic terms as part of their petition for rehearing en banc, or by a larger panel of judges. They argue that the deal should have been carried out as all other stipulations, including an audit of Maxum Indemnity Company policy limits had eventually come true.
The plaintiffs had claimed Maxum could not agree to the settlement until it verified eroding policy limits were still available, and they say that condition was met — so now the parties should be bound by terms of their agreement.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit had sided with Maxum and other defendants, saying there was “no enforceable settlement” because the plaintiffs’ counteroffer had never been accepted by a named party. The plaintiffs claim the panel misunderstood key facts, and in any event not all defendants have even appealed the settlement — further validation of its legitimacy.
BP Spill Malpractice Revival Request : Insurers and Lawyers Respond
However, Maxum Indemnity Company and attorney defendants such as Howard L. Nations and Cindy Nations have denied that any settlement was reached with calls for a repleading under defense accusations of incomplete financial information at the time negotiations took place. They contend that pushing the settlement process could spawn more suits from these plaintiffs.
