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 argues that it was “required” to submit accrual profit and loss statements (“P&Ls”) despite the fact that in the normal course of business it maintained its P&Ls on a cash basis. The record does not support that contention.
Claimant’s cash P&Ls presented certain “matching” issues related to rental income that was not properly matched – i.e., rental payments that related to multiple rent periods but were reported in a single monthly period. Thus, the Program Accountants, in their exercise of discretion, asked for more information in order to assign the revenue to the proper months. Specifically, the Program Accountants sought a “rent roll, or a schedule” so that they could correct mismatches and assign certain items of revenue to their proper months. The record does not support the contention that in seeking such information the Program Accountants required claimant to submit new P&Ls. In responding to the Program Accountants’ inquiries, however, claimant did in fact submit accrual P&Ls to the Settlement Program.
Claims Administrator Policy Number 464 provides that when both cash P&Ls and accrual P&Ls are submitted, the Settlement Program will typically use the accrual P&Ls in evaluating the claim. Thus, the Program Accountants were correct in relying upon the accrual P&Ls once they were submitted by the claimant. The restated P&Ls were reviewed and the data input by the Program Accountants, and the award calculation computed to $405,881.94 pre-RTP. The award was correctly calculated based on the accrual P&Ls.
Accordingly, the decision of the Appeal Panel is REVERSED, and the Claims Administrator’s award is REINSTATED.
[Editor’s Note: This Order reverses the holding of the appeal panelist in Appeal 2016-8]