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.


Editor’s Note: See page 161 of Appeal Panel Decisions XXVII for full text of appeal. Relevant holding is below:

For the foregoing reasons, remand of this claim is necessary as explained above. As noted by the language of Policy 495 and the District Court, the program accountant is vested with professional judgment in determining the need for moving or reallocating mismatched revenue and/or expenses. However, that discretion is not open-ended and must be supported by appropriate documentation. The objective of Policy 495 is the sufficient matching of revenue and variable expenses under the Settlement Agreement. Policy 495’s focus, therefore, is on the process, not necessarily the result. This case is therefore remanded for further calculations consistent with this decision, including recalculation of causation under Exhibit 4B. This panelist expresses no view as to the result of such calculation.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest