Tampa, Florida


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 Claim Discretionary Review of Appeal 2016-267: Obvious mismatch necessitated revenue allocation


The following is a Discretionary Review Order issued by Judge Barbier pursuant to the Rules Governing Discretionary Court Review of Appeal Determinations. Judge Barbier’s rulings are binding on the Claims Administrator and the Appeal Panelists. 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.

IT IS ORDERED that the request for discretionary review is hereby GRANTED. Claimant is a commercial landlord which received multiple months’ rent in a single month. The Program Accountants moved the subject revenue to different months to correct an obvious mismatch of revenue and expenses as explained at Doc ID [XXXXX] (Calculation Notes tab): Accounting Review noted significant fluctuations in the Claimant’s rent revenue. The Claimant has submitted an excel document showing adjusted monthly revenues which represent rental incomes in the months in which they were earned. Accounting Review therefore utilized adjustments in the Restated P&L to accurately reflect the monthly revenue that was earned rather than received using the submitted rent schedules. This claim has been evaluated under Policy 495, which allows for the restatement of revenues and/or expenses in the event that the Settlement Program identifies an error (as defined in that Policy) or a mismatch of revenues and variable expenses. As a result of such restatement, this claim did not meet the revenue pattern causation requirements established by Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. Here, the Program Accountants reasonably exercised their discretion pursuant to Claims Administrator Policy 495 in addressing a mismatch of revenue and expenses. The Appeal Panel decision is REVERSED, and the determination of the Claims Administrator is REINSTATED.

[Editor’s Note: This Order reverses the holding of the appeal panelist in Appeal 2016-267]

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.