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.


BP appeals this BEL award on the grounds that the Settlement Program erroneously applied the AVM Methodology rather than the Professional Services Methodology.

Claimant is an accounting firm. As such, under Policy 495, Claimant is considered a Professional Services business. Ordinarily, the Professional Services Methodology would be applied to Claimant.

However, Policy 495 grants discretion to the Settlement Program to apply a different methodology. Here, the Settlement Program concluded that Claimant operated on a short earnings cycle with revenue recorded in the month when the services were provided. Based on this, the Settlement Program applied the AVM Methodology.

Other Panels cited by Claimant have affirmed the application of the AVM Methodology in similar claims. See, e.g., Appeal Panel Decision 2015- 1584. This Panel agrees with the rationale set forth in those decisions. Hence, Claimant’s Final Proposal is adopted.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest