The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

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.

Claimant operates a poultry farm in Carthage, Mississippi, Zone D. Several Policy 495 criteria were triggered and the Vendor accountants applied the AVM methodology to restate the P/Ls. An award was made by the Administrator and BP appeals complaining that the Vendor Accountants erred in allocating the Claimant’s’ revenue.
The Claimant, as most producers in the poultry industry, keeps its records on a cash basis. That alone almost always triggers 495 criteria. The business operates like this: delivers chicks to the Claimant who then feeds/waters them for six weeks; Claimant then delivers the full grown chickens to for processing for the market. Shortly thereafter, sends a payment fee to the Claimant who then notes it on its P/Ls. Expenses run throughout the growth period. BP is actually arguing for a complete conversion of the Claimant’s P/Ls from the cash to accrual method. That is simply not required by the Settlement Agreement.
Claimant is required to submit its financials as kept in the ordinary course of business. The Vendor Accountants then use their professional discretion in determining whether the financials are sufficiently matched. Where, as here, they determine Policy 495 criteria have been triggered, the presiding court has approved the use of the AVM and other methodologies to reach sufficient matching. See also, Policy 464. There is no error here.
The award is affirmed.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest