09222017Headline:

Tampa, Florida

HomeFloridaTampa

Email Tom Young Tom Young on LinkedIn Tom Young on Twitter Tom Young on Facebook Tom Young on Avvo
Tom Young
Tom Young
Attorney • (813) 251-9706

BP Business Economic Loss Claim Appeal 2017-767:Claimant’s Subsidy Payments Properly Included As Revenue In Month they Were Received

0 comments

The following is an Appeal Panel Decision issued pursuant to Section 6 of the BP Deepwater Horizon Economic & Property Damages Settlement Agreement and the Rules Governing the BP Appeals Process. Links may have been added to assist the reader. The original decision may be found here, as well as a glossary of BP Settlement terms


BP appeals the BEL award to claimant, a seafood processor in Perry, Louisiana. BP asserts the Settlement Program(SP) wrongfully included subsidy payments received under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) as revenue which program was repealed in 2005 with payments continuing until 2007. Additionally,
BP asserts if these payments are considered part of claimant’s revenues,they should be allocated evenly over the year to which they relate. Claimant argues that the decision of the SP to include CDSOA payments as part of claimant’s revenues conforms to prior court and panel decisions and should not be disturbed.  Claimant further
argues that the CDSOA payment of $298,919.38 received on December 28,2007 was rightfully attributed to the month of December 2007. A review of the record supports claimant’s contentions.
These issues were vetted by the SP carefully.The first issue has been the subject of prior litigation and resolved in claimant’s favor, i.e., these subsidy payments were found to be revenue under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This claim was re-evaluated after implementation of policy 495 and the AVM methodology was applied to it. Certain of claimant’s financials were found to be insufficiently matched and adjustments were made. CDSOA payments were found to be properly allocated to the month received and there appears to be no logical basis to allocate such payment to other months as advocated by BP. These payments represent duties collected annually from offending foreign  companies by a federal agency and distributed to program participating domestic companies.
Claimant has provided a copy of one other panel decision that has reached the same conclusion relative to this issue.Accordingly,the decision of the Claims Administrator is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

Leave a Comment

Have an opinion? Please leave a comment using the box below.

For information on acceptable commenting practices, please visit Lifehacker's guide to weblog comments. Comments containing spam or profanity will be filtered or deleted.