APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM

Transcription

1 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Decision uploaded in portal.

2 appeals the denial of its BEL Claim. The Settlement Program found the claimant to be a real estate developer and, thus, excluded by Section of the Settlement Agreement. Claimant is a single-member LLC whose parent company, is a holding company with interests in several other companies that own and manage retail and office space. The parent company filed consolidated tax returns for all of these companies, one of which was Claimant. The Settlement Program reviewed the consolidated returns, as well as the website of and concluded that the claim should be excluded. While the operations of the parent company would likely meet the definition of an excluded real estate developer, Claimant submitted additional information distinguishing the activities of the claimant as merely the management company. According to Claimant s CPA, Claimant owns no properties, does not develop properties, and any income on the consolidated return that demonstrated otherwise related to a separate company,. BP has objected to the Panel s consideration of this additional information as being untimely, yet did not specifically refute it. BP also noted that in 2010, Claimant helped tenants complete build-outs of their leased spaces, although the record indicates that income amounted to.002% of Claimant s 2010 income. The Settlement Program relied heavily upon Policy 299, as did the parties in their respective memoranda. Policy 299 has since been superseded by Policy 468. The determination of whether a claimant is an excluded real estate developer is, admittedly, a subjective one. The record demonstrates confusion as to whether the Settlement Program analysts considered the activities of just the claimant company or the broader activities of the parent holding company. Though not specified in the record, it is reasonable to conclude that the website reviewed was that of the parent company, not the claimant. If so, it is easily understood how the Settlement Program could have concluded that claimant was a developer. However, as Claimant correctly notes, the exclusion decision is to be made at the entity level, and this confusion seems to be clarified by the additional documents submitted by the claimant which were not made available to the Settlement Program at the time the claim was denied. Despite BP s objection, the Appeals Panel review is de novo, and I have considered this additional information. Were remand an option, I would remand this claim for consideration in light of the additional information submitted by Claimant and the addition of Policy 468. Since it is not, I cannot conclude that the record before me conclusively shows that this claimant should be excluded. I therefore find that the claim should not have been excluded and overturn the denial.

3 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $70, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this IEL award to a commissioned salesman of manufactured homes. His employer's SWS-12 attests that Claimant has sustained up to a 22% decrease in sales since the Spill, explaining that the majority of the customer base in Claimant's sales area are employed by industries affected by the Spill, and also that pricing for such homes has significantly increased as the post-spill cost of oil has increased. Although BP requests in its briefs a remand of this matter to analyze figures it suggests would show an equal or greater trend of decreased

4 income before the Spill, it did not assign this as an error in its Notice of Appeal, as required by Appeal Rules 9 and 14. Alternatively, a de novo review of the Administrator's analysis confirms its findings, obviating the need for a remand. Ultimately BP's only preserved appellate issue is that as a commissioned (non-salaried) employee, Claimant did not merit an Industry Growth Factor increase in his award. Claimant has agreed, and has reduced his final demand to deduct that portion of his award. Though in brief it proposes a pre-rtp award of $15, (without explanation), BP's only proposal on the portal is. Under the baseball process we are directed to apply, this panelist must accept the proposal of Claimant.

5 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $37,764 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $47, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): see reasons submitted to appeals coordinator

6 APPEAL DECISION # This is a BEL Claim. Claimant is a dentist. BP has appealed the award, arguing that the Claims Administrator did not properly match Claimant s expenses with revenues. The Court has held that the Settlement Agreement requires matching. In response, the Claims Administrator developed Policy 495, which sets forth a protocol for processing claims to determine whether or not expenses sufficiently match revenue. This Policy has been approved by the Court. In the instant matter, Claimant s financials were processed using the initial seven criteria set forth in Policy 495. None of the seven criteria were triggered. Consequently, the Claim was presumed to be sufficiently matched. Although BP acknowledges that on an annual basis, the ratio of supplies and lab expenses to revenue are fairly consistent (and thus sufficiently matched), BP argues that the monthly variances for these two expenses suggest otherwise. In particular, BP focuses on monthly expenses for supplies and lab and suggests that these expenses vary wildly relative to monthly revenue. For example, the ration for supplies ranged from 2.32% to 13.88% and the ratio for lab from 2.7% to 17.6%. That said, BP does not offer any evidence that the seven criteria set forth in Policy 495 was misapplied. An examination of the monthly supplies and lab expenses do not show a lot of variances but rather a few months where these expenses spiked high or low. Further, BP only selected two expense categories out of a number of categories. A review of all of the expense categories suggest that the annual and monthly ratio of expenses to revenue is fairly consistent, which would explain why the Claim did not trigger any of the seven criteria. Accordingly, the Panelist adopts Claimant s Final Proposal.

7 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $25, $60,000 $25, $60,000 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this business economic loss award to the BP argues that this claimant was not entitled to a tourism designation and, therefore, takes exception with the RTP applied in this case. The response by claimant's counsel,which consisted mainly of boilerplate statements, made this case a close call. However, it was pointed out that the chamber promotes a music festival and the chamber's P and L

8 statements show the profit from this event is almost double what it receives from membership dues. Claimant contends the marketing for this event is directly primarily to tourists. Despite this bare level of detail, due to the claimant friendly nature of this process and the claimant's location in a tourist area, it is appropriate to find that the claims administrator was correct in applying the tourism designation. BP makes reference to claimant's NAICS code. However, this issue is not controlling. The test is based on a totality of circumstances.

9 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount 1.50 $24, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

10 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a claimant appeal of a Business Economic Loss award made by the Claims Administrator in the amount of $24, Pre-. The claimant is a Key West, Florida, rental property owner. He asserts that the Claims Administrator committed error in not awarding his business a Tourism classification. He does not quarrel with the amount awarded and makes no further claim of error. BP, in response, argues that the award ought to be vacated because (1) Claimant is not a Class Member; (2) Claimant did not suffer Compensable Economic Damage; and (3) Claimant should have filed a Failed Business claim rather than a Business Economic Loss claim, and under the Failed Business Compensation Framework, Claimant is not entitled to compensation. Alternatively, BP argues that Claimant s Cross Appeal should be denied for the reason that Claimant s property rental business does not qualify for the Tourism designation. This is a Claimant appeal, not a BP appeal. BP cannot attack the original award. The following Appellate Rules apply: Rule 7. Type of Notices Appealable to the Appeal Panel. Rule 7 (b) Appeals by BP: BP may appeal to the Appeal Panel any Eligibility Notice where the Compensation Amount awarded in such Notice, before the application of any, is in excess of $25,000. BP may not appeal any Denial Notice or any Eligibility Notice where the Compensation Amount awarded in such Notice, before the application of any Risk Transfer Premium, is $25,000 or less. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * Rule 9. Consolidated Appeal Process for Each Appealable Claim. After BP or the claimant initiates an Appeal as the appellant, the appellee shall raise any and all appealable issues within the same appeal when it submits its Initial Proposal and may not initiate a separate appeal for the claim. The original appellant shall be limited to the issues raised in its Notice of Appeal, except as necessary to respond to new issues raised by the appellee in its Initial Proposal. The appellee shall be limited to the issues raised in its Initial Proposal. The Appeal Panelist shall not consider issues raised by either the appellant or the appellee after the Notice of Appeal and/or Initial Proposal, as provided in this Rule. (Emphasis Supplied) 1

11 * * * Rule 14. Issues on Appeal. The issues on appeal shall be limited to those originally raised by the appellant claimant or BP in the Request for Appeal Form/Notice of Appeal, except that if the appellee had a right to bring an appeal and is consolidating that appeal under Rule 9, the appellee may raise a new issue in its Initial Proposal, and the appellant may address such issue in its Final Proposal. (Emphasis supplied) According to Rule 7 (b), BP may not appeal any Eligibility Notice where the Compensation Amount awarded before application of any RTP is $25,000 or less. The $24, award in this case obviously would not permit BP to take an appeal. Rule 9 says that after a Claimant initiates an appeal as the appellant, the appellee (BP) shall raise any and all appealable issues within the same appeal when it submits its Initial Proposal and may not initiate a separate appeal for the claim. This is not an appealable issue as to BP. Finally, Rule 14 says that the issues on appeal shall be limited to those originally raised by the appellant claimant or BP in the Notice of Appeal, except that if the appellee had a right to bring an appeal and is consolidating the appeal under Rule 9, the appellee may raise a new issue in its Initial Proposal, and appellant may address such issue in its Final Proposal. Again, BP did not have the right to appeal this issue. As above noted, Claimant s sole Assignment of Error is the Claims Administrator s refusal to grant his business a Tourism designation. In both his Registration Form and his Business Economic Loss claim form, he described the nature of his business as Agencies, real estate escrow. He provided an NAICS Code of Following receipt of his Eligibility Notice, Claimant submitted a Request for Reconsideration and supported it with a memorandum. In that document, claimant stated that his claim is based upon lost rental income suffered from a townhome he owned in a Key West resort property. He indicated that the NAICS Code on his tax returns is , Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings. Consequently, claimant asserted that his principal business activity is listed as Rental and the Principal Product or Services is listed as Real Estate. He claims that his property, however, should be viewed as a resort hotel, guest house or tourism home and thus should be entitled to the Tourism designation. The Reconsideration Analysis contained in the Claims Administrator s Post-Reconsideration Eligibility Notice simply stated that the request was reviewed and that no changes were made to the previous calculation. It offered no further explanation or basis for that determination. The Current/Last Review section of the portal indicates that an NAICS Code/Description of , Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings, with an Industry Designation of Non- Tourism, was recorded. For that reason, this Panelist requested and, in due course, received a Summary of Review. It was uploaded into the portal and was supplied to the parties. It clearly 2

12 and concisely describes the careful analysis which led to the Claims Administrator s determination. The Claimant was classified as Non-Tourism using NAICS Code Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings. Although Claimant asserts that the rental property for which it filed a claim should be viewed as a resort hotel, guest house or tourist home, the Claims Administrator reports that such properties that are rented to tourists on a short term basis are most accurately classified using NAICS Code All Other Travel Accommodation, which is listed as a Tourism NAICS Code on Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement. In regard to the issue of an NAICS Code Assignment, the Claims Administrator s Policy 480 v. 2 recites that the appropriate code for an Entity shall be the one that most accurately describes the Entity s primary business activities, which are the activities in which the Entity was primarily engaged during the operative Benchmark, Compensation and Class Periods. The Claims Administrator will review an Entity s 2010 tax return and 2010 business permits and all other evidence of the business activities necessary to determine the appropriate code. The codes used on the tax return or business license will not be considered conclusive and no presumptions will be applied for the purpose of such classification. Following is the pertinent portion of the Claims Administrator s findings and conclusions: purchased a single residential condominium unit located at on 3/1/08 (Doc. p. 1). The claimant s 2010 tax return uses NAICS Code Other Activities Related to Real Estate, which the Claims Administrator determined is an inaccurate description of the claimant s primary business activity of leasing residential real estate (Doc., p. 1). The Profit & Loss Statements in the claim file reflect that Mac Realty began collecting rent on this unit in April 2008 and continued collecting rent until it sold the unit on 9/30/10 (Doc. p. 6-8; Doc., p. 8). This rendered this condominium unit susceptible to leasing for 30 months, with the last month s rent collected in October The claimant collected $7,000 per month in rental revenue from May 2008 through March 2010, for a period of 23 consecutive months. Typically, consistent revenues over multiple consecutive months indicate that a property was occupied by a long-term tenant. It appears that the first month s rent, recorded in April 2008, was possibly pro-rated, resulting in a collection of $6,213. From April 2010 until the unit was sold in September 2010, the claimant received variable rental revenues for amounts between $452 and $14,056 per month, which is indicative of short-term tenants. Even if the first month s rent represented short-term rental revenues, as do the fluctuating revenues beginning in April 2010, this short-term rental revenue accounts for just $50,415 of the $211,415 (23.8%) in total revenues collected during the Benchmark, Compensation, and Class Periods. As such, the Claims 3

13 Administrator determined primary business activity during the applicable time frame was that of leasing a residential unit on a long-term basis, which is most accurately classified using NAICS Code Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings. This Panelist can find no fault with this very thorough analysis and evaluation. For that reason, this Claimant s appeal of the Non-Tourism designation cannot be sustained. The matter must be remanded to the Claims Administrator with instructions to enter its original award with the Non- Tourism designation. Decision: August 13,

14 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $1, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $17, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is a truly anomalous case. The CA made the correct decision based on the information that could be considered but,due to subsequently submitted information, the decision of the CA must now be over-turned. Claimant contended in his appeal that the CA should have used a benchmark period of 6/21-12/31 for 07, 08 and 09, instead of the 9/25/09-12/31/09 period,which was used, because this would have produced the maximum recovery for claimant. BP suggests that switching to this alternative period would actually have

15 decreased claimant's recovery. This is completely inaccurate and BP seems to be pulling numbers out of thin air. The income for the expanded benchmark period is significantly higher than just the 09 period due to markedly higher earnings during the relevant period in 07 and 08. More vexing was the procedural issue involving the CA. Since it was obvious that using the 3 year period would result in a higher recovery, this panelist asked the CA why the longer period was not used. The CA stated there were not 90 consecutive days of financials for the period requested because some records were missing. Further, the CA stated "the claimant submitted a Post-Review Missing Tax and Pay Period SWS with his appeal documentation. The claimant's loss calculation would have been different had the SWS been present in the claimant's file at the time of the Reconsideration Review." Accordingly, the decision by the CA was correct because the information was not available at the time of reconsideration. However, since the SWS was submitted, adequately explaining why there were some missing documents, the outcome can be rectified to produce the maximum recovery for the claimant. This appeal is de novo and it is the position of the entire appeals panel that documents may be considered, even when submitted with an appeal for the first time. Accordingly, there is a ruling herein in favor of claimant's final proposal.

16 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $137, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Written reasons uploaded

17 CLAIMANT: : This is a BEL claim asserted by a Port Charlotte, Florida entity. This claim was evaluated under Policy 495 which has been approved by the U.S. District Court. The Claims Administrator issued an Eligibility Notice awarding Claimant the sum of $137, (pre RTP). BP appeals. BP asserts that the Claims Administrator committed a threshold mistake in the analysis of Claimant s P&L s because Claimant performs services in certain months but may not be paid for those services (ostensibly by a health insurer or other third-party payer) until several months later. According to BP, this has the potential to skew the matching of revenue with expenses. Policy 495 has been approved by the U.S. District Court and is binding on BP, the Claimants, the Claims Administrator and the Appeal Panelists. Under the Underlying Issues/ Principles of Policy 495 it states: 5. If a claimant s contemporaneous P&L s submitted to the CAO are deemed to be sufficiently matched based on an assessment by the CSSP Accounting Vendors, such P&L s will be utilized in calculating compensation under the Settlement Agreement. In utilizing such contemporaneous P&L s corrections will be made for any accounting errors identified in the ordinary course, by the CSSP Accounting Vendors. Policy 495 requires sufficient matching not exact matching. To require the Claims Administrator to match each procedure in a surgical center to when it was paid for by the patient or a third-party payer would be prohibitive in terms of time, effort and expense, as noted in Policy 495. This panelist has reviewed the CAO s Accountant notes on this claim. The Claims Administrator properly vetted Claimant s P&L s and said P&L s did not trigger any of Policy 495's seven threshold criteria. BP s appeal on the issue is without merit. The other issue raised by BP would make a negligible difference in the award. Given BP s Final Proposal of.00, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result under the Settlement Agreement.

18 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant files an appeal on this IEL claim which has been denied by the Settlement Program on several occasions because claimant is the owner of a company that previously received an award under the BEL framework. among other contentions, argues that he was paid as a W-2 employee and this should not disallow him from recovery as an an individual, especially where there is no requirement that owner/officer compensation be treated as a fixed expense. Despite these assertions, the manner in which an owner was paid is not controlling on this issue and owner/officer compensation is typically treated as fixed. Accordingly, claimant's earnings would have been considered in the compensation amount under the BEL framework. To allow the claimant to now recover on his IEL claim would violate the prohibition on double recovery. The denial of this claim is hereby affirmed.

19 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the denial of his IEL claim on the basis that his employer ( ) should not be excluded under an NAICS Code analysis. Claimant believes NAICS Code (for temporary help services) does not encompass EPS in that it "provides temporary workers for a variety of tasks that may or may not be directly related to offshore oil and gas operations." The Claims Administrator (CA) is given authority in the Settlement Agreement to determine the correct code application. The question is whether there is support for the CA's decision. In reviewing the "history", "services", and other subjects of website it is clear that it significantly serves the oil & gas industry. The record sufficiently establishes that Claimant was a dispatcher for in the oil field services business. Accordingly, the CA's determination that Exhibit 17 is applicable to to the relevant NAICS Code, and therefore Claimant is precluded under Section of the Settlement Agreement is correct. The appeal is denied.

20 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Parcel ID Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, whose property is located at appeals its thrice denied Coastal Real Property claim. Briefly, it asserts that using the mapping tool provided by the Program, a small portion of its property at the rear is located within the blue-shaded area eligible for claims under the Program. It attaches as an exhibit a hand-drawn diagram which it asserts depicts its property within the Recovery Zone. Under Exhibit 11A of the Settlement Agreement a claimant's property must be shown as located within the Coastal Real Property Recovery Zone on relevant maps. The boundaries of this Zone, while admittedly somewhat arbitrary, are clear and were the subject of agressive negotiations between the parties before they were agreed upon. This Panelist's review of the Map and resort to Claimant's property description as contained in the records of the

21 Baldwin County (Al.) G.I.S., which governs Claimant's property location, clearly shows that the subject property (which incidentally is an inland parcel) is not within the Recovery Zone. Since Claimant has failed to qualify under the two narrow exceptions listed at Ex. 11A at 1.E (eg, that nevertheless his parcel is deemed oiled either by SCAT map or assessment by NRT), it has no recourse under this Program and his claim was properly denied.

22 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $ BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.50 $ III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error.

23 Comment (optional): Claimant filed a Coastal Real Property Claim and was awarded $ (pre-rtp). Claimant appeals the award, contending that it should be entitled to the minimum compensation amount of $800 (pre-rtp) as set forth in section 2.E.i.c of Exhibit 11A. The Claims Administrator based its compensation award on a designation of Claimant s parcel as Unknown Commercial. Claimant took issue with this classification and submitted letters from the Harrison showing the property to be a vacant, undeveloped lot in a platted subdivision which is zoned RS-10 Single Family Residential. In its final memorandum, Claimant contends that the proper designation of the parcel should be Vacant Residential Lot, Vacant Residential Subdivision or Vacant Waterfront. While the Claims Administrator s designation of the parcel as commercial appears inaccurate, even if Claimant were correct, the award would not change. Each of the alternative designations Claimant suggests are found in Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement only allows the minimum compensation amount Claimant seeks if the land use designation is listed in Appendix I. The use of the parcel does not qualify for a designation under Appendix I. The award by the Claims Administrator was correct and the decision is upheld.

24 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant files this appeal after her IEL claim was denied. The Settlement Program denied this claim on 3 occasions because claimant is the owner of a business that previously received a BEL award. contends she was paid as a W-2 employee and, therefore, her recovery is not prohibited by the IEL framework. Despite this assertion, where claimant's wages were treated as a fixed expense in a BEL claim, they were considered in the compensation calculation under that framework. It is immaterial how received her pay. It has been consistently determined that a claimant who is a company owner cannot recover on an IEL claim after receiving compensation for the business. This is a sound policy which prevents double recovery by a business and owners of that same business. Accordingly, the denial of this IEL claim is affirmed.

25 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant files this appeal after his IEL claim was denied and then denied again by the Claims Administrator upon reconsideration. is the owner and an employee of The company previously executed a release after being compensated by the GCCF. This release applies to the company's shareholders and therefore, as an owner of the company, is precluded from now recovering again via the Settlement Agreement. Claimant asserts he was paid as a W-2 employee. However, it is immaterial how was paid. Claimant could not establish that the GCCF payment did not compensate him as an owner/officer. The District Court has recognized that a GCCF release relates to all claims by a company. This prohibition also applies to owner/officer compensation. Accordingly, the Claims Administrator's denial of this claim is affirmed.

26 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional):

27 This pro se Claimant has appealed the denial of her Coastal Real Property Claim for property located in Alligator Point, Florida. Although the Claimant did not submit a memorandum, the Notice of Appeal places in issue the basis for the Claims Administrator s denial - that the parcel is not located within the Real Property Claim Zone. BP argues that the Settlement Program correctly recognized that the property is not located within the Claim Zone as described by the county tax assessment and the mapping tool. Because the Claimant makes no effort to show that the parcel should be added to the zone by submitting a SCAT or NRT assessment of oiling, the only issue is whether the parcel is physically located within the zone. Other than the Claimant s contention to the contrary, the record contains no evidence that the parcel in dispute is located wholly or partially within the Claim Zone. Reference to the Claims Administrator s mapping tool serves to confirm its location outside the Zone. Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the Claims Administrator s denial is upheld.

28 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $30, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This Appeal was remanded to the Administrator for review of its calculations related to its award. The Administrator has reaffirmed its award and resubmitted the appeal for review. This panel member has reviewed all the statements and documents submitted by the Claimant, as well as briefs of the parties, and finds the Administrator correctly resolved the causation and damage elements related to this IEL claim. The award is affirmed.

29 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Decision Comment uploaded.

30 Claim No. Claimant, a neurosurgeon located in Zone D, appeals the three-stage denial of his Business Economic Loss claim. It was denied at each stage on the basis that he had failed to provide documents sufficient to show that he satisfied one of the applicable tests set out in the Causation Requirements for Zone D of Exhibit 4B to the Settlement Agreement. Claimant contends he met the Decline-Only Revenue Pattern. Step one of that test requires proof of a DOWNTURN in the form of a decline of an aggregate of 15% or more in total revenues over a period of three consecutive months between May-December 2010 compared to the same months in the Benchmark Period selected by the claimant without a recovery in the corresponding months of Claimant asserts in his Opening Memorandum for his appeal that he met that prong of the test because he suffered an 18.29% drop in revenue from October, November, and December 2009 as compared to those same months in However, contrary to that assertion, the financial statements Claimant has submitted, including the recapitulation of the same attached as Exhibit 1 to his Opening Memorandum, reflect the following revenues for the months in question October $140, $204, November $134, $108, December $109, $85, Total $383, $398, Rather than show a 15% decline from the three months in 2009 to the same three in 2010, those figures show a slight increase. Therefore, the denial of this claim was justified. (Moreover, although unnecessary to address in detail due to Claimant s failure to satisfy Step 1 of the Decline-Only test, Claimant also failed to provide documentation of the type specified for Step 2, the outside factors prong and Step 3, the customer mix prong. The Claims Administrator did not comment on those failed steps because they would become relevant only if Step 1 had been satisfied.) The appeal is denied.

31 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Real Property Sales Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $53,750 0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error.

32 Comment (optional): see reasons provided to the appeals coordinator.

33 APPEAL DECISION APPEAL # AUGUST 21, 2014 Central to this Appeal is the vexing issue of the impact of Gulf Coast Claims Facility ( GCCF ) releases on subsequent claims filed with the Settlement Program. In this matter, wife (who filed the GCCF claim) and husband (who filed a claim with the Settlement Program) jointly owned a condo located in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. The wife executed a release with the GCCF and check in the amount of $25,000 was made payable to the wife. The release also required the husband to sign, and he did. The condo was subsequently sold, and the husband then filed a Real Property Sales claim with the Settlement Program. The Claims Administrator ( CA ), probably relying on Policy 276, granted the husband s claim. (Policy 276 states that a claimant s spouse who signed a GCCF Release is not barred from pursuing his/her own claims, independent of his/her spouse s claims. ) At the outset, this Panelist acknowledges that appeals decisions appear to be inconsistent on the issue before this Panelist. While the decisions seem to consistently deny a Settlement Program claim where the identity of the spouse who filed the Settlement Program claim is the same as the spouse who filed the GCCF claim, there has been some disagreement where one spouse filed the GCCF claim and the other spouse (who signed the GCCF release as spouse, not claimant) filed the Settlement Program claim. BP s position has been consistent throughout all of the appeals involving this issue. BP argues that both spouses, by signing the GCCF release, were bound by the terms of the release, and are prohibited from filing a claim with the Settlement Program which involves the same property (here a condo). The CA, and Class Counsel in its Amicus Submission dated July 16, 2014, take the position that Section of the Settlement Agreement controls. (Claimant did not file an appeal memo.) Section excludes from the Settlement Class [a]ny Natural Person or Entity who or that made a claim to the GCCF, was paid and executed a GCCF. The CA concluded that the husband did not make the GCCF claim and was not the spouse whose name appeared on the GCCF check, hence the CA determined that the husband s claim was not excluded. As is often the case, this Panelist finds arguments on both sides of this issue to be reasonable. On the one hand, the GCCF release contains some fairly sweeping language releasing all claims for the property in question. Paragraph 2 of the GCCF release provides that Claimant also, on behalf of Claimant s spouse... hereby releases and forever discharges, and covenants not to sue BP. (emphasis added) Additionally, the cover page to the GCCF release states that You and your spouse should not sign the Release unless you both intend to release all claims. 1

34 On the other hand, the starting point for all appeal issues is the Settlement Agreement, a document signed off on by both BP and Class Counsel. The parties were aware of the GCCF releases when Section of the Settlement Agreement was drafted. The literal wording of this Section appears to support the husband Claimant s position in this Claim, as he did not file the GCCF claim and he was not paid. BP argues that the husband, by signing off on the GCCF, did make a claim to the GCCF and is thus excluded from the Settlement Class pursuant to Section Further, BP argues that because the husband and wife co-owned the property, the husband would have shared in the GCCF recovery, and should not be allowed to recover again on the same property. Likewise, BP argues that allowing the husband s Settlement Program claim amounts to double recovery for the wife, who presumably will share in the proceeds. On balance, this Panelist sides with the CA s reading of Section (It should be noted that while this decision makes reference to Policy 276, this Panelist neither accepts nor rejects that policy. Rather, this decision is based on this Panelist s independent interpretation of Section ) Although BP makes some compelling fairness arguments, this Panelist is limited to applying the Settlement Agreement as it actually reads, not as it should read. Besides this Panelist s reading of Section 2.2.6, there is an additional consideration that influenced this Panelist s decision. To adopt BP s position requires this Panelist to analyze and interpret the language in the GCCF release and/or the parties intent when drafting and/or signing the release. For example, the GCCF claim appears to be for lost rental income. One could argue that the husband and wife were not contemplating selling the condo (at a reduced price) at the time of the GCCF claim was made and thus in their own minds were not releasing claims related to the sale of the property. BP would argue otherwise, citing the sweeping language. This Panelist does not believe that analyzing and interpreting the GCCF release falls within the scope of this Panelist s authority. Rather, this Panelist s scope begins and ends with the interpretation and application of the Settlement Agreement. In light of the above, this Panelist affirms the award to the Claimant and adopts the Claimant s Final Proposal. 2

35 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $49,745 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.00 $59, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is a BEL claim in which BP appeals the Claims Administrator's award of $59, Claimant then submitted an Initial Proposal of $74,676 without submitting any specific evidence to justify this apparent crossappeal. Claimant then submitted a Final Proposal reverting to the original Compensation Amount of $59, BP alleges that there were two errors: (1) The Settlement Program not complying with Policy 495 and the underlying Court decisions to use sufficiently matched financial data in that Claimant recorded repair expenses

36 in December, 2010, that were actually incurred in April, July and October, 2010, and (2) Claimant's P&L's omit credit card fees/expenses in November, These two assertions amount to $10,092, Pre-RTP, in a revised Compensation Amount of $49,745, which is BP's Final Compensation Amount. Nowhere in Claimant's briefs does Claimant specifically dispute that these errors and mismatches exist, but appears to contend (in a boilerplate fashion) that a determination by the CSSP Accountants that items are sufficiently matched are not to be questioned and errors are to be ignored. Unlike the Claimant, BP provided a detailed analysis as how the Settlement Program erred, and this panelist feels that such errors cannot be ignored. Finally, Claimant objected to BP filing a supplemental memorandum on the basis that it was not a response to a new argument made by Claimant's Final Proposal but repeated arguments already made by BP. It matters not. The results would be the same. BP prevails.

37 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional):

38 The Claims Administrator denied the Claimant s BEL, finding that the Claimant had failed to prove causation under Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. On appeal, Claimant contends that it passes the Decline-Only causation test and should have been awarded compensation. BP contends that the claim was properly denied. Under Exhibit 4B, the Decline-Only Revenue Pattern test includes three requirements: 1. Downturn: A decline of an aggregate of 8.5% or more in revenues over a period of 3 consecutive months between May-December 2010 compared to the same months in the Benchmark Period selected by the Claimant; and 2. Specific documentation identifying factors outside the control of the Claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011; and 3. Proof of a decline of 10% in the share of total revenue generated by non-local customers [or customers located in Zones A-C] over the same period of three consecutive months from May-December 2010 as selected by the Claimant for the Decline-Only Revenue Pattern compared to the same 3 consecutive month period in Although the Claims Administrator found that the Claimant satisfied the first prong, it concluded that the second and third prongs had not been satisfied. With regard to the second prong, Exhibit 4B requires the Claimant to submit objective, thirdparty documentation that identifies factors outside the control of the Claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in Claimant contends that the entry of a competitor into the market in 2011 prevented the recovery of revenues. Although the Claimant makes this argument throughout its memorandum, no objective third party documentation can be found in the record to support this contention. Claimant also contends that it satisfied the third prong but it is not necessary to analyze

39 this issue because the second prong has not been satisfied Accordingly, the decision of the Claims Administrator was correct and this claim was properly denied under the Settlement Agreement.

40 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $45, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

41 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a BP appeal of an Individual Economic Loss award made to a New Orleans based commercial real estate agent. In its Notice of Appeal, BP assigns error to the Claims Administrator in (1) incorrectly entering salary earnings in the wrong pay period; (2) accounting for commissions based on the period received and not on a pro rata basis over the period in which the commissions were earned; and (3) including an industry growth factor for a nonhourly individual. Error assignment (1) is not mentioned in either the Initial or Final Proposal Memorandum submitted by BP. Instead, it raised, for the first time, a claim that the IEL framework was misapplied because (a) Claimant did not establish that he worked for an Eligible Employer and (b) Claimant submitted an Employer Sworn Written Statement that is facially insufficient to establish that he experienced a loss due to the Spill. Specifically, BP charges that Claimant s 2010 income was 41% higher than in 2009, 9% higher than in 2008 and 59% higher than in For that reason, it argues that the Employer SWS was insufficient in light of this substantial increase in Claimant s 2010 income. In this Panelist s view, these arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of error assignment (1) and should be ignored as a violation of Appeal Panel Procedural Rule 8. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, this Panelist proceeded to review them. In its Final Proposal Memorandum, BP retracted its claim that Claimant s employer was not appropriately characterized as an Eligible Employer because it had not filed a Business Economic Loss claim on its own behalf. In fact, the record reflects that it did so. Now BP attacks Claimant for pre-emptively filing an Employer SWS instead of awaiting a determination on his employer s claim. It cites no such requirement in the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, there is none. In light of these allegations, this Panelist requested and, in due course, received, a Summary of Review. The following language from that document effectively rebuts this argument: The claimant submitted an Employer Sworn Written Statement (non-category IV) ( SWS-12 ) in order to satisfy the Settlement Agreement s Causation requirement. The Settlement Agreement does not require an IEL claimant to show any particular trend in earnings in order to establish Causation. See 1

42 Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 8A at The Settlement Program s review of Causation did not consider the claimant s yearly earnings totals. 2 On the SWS-12, the claimant s employer wrote in Section E, Explanation of Why Claimant s Economic Losses Are Related to the Spill, that business owners in the claimant s territory lost interest in leasing commercial real estate: Due to the uncertainty of the economic environment as [a] result of the Oil Spill, interest and willingness to [consummate] transactions were greatly diminished. (Doc. ID ) The employer also provided specific information about the Spill s effect on the claimant s income, writing that the claimant is a commission-based real estate agent in downtown New Orleans, an area heavily driven by tourism and the local economy. He sustained economic losses as a result of the dramatic decrease in interest in commercial space. Id. The Claims Administrator found that the SWS-12 provided specific detailed information about the Spill s effect on the commercial real estate market in New Orleans and on the claimant s earnings, and therefore satisfied the Settlement Agreement s Causation requirement. As the Summary of Review demonstrates, the record evidence shows that while Claimant s 2010 annual earnings are greater than his 2009 annual earnings, approximately 60% of the 2010 annual earnings were earned before the Spill; i.e., during the months January through April, When comparing 2010 post-spill earnings to 2009 post-spill earnings, Claimant actually sustained a loss of approximately $31,000. The fundamental requirement of the causation test is to demonstrate an earnings loss after the Spill as compared to similar periods in prior years. The fact that Claimant earned more in the months immediately prior to the Spill is irrelevant. This error assignment cannot be sustained. BP argues, in error assignment (2), that the Claims Administrator treated Claimant s commissions as if they were regular salary earnings instead of allocating them pro-rata across the period for which they were awarded, as required by the Settlement Agreement. The record discloses that the Registration and Commission Agreement pursuant to which Claimant is employed specifically provides that commissions are due from the landlord and thus earned by the Claimant at two times during most transactions; first, at the time of execution of a lease agreement with a tenant; and, second, upon a tenant s occupancy of the leased premises. At those prescribed times, the payments from the landlords are transmitted to Claimant s employer 2 The claimant s pay period earnings documentation did affect the review s loss calculation. The claimant s payroll records indicate that he earned a large portion of his 2010 income in the pre- Spill period; specifically, the claimant earned $48, on 1/7/10 and $35, on 2/18/10. (Doc. ID ) 2

43 who then issues a check to the Claimant for his portion of the commission earned. They are paid at the time they are earned and are not held to be paid at any set intervals of time during the year. They are not subject to any type of clawback or other type of recapture should a tenant default and execution of a lease is no guarantee of credit by Claimant s employer on behalf of either landlord or tenant. The Summary of Review records the Claims Administrator s careful study of Claimant s payroll records and IRS Forms W-2 for the years in question and found them consistent with the foregoing description. Accordingly, this claim of error likewise has no merit. Although Claimant believes that the Industry Growth Factor of 1.5% was appropriately applied to his claim in a manner consistent with previous awards, for Settlement purposes, he conceded that issue and reduced his Final Proposal Compensation Amount accordingly. This moots error assignment (3). For the foregoing reasons, this BP appeal cannot be sustained. The determination of the Claims Administrator must be upheld and decision entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: August 26,

44 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

45 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: In this appeal, Claimant, a Pensacola, Florida, electrical contractor asserts that the Claims Administrator erred in rejecting his Business Economic Loss claim for failure to meet the documentation requirements contained in Settlement Agreement Exhibits 4B and E for proof of Spill-Related Contract Cancellations. The explanation contained in the Denial Notice was nonspecific as was that contained in the analyses reported in the Post-Re-Review and Post- Reconsideration Denial Notices. On appeal, Claimant argues that he has submitted uncontroverted evidence of contracts that were cancelled by customers as a direct result of the Spill; that he has provided contemporaneous written proof of cancellation as well as sworn affidavits from those customers verifying cancellation and causation. In reply, BP argues that, in order to recover, Claimant must provide contemporaneous written evidence of the cancellation of a contract as the direct result of the Spill that he was not able to replace and that, in the absence of contemporary written evidence, he must present an affidavit from an independent third party affirming that the cancellation was Spill-related. Here, it asserts, Claimant fails the test because he has not provided the six contracts that he contends were cancelled during the relevant time period; but, instead, has submitted letters of cancellation and affidavits from the contracting parties. Without the actual contracts, it submits, there is no contemporaneous evidence that they were in place as of April 20, 2010 or were to be performed between April 21 and December 31, While acknowledging that Claimant s president had filed an affidavit attesting to the fact that the contracts in question were not able to be replaced, it is inadequate because it does not address the terms of the contracts or whether Claimant was able to replace them after Because this Panelist s examination of all of the claim file documents relevant to this issue revealed considerable evidence of contracts executed in the months immediately preceding the Spill that were cancelled as a consequence of the Spill, he requested that the Claims Administrator instruct the Claimant to respond to BP s Opposition Memorandum with copies of the contracts in question and to permit BP to reply, if it desired to do so. Both responded. Claimant submitted copies of the six contracts it claims were cancelled. He had previously submitted affidavits executed by each customer which verified written letters each had sent to him cancelling the respective contracts because of the Spill.

46 Despite this additional documentation, BP contends that none of the contracts establish that they were to be performed between April 21 and December 31, That is insupportable. Each contract appears to be a standard form Subcontractor Agreement which was entered into as early as December 14, 2009 and as late as February 4, 2010; each recites the contract price, location of the project and provision for progress payments. Significantly, all of the letters of cancellation were dated following the Spill, clearly evidencing that the contemplated work was to be performed between April 21 and December 31, BP also claims that Claimant has provided no evidence in support of his contention that he was unable to replace these contracts nor does he provide any testimony with regard to his efforts to replace them. This argument is likewise insupportable. The affidavit of Claimant s president is more than adequate for that purpose. After careful review of the contract documents, cancellation letters and affidavits, in light of the requirements contained in Settlement Agreement Exhibits B and E, this Panelist has concluded that this Claimant appeal must be sustained and decision entered herein overturning denial of this claim. Decision: April 3, 2014

47 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program denied the claim and, upon reconsideration, denied the claim a second time. appeals. On appeal, the issue is whether meets the causation test set forth in Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. claims it meets the Decline-Only causation test while BP disputes it. The Decline-Only test has three requirements, all of which must be met. contends it has met all three requirements while BP disputes whether Claimant has met the second and third prongs of the test. My review of the record is that does not meet the second prong of the test. I therefore do not reach the closer issue of whether the Claimant meets the Customer Mix test, which is Prong 3 of the test. The second prong requires to provide specific documentation identifying factors outside the control of the Claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in Exhibit 4B, III.C.2, p. 8 sets forth the factors to be considered. The record does not support a conclusion that meets this test. claims entry of a competitor but the record evidence indicates it was before 2011 not in 2011 as required by the Settlement Agreement. In addition, cites the serious illness of its President. This is not a recognized factor, however, because it is an internal event, not an external event caused by the market itself. The Settlement Program s denial of the claim is affirmed.

48 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This a BEL claim that was denied by the Claims Administrator. Claimant appealed. The initial basis for the appeal, per its Notice of Appeal, was the contention that the CA made an error in calculating its 2010 income for purposes of determining causation. Because the Claimant did not submit a brief is support of its appeal, this Panelist requested that one be filed. Claimant filed a brief in which Claimant now argues that its Claim may be subject to the Claims Administrators new "matching" protocol (recently approved by Judge Barbier). Ordinarily, this Panelist would not consider this newly raised issue. However, out of an abundance of caution, this Panelist is remanding this matter with instructions to the CA to recalculate causation in light of the recently published "matching" guidelines. Both parties' right to appeal any eligibility determination or denial issued by the CA on remand is preserved.

49 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program denied the claim and, upon reconsideration, has denied it two additional times. The denials were based on the causation tests of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. appeals. On appeal, claims he does meet one of the causation tests. As evidence, he cites Exhibit H of his February 10, 2014 Opening Memorandum. Having carefully studied Exhibit H, I cannot reach any conclusion other than what the Settlement Program reached does not meet the causation standard. Of the various tests, the data in Exhibit H does show the downward trend required for a Decline-Only Revenue Pattern. See Exhibit 4B, Section II.C.1. However, there is no evidence in Exhibit H or the record demonstrating that meets the other requirements of a Decline-Only Revenue Pattern. See Exhibit 4B, Section II.C.2 and Section II.C.3. Absent such evidence, the Settlement Program properly denied the claim. Affirmed.

50 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This Claim is remanded in order for calculations to be performed consistent with this Panelist's decision (submitted separately to the Claims Administrator).

51 Appeal Panelist Decision Claim No. This appeal involves a BEL claim that was denied by the Claims Administrator on the basis that the Claimant did not meet the Zone D causation test. Claimant is a residential construction company that specializes in the building of custom homes on previously developed lots. Claimant purchases these previously developed lots and then contracts with purchasers to build the home. Claimant does not purchase undeveloped land in order to develop the land for resale. Rather, Claimant purchases developed lots solely for the purpose and intent of building a house and then selling both to a buyer. At the core of this Claim is a 2009 land sale. Customarily, Claimant purchases developed lots in order to build custom residential houses. In 2009, Claimant sold one of two developed lots which had been originally purchased with the intent of building residential houses on them. (On the other lot, Claimant constructed a home as planned and sold the residential house and land as a package.) The income from the land sale was reported as ordinary income on Claimant s books and 2009 tax returns. In determining causation, the Claims Administrator treated the 2009 land sale as an asset sale and excluded the income from revenue for causation purposes (apparently relying upon Claims Administrator Policy 328). Version 2 of Policy 328 reads in pertinent part as follows: The Claims Administrator interprets the Settlement Agreement such that the following items shall not typically be treated as revenue for purposes of the various calculations to be performed under the terms of the Settlement Agreement with regard to entities asserting BEL claims: (a) insurance proceeds, (b) interest income, (c) gains or losses from sales of assets, (d) reimbursed expenses, (e) capital assessments, (f) intercompany sales, (g) related party transactions that are not arm s length transactions, and (h) grants for for-profit entities. If the 2009 land sale income is included as revenue, then Claimant may meet the Zone D causation test. If the income is excluded, Claimant does not qualify. BP urges this Appeal Panelist to uphold the denial of this Claim on two grounds. First, BP argues that Claimant is a Real Estate Developer and thus excluded from the Settlement Class per Section of the Settlement Agreement. (This does not appear to be the basis for the Claims Administrator s denial.) Second, BP argues that the income from the 2009 land sale was properly excluded for purposes of the causation test. As to BP s first argument, this Panelist finds that the Claimant is not a Real Estate Developer. Policy 299 (version 2), part (f) states that an entity engaged in construction that also acquires land for the purposes of erecting residential dwellings for sale on a dwelling by dwelling basis, rather than as part of a subdivision or other development by the Entity, will not be considered to be an Excluded Real Estate Developer. Based on this Panelist s review of the record, this language accurately describes the substantial nature of Claimant s business. The isolated 2009 land sale notwithstanding, Claimant is a construction contractor, not a developer of land or subdivisions. Also noteworthy is Claimant s NAICS code Residential Building Construction which is defined as construction or remodeling and

52 renovation of single-family and multifamily buildings. This differs from the NAICS code for real estate developers Land Subdivision which is defined as primarily engaged in servicing land and subdividing real property into lots, for subsequent sale to builders. As between these two codes, the Claimant seems more like a construction contractor than a real estate developer. As to BP s second argument that the 2009 land sale income should be excluded from the causation test this Panelists finds that the income should have been included as revenue in determining whether or not Claimant meets the Zone D causation test. This decision is based on two grounds. First, Part (c) of Policy 328 v.2 (quoted in pertinent part above) refers to gains or losses from sales of assets, which apparently refers to capital gains and losses on the sale of assets. As noted above, Claimant reported the income from the 2009 sale as ordinary income rather than as a capital gain. Second, the last sentence of Policy 328 v.2 reads as follows: In arriving at this conclusion (to exclude certain types of items as revenue), the Claims Administrator has in part relied upon the fact that these items are not typically earned as revenue under the normal course of operations in an arm s length transaction. In the instant matter, the income from the 2009 land sale was earned as part of the normal course of operations. Claimant was in the business of buying developed land, building a house on it, and then selling both to a buyer at the same time. In the 2009 land sale at issue, Claimant was approached by a perspective buyer who wanted to purchase the lot and build a custom house on it. Subsequent to the sale, Claimant constructed a house on the same lot for the same buyer. Although this two-step process was a deviation from the usual practice, this Panelist finds the transaction close enough to the usual practice to fall within Claimant s normal course of operations. For the reasons set forth above, this Panelist finds that Claimant is not an excluded Real Estate Developer and further finds that the income from the 2009 land sale should be treated as revenue for purposes of the causation test. In light of these findings, this matter is remanded in order to determine whether or not Claimant meets the Zone D causation test, and if so, what amount of compensation, if any, should be awarded.

53 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Start-Up Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

54 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: Claimant, a distributor of water purification equipment domiciled in Hahnville, Louisiana, appeals the denial of his Start-Up Business Economic Loss claim. He is appearing pro se. He asserts that the Claims Administrator erred in rejecting his claim for failure to satisfy the documentation requirements for a Spill-related contract cancellation. He argues that he provided two Sworn Written Statements confirming contract cancellations as well as statements supporting his contention that at least two lenders who had reviewed his financial projections prior to the Spill declined to extend him credit afterwards due to the effect on his fledgling business. Upon initial review, the Claims Administrator found that the documentation requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement respecting claims for Post-Spill Contract Cancellation had not been met and denied the claim. Claimant persisted with a Request for Re-Review and, thereafter, for Reconsideration, each time supplying additional documents, with the same result. Claim denied. On appeal, Claimant strenuously argued that he has done everything in his power to satisfy the documentation requirements by speaking and/or corresponding on many occasions with various claims analysts and believes that he has more than adequately met the requirements in question. In response, BP argues that the Claims Administrator correctly concluded that Claimant simply did not submit contemporaneous written evidence of the cancellation of contracts or loss of previously committed capital investments from investors arising from the Spill that he was not able to replace. Examination of the record reveals that Claimant s efforts to generate business for his new enterprise resulted in execution of at least seven contracts or rental agreements for installation of his water purification systems. Notable among those are the on Magazine Street and the downtown both located in New Orleans. Document ID See also Document ID pages 48 53; and With respect to the contract, Claimant submitted an SWS-21 BEL Spill-related Contract Cancellation Third Party Sworn Written Statement signed by Assistant Chief Engineer which attested to the fact that a contract was in place with the Claimant s business prior to or on April 20, 2010 which was to be performed between April 21, 2010 and December 31, 2010 and that said contract was cancelled as a result of the Spill. Document ID While acknowledging that statement, the Claims Administrator points to correspondence dated May 8, 2012 from which confirms that his hotel is the largest of 13 locally; that it rents over 25 water purification coolers from Claimant s business and that: We were reluctant to sign any new contract after the Gulf Coast Oil Spill in April, 2010 because of the uncertainties in the tourism industry. In addition,

55 many associates expressed their concerns about our current water coolers. They were apprehensive about the quality of the water due to the oil spill. In his Summary of Review, the Claims Administrator interpreted that letter to confirm that there was never any contract in place with the Claimant. That is demonstrably incorrect. Claimant submitted another SWS-21 executed by Chief Engineer of the, also in New Orleans, which recites that his business likewise had a contract in place with Claimant prior to the Spill which was to be performed after the Spill and that it was cancelled due to the Spill. That statement is dated April 30, In a letter dated May 8, 2012, states that [d]uring the time of the Bp Oil Spill Claimant visited our hotel seeking the opportunity to gain our business. However at that time we were unable to commit to any new services because of uncertainties that the hotel industry was facing due to the Bp Oil Spill. Document ID The Claims Administrator likewise interpreted this letter to mean that there was no contract in place prior to the Spill. That is belied by the Sworn Statement but the record does not contain a copy of the contract in question. The record also contains two SWS-37 Start-Up Business Economic Loss Sworn Written Statements from representatives of financial institutions or lenders which attest to Pre-Spill receipt of financial projections from the Claimant which were utilized by them for the purpose of extending credit. Unfortunately, they do not go further and advise whether or not that credit was approved but then withdrawn after the Spill. After careful analysis and evaluation of all of the relevant documentation and consideration of the opposing correspondence and memoranda submitted by the parties, this Panelist has concluded that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support Claimant s contention that he had multiple contracts in place prior to the Spill which were subsequently cancelled. There is also evidence which supports Claimant s assertion that he suffered a loss of previously committed capital investments from investors which he was not able to replace due to the Spill. Both of these issues should be further developed by the Claims Administrator, in keeping with the Claimant friendly intent which guides analysis of such claims. Had he been represented by competent counsel, Claimant s case might well have been made more effectively. Nonetheless, this Panelist has concluded that this claim should not have been denied and that the Claimant s appeal is meritorious. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, judgment must be entered herein overturning the denial of this claim. It is so ordered. Decision: March 27, 2014

56 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See Decision Comment uploaded.

57 : Claimant appeals the denial of her Coastal Real Property claim, which has passed through all three stages of the Claims Administrator s process of initial determination and reconsideration. Those denials are based on the fact that Claimant s parcel is not within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. Exhibit 11A, Section 1.B., of the Settlement Agreement, defines that zone as follows: B. Coastal Real Property Claim Zone shall be defined as the blue shaded portions of the Coastal R eal Property C laim Z one M ap attached as Appendix A. (See Appendix B for a description of the criteria used to establish the Coastal R eal Property Claim Zone.) An Eligible Parcel that can be considered for an award of compensation must be one located within the Claim Zone. (Section 1.C.) The Zone Map for the area in which Claimant s parcel is located, appearing on page 59 of Appendix A, clearly shows that area as being outside of the blue shaded portions which depicts the Claim Zone. Claimant counters that Appendix B, also referenced in Section 1.B., contains this statement: The following criteria were used to establish the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. 1. Areas directly intersected by the portions of shoreline assessed by SCAT teams ( SCAT Line ), regardless of whether or not the presence of oil was reported on that portion of the SCAT Line are included in the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone, as depicted below: [Illustrative map segment shown] Claimant asserts that her parcel intersects the SCAT Line and argues that this statement of the criteria used to establish the Claim Zone should trump the resulting Claim Zone Map. She acknowledged that this is her complete agreement on appeal. (BP does not address in its submissions Claimant s contention about her parcel s intersection with the SCAT Line.) While the two provisions in question, and the Claim Zone Map, appear to conflict, this Panelist concludes that the definition of the Claim Zone in Section 1.B., which exclusively relies on the blue shading on the maps constituting Appendix A, controls. The decision of which areas to include within the blue shaded portions designating the extent of the Claim Zone was carefully negotiated by the parties and inclusions or exclusion of parcels were the result of compromise. Thus, the Panelist finds that Claimant s parcel does not qualify as an Eligible Parcel and the denial of the claim is upheld.

58 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $28,947 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $62, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of. The basis of the appeal is that the settlement program incorrectly classified equipment and vehicle lease expenses as fixed costs. BP asserts the CA "mechanically deemed these 2 expenses to fall under the lease category without examining whether they should be categorized as fixed or variable."

59 BP's position is without merit. The Settlement Agreement clearly states that lease expenses are fixed costs. Moreover, claimant demonstrated that the lease expenses at issue are not dependent on sales volume and, therefore, are not a variable cost. There was some fluctuation in these expenses. However, that is not the litmus test. In this instance, the expenses at issue did not correspond to revenue levels. In certain periods, the costs were higher when the sales volume was lower and vice versa. The appeal of BP is denied and there is a finding in favor of claimant's final proposal.

60 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional):

61 filed this Coastal Real Property claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program denied the claim and, upon re-review and reconsideration, denied the claim again. appeals. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the subject property is located within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. contends that the property is within the Claim Zone for one or both of the following reasons: 1. The property is intersected by a SCAT line; and 2. There was a mapping error. BP contends that the SCAT line intersection is not a qualification for status but rather is mentioned in Exhibit 11A, Appendix 4B as part of the criteria used to create the Zone. Appendix 4B certainly does state that a SCAT line intersection is part of the criteria. Further, observes that BP took an inconsistent position in the claim of position on the SCAT line suffers from one basic problem: the property is not within the Zone under the Settlement Agreement because it is not within the Zone according to the Settlement Program s mapping tool, the Franklin County GIS, or the applicable SCAT map. Thus, contention, while having substance, ultimately fails. The property must be in the Zone defined in the Settlement Agreement itself or must meet one of the exceptions. With respect to BP s inconsistent position, it is irrelevant to the outcome here because Claimant s position is incorrect. This brings us to the second contention of mapping error. once again has a point of substance. Franklin County s maps were apparently in error in 2010 and were corrected in Once corrected by Franklin County in 2013, her property would be within the Claim Zone. Legally, however, the point fails. The Settlement Program cannot interchange maps and adjust the Claim Zone based upon post-2010 changes. The map is fixed as of the time of the Settlement Agreement and, as is noted by BP, was negotiated by the parties to the Settlement Agreement.

62 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $260, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is a BEL claim filed by a surgical center located in Pensacola, Florida. The Administrator made a substantial award and BP appeals based primarily on the assertion that the claim analysis failed to comply with Policy 495 and the Administrator did not act in compliance with the Court Orders following the Court of Appeals opinion of 10/2/13. This is a cashed based business. BP argues that this surgery group performs surgery in a given month

63 and is often not paid for several months due to third party payers, ie insurance companies and often do not receive the full amount of its invoice due to provider agreements etc. BP argues that the Administrator must still match the revenues to the months in which the revenue earning activity actually occurred. Policy 495 requires sufficient matching not exact matching of revenues to expenses. The time, effort and expense of the accountants to perform exact matching in such a business is not ordered by either the appellate or district court orders or Policy 495. This panelist has reviewed the CAO's Accountant notes to this claim. They reflect the Claimant's P&L's did not trigger any of the Policy 495 criteria that would require additional review. The P&L's are considered sufficiently matched pursuant to the Policy. BP did not pursue its other appeal issues and they are thus abandoned. See : panel decision for additional analysis of a similar claim. The award is affirmed.

64 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Real Property Sales Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code AL Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $36,500 0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error.

65 Comment (optional): see reasons submitted to appeals coordinator.

66 APPEAL DECISION APPEAL # AUGUST 21, 2014 Central to this Appeal is the vexing issue of the impact of Gulf Coast Claims Facility ( GCCF ) releases on subsequent claims filed with the Settlement Program. In this matter, husband (who filed the GCCF claim) and wife (who filed a claim with the Settlement Program) jointly owned a condo located in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. The husband executed a release with the GCCF and check in the amount of $25,000 was made payable to the husband. The release also required the wife to sign, and she did. The condo was subsequently sold, and the wife then filed a Real Property Sales claim with the Settlement Program. Per the Claims Administrator s ( CA ) Summary of Review, the CA was aware of the GCCF release. Nevertheless, relying on Policy 276 v.1, then in effect, the CA granted the wife s claim. (Policy 276 states that a claimant s spouse who signed a GCCF Release is not barred from pursuing his/her own claims, independent of his/her spouse s claims. ) At the outset, this Panelist acknowledges that appeals decisions appear to be inconsistent on the issue before this Panelist. While the decisions seem to consistently deny a Settlement Program claim where the identity of the spouse who filed the Settlement Program claim is the same as the spouse who filed the GCCF claim, there has been some disagreement where one spouse filed the GCCF claim and the other spouse (who signed the GCCF release as spouse, not claimant) filed the Settlement Program claim. BP s position has been consistent throughout all of the appeals involving this issue. BP argues that both spouses, by signing the GCCF release, were bound by the terms of the release, and are prohibited from filing a claim with the Settlement Program which involves the same property (here a condo). The CA, and Class Counsel in its Amicus Submission dated July 16, 2014, take the position that Section of the Settlement Agreement controls. Section excludes from the Settlement Class [a]ny Natural Person or Entity who or that made a claim to the GCCF, was paid and executed a GCCF. The CA concluded that the wife did not make the GCCF claim and was not the spouse whose name appeared on the GCCF check, hence the CA determined that the wife s claim was not excluded. As is often the case, this Panelist finds arguments on both sides of this issue to be reasonable. On the one hand, the GCCF release contains some fairly sweeping language releasing all claims for the property in question. Paragraph 2 of the GCCF release provides that Claimant also, on behalf of Claimant s spouse... hereby releases and forever discharges, and covenants not to sue BP. (emphasis added) Additionally, the cover page to the GCCF release states that You and your spouse should not sign the Release unless you both intend to release all claims. 1

67 On the other hand, the starting point for all appeal issues is the Settlement Agreement, a document signed off on by both BP and Class Counsel. The parties were aware of the GCCF releases when Section of the Settlement Agreement was drafted. The literal wording of this Section appears to support the wife Claimant s position in this Claim, as she did not file the GCCF claim and she was not paid. BP argues that the wife, by signing off on the GCCF, did make a claim to the GCCF and is thus excluded from the Settlement Class pursuant to Section Further, BP argues that because the wife and wife co-owned the property, the wife would have shared in the GCCF recovery, and should not be allowed to recover again on the same property. Likewise, BP argues that allowing the wife s Settlement Program claim amounts to double recovery for the husband, who presumably will share in the proceeds. On balance, this Panelist sides with the CA s reading of Section (It should be noted that while this decision makes reference to Policy 276, this Panelist neither accepts nor rejects that policy. Rather, this decision is based on this Panelist s independent interpretation of Section ) Although BP makes some compelling fairness arguments, this Panelist is limited to applying the Settlement Agreement as it actually reads, not as it should read. Besides this Panelist s reading of Section 2.2.6, there is an additional consideration that influenced this Panelist s decision. To adopt BP s position requires this Panelist to analyze and interpret the language in the GCCF release and/or the parties intent when drafting and/or signing the release. For example, the GCCF claim appears to be for lost rental income. One could argue that the husband and wife were not contemplating selling the condo (at a reduced price) at the time of the GCCF claim was made and thus in their own minds were not releasing claims related to the sale of the property. BP would argue otherwise, citing the sweeping language. This Panelist does not believe that analyzing and interpreting the GCCF release falls within the scope of this Panelist s authority. Rather, this Panelist s scope begins and ends with the interpretation and application of the Settlement Agreement. In light of the above, this Panelist affirms the award to the Claimant and adopts the Claimant s Final Proposal. 2

68 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this IEL award in favor of, a salesperson for BP first objected to the adequacy of the SWS provided by claimant's employer. This argument was well founded as the statement did not provide sufficient details describing how the claimant's losses were caused by the spill. As a result, this panelist made a request for supplemental information providing more detail. In response to this request, the employer stated that was involved in the sales of pre-need

69 crypts. It was explained that the economic uncertainty in southern Louisiana made individuals reticent to make these types of purchases and caused the cancellation of a mausoleum project in Houma. It would have been helpful if the employer had provided more information on specific numbers and circumstances more pointedly directed to this employee. Nevertheless, there is a finding that the information provided by the employer is adequate by the thinnest of margins, especially in view of the claimant friendly nature of this process. BP's second objection involves a speculative argument about bonuses. By its own admission, even if correct, this issue would only change the award by $4,000 which is not material in a baseball arbitration where claimant's number is over $32,000 and BP's is 0. For all the foregoing reasons, the award in favor of claimant is affirmed.

70 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $139, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $176,497.79, pre-rtp. BP appeals. BP s principal issue complains that the Settlement Program did not sufficiently match revenue and expenses. BP specifically complains of a November, 2009 spike in Medicaid income of $27, In addition, BP speculates that might not have met the test of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. The test is a 10%

71 minimum threshold and has 12.86%. BP is correct in a strictly mathematical calculus that 12.86% is 2.86% high than 10%. However, this means surpassed the test by 28.6 % ( ). Regardless, BP s position is sheer speculation. This is a baseball appeal. Claimant s Final Proposed is $139,114, considerably less than the Settlement Program award. Given the choice between BP s Final Proposal of and Claimant s Final Proposal, Claimant s proposal is the correct choice.

72 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, pro se, is the president, manager and sole owner of located in Navarra, Florida. She appeals the denial of her IEL claim. The Settlement Program twice denied her IEL claim on the basis her claimed loses were "the same loses as Claimant's claimed under the BEL claim." Claimant previously accepted a final payment of $22, for her BEL claim and executed a release. Claimant appeals on the basis that if she had know her personal payroll cost would be treated as a fixed expense her business loss claim would be handled "differently."but she did not and we cannot undo what has been done. Whatever version of Policy 363 may be in effect, it is clear that where a business entity has signed a release and received payment on a BEL claim, and an owner/officer has filed an IEL claim, the IEL claim will be denied to avoid double recovery. The Settlement Programs denial of this claim is affirmed.

73 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the denial of his IEL claim. BP's opposition was based on the contention that claimant was an owner of, a company that had previously received an award under the BEL framework. Under this line of reasoning,, as an owner of the business, was not eligible to also receive an IEL award because, to do so, would result in a double recovery due to the manner in which owner compensation is treated under the settlement agreement. BP's position on this issue was correct and the Claims Administrator made the correct decision based on the information in front of the program at the time of decision. However, claimant subsequently produced clear evidence that had sold all of his ownership interest in to another individual well before the spill. Accordingly, claimant was not an owner of the business at the pertinent time and, therefore, the policy relating to owner compensation which exists to prevent double recovery is not applicable here. As a result, the denial of this claim is overturned and the claim is returned to the Settlement Program for further processing.

74 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a construction and road work contractor. BP argues that the Settlement Program's denial should be upheld because: (1) Claimant's proposed factor outside its control, namely, that two of its largest public customers put out for bid significantly less work for 2011, is not an eligible factor that prevented recovery; (2) Claimant's records show it received from customers during the relevant 2010 period, which BP contends means Claimant did not experience a decline in demand from customers during the relevant period that prevented its recovery compared to 2010, and (3) Claimant failed the Customer Mix Test under the Settlement Program's policy for "project-based" businesses. This appeal contains some rather complex issues, but after spending considerable time on review and analyst, this panelist feels that the Claimant has met the requirements of causation under the Decline-Only Test for Zone D. The Claimant has identified an eligible factor outside its control. The list of factors is not an exclusive list. Claimant's proposed factor outside its control is an "other factor[s] outside their control that prevented their recovery of revenue in 2011." (Policy 474). There is no three month comparison requirement. The only requirement in Section III.C.2 is that the Claimant must prove a non-spill related factor that prevented recovery in "2011." Finally, the Claimant keeps its books and files on an accrual basis. Claimant does not record revenue

75 only at the end of a project. Claimant records its revenue when earned and not when payment is received. Therefore, Claimant is not a "project-based" business and is not subject to Policy 345 v2. The denial is overturned. So ordered.

76 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This Claim was denied on the basis that Claimant did not meet the causation test. Specifically, Claimant failed to provide documentation to support the 3-prong test of the "Decline-Only" method. Claimant has now submitted new documentation along with its Notice of Appeal. In order to have this Claim fairly evaluated, I am remanding this Appeal to the CA with instructions to reconsider this Claim in light of the new documents. The rights of the parties to appeal any action taken by the CA on remand is preserved.

77 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $858, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

78 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a BP appeal of a Business Economic Loss award to a based contractor which supplies corrosion and abrasion resistant linings to storage tanks and other equipment in a variety of industries. It also has a tank fabrication and a field tank repair division. While the Notice of Appeal contains a number of non-specific assignments of error, it does state that the Claims Administrator erred in (1) treatment of certain expenses; (2) treatment of payroll; and (3) failing to determine whether Claimant is excluded from the Settlement Agreement. BP makes no mention of error (2) in its Initial and Final Proposal Memoranda; consequently, it shall be considered abandoned. In support of issue (1), BP argues that the Claims Administrator misclassified Claimant s Management Fee expense as fixed as opposed to variable because [I]t is likely that Claimant pays management fees to one or more company employees to help run the company. Therefore, this expense should have been classified as a payroll expense. In response, Claimant states that the fee in question was for services, including financial and business oversight consulting, provided by an outside management firm. The fee is not based on the salaries or wage levels of any particular employees of the service provider that may assist with those functions and does not vary according to Claimant s actual production of products or services. Settlement Exhibit 4D categorizes such fees as fixed. As has been noted on many prior occasions by fellow panelists, the classifications contained in that exhibit are the product of extensive negotiations by the parties and must be respected by the Claims Administrator and the Appeal Panelists. This assignment of error may not be sustained. Error assignment (3) consists of two parts. The first alleges that there is evidence that Claimant s business is included in the Oil and Gas Industry and thus excluded from the Settlement Agreement. Second, that an analysis should have been conducted for the purpose of determining whether any of Claimant s alleged losses are related to the federal government s moratorium on offshore drilling and, if so, should have been excluded from the compensation calculation. For both reasons, claims BP, this appeal should be remanded to the Claims Administrator for further investigation. 1

79 Oil and Gas Industry Exclusion After quoting from Section 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement which describes those firms which are excluded because engaged in this industry, BP asserts that Claimant s web site contains evidence that Claimant specializes in lining of tanks, vessels, piping systems and components and that it serves many different industries, including the mining, chemical, refining and petrochemical industries. According to BP, that evidence required the Claims Administrator to determine whether Claimant s business falls within the definition of the Oil and Gas Industry and, since it did not do so, it cannot be determined whether Claimant is a proper class member. In a footnote, BP goes on to say that this analysis was especially important in this case, given that the Settlement Program previously denied the claim of another company,, precisely because it is an Oil and Gas Industry business. Claimant, in reply, submits that its website clearly lists its client base and that the Oil and Gas Industry is simply not included in it. It has never, in its history, provided products or services to any company in that industry and invites BP to audit its records of all purchase orders and contracts ever received to confirm that. Its client base, it reports, is primarily chemical and agricultural chemical manufacturers. In light of BP s claim regarding this Panelist requested and was granted access to the claim file of that company. Its BEL claim form forthrightly stated that it was in the business of providing the offshore oil and gas industry with the highest quality products and services dedicated to structure maintenance and repair. Further, that it specializes in composite technologies for corrosion repair and solutions to structure corrosion. It stated that more than 95% of its 2009 business revenues came from the Oil and Gas Industry in the Gulf of Mexico. For that reason, its claim was properly excluded by the Claims Administrator and it took no appeal. Further examination of the web sites of these entities revealed that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of and that they are involved in entirely separate lines of business. serves land based industries as varied as pulp and paper, power generation, mining, railcar, chemical, refining and petrochemical. contracts to perform work on behalf of the offshore industry. This Panelist has carefully examined all of the excluded Oil and Gas Industry businesses described in Settlement Agreement Exhibit 17 in light of the record evidence in this case and can find nothing to support its application. This claim of error has no merit. 2

80 Moratoria Losses Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement states that claims of natural persons and entities for moratoria losses are expressly reserved and are not recognized or released under it. Section states that Moratoria Loss shall mean any loss whatsoever caused by or resulting from federal regulatory action or inaction directed at offshore oil industry activity including shallow water and deep water activity that occurred after May 28, 2010, including the federal moratoria on offshore permitting and drilling activities imposed on May 28, 2010 and July 12, 2010 Exhibit 19 provides a comprehensive list of industry types subject to review by the Claims Administrator for potential moratoria losses. One such industry is Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing. That industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in cutting, forming and joining heavy gauge metal to manufacture tanks, vessels and other containers. Examples include bulk storage tanks, oil storage tanks and petroleum storage tanks, all Heavy Gauge metal, manufacturing. Although BP did not go into this level of detail, alleging simply that Claimant s web site information warranted a moratorium analysis, Claimant provided a concise response. It states that it fabricates light gauge tanks with wall thicknesses no greater than one-half inch, primarily to be lined with rubber after fabrication, to be used for storing corrosive liquids in chemical plants and fertilizer chemical plants. It states that the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) codes which are used to regulate the manufacture of pressure tanks, define and calculate Heavy Gauge as wall thicknesses that are generally two inches and larger. Its fabrication shop does not have the capability to fabricate anything greater than a one-half inch thickness, far less than that defined as Heavy Gauge. That explanation is more than satisfactory to this Panelist. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this BP appeal cannot be sustained. The determination of the Claims Administrator must be upheld and decision entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: August 25,

81 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $54, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Uploaded to portal

82 PROVE A POINT? MAKE A DEAL? CLAIM ID: Claimant is land development consultant located in Orange Beach, Alabama (Zone A). The Settlement Program awarded Claimant $54, pre-rtp and a $137, total award. BP appeals, asserting error by the Settlement Program in the application of the Settlement Agreement by failing to determine whether Claimant is an excluded real estate developer. The Settlement Program specifically excludes individuals and entities who work in certain industries, including Real Estate Developers, from the Settlement Class. Settlement Agreement at These exclusions are based on the substantive nature of the business. Id. at Excluded Real Estate Developers include any Natural Person or Entity that develops commercial, residential or industrial properties. Id. at BP notes that Claimant identifies itself as a land development consultant, and as a land development consultant, Claimant almost certainly engages in activities relating to the planning, design, arranging of financing, zoning approvals, construction, marketing, sale or lease of real estate development projects. Having presented nothing with relation to the record concerning the nature of Claimant s business activities other than its corporate name, this Panelist finds BP s position to be insufficient. Bare speculation is not enough to upset the presumption that the Claims Administrator analyzed the full record before it, and correctly determined that Claimant was an eligible member of the Settlement Class. Nothing is presented to indicate that this analysis did not take place, or was not conducted competently.. BP also asserts the Settlement Program failed to reconcile material discrepancies between Claimant s monthly profit and loss statements and its tax returns. This allegation was found to be without foundation. Accordingly, the appeal is denied. Claimant s Final Proposal is approved.

83 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program denied the claim and appeals. is a non-profit, charitable entity located in Zone D. As a Zone D claimant, it must meet the causation tests in Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. The issue on appeal is whether has revenue from business operations when operating funds come from interest, dividends, and gains on investments. The Settlement Program denied the claim, finding Claimant had no revenue from business operations. The rejection was in part based on Policy 328 which states that interest income and gains or losses from sales of assets are excluded from revenue for purpose of calculations under 4B. rejoins, in a well-written brief, that Dividend Income is not listed in Policy 328 as excluded and thus that Dividend Income should be included in revenue calculations. construction of Policy 328 is based on sound principles of textual construction. However, the interplay between Policy 328 and Policy 373 v2 leads to a different conclusion. When read together and harmonized, I conclude that Dividend Income is not from normal business operations and is thus excluded from the calculation of Revenue. Given the lack of specificity of Policy 328 with regard to Dividend Income, and others similarly

84 situated have a fair point. While I have held against minds could differ. this is a close issue upon which reasonable

85 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,an owner of a waterfront parcel in Franklin County,Florida,appeals the thrice-denied Coastal Real Property Claim(CRPC) based on a determination that the subject parcel was not located in the CRPC zone and that the supporting documents submitted by claimant did not warrant inclusion or addition to that zone as required by Section 1.E and 1.F,Exhibit 11A,of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant asserts there is mapping error and that her parcel is within the proper zone.she further posits that adjacent parcels have been included in the CRPC zone and compensated.earlier panel decisions have recognized the mapping data for Franklin County was imperfect and flawed and was corrected in 2013.Nevertheless these decisions have held these

86 changes are inconsequential as the parties negotiated the terms of the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits based on data available to them in 2010 which cannot later be unilaterally altered in these proceedings.claimant concedes that based on 2010 data her parcel is not included in the CRPC zone.a review of the record discloses claimant's parcel was excluded based on the then relevant maps,its physical address,parcel identification number and geographic location.there is neither evidence from SCAT nor assessments by NRT showing this parcel was oiled and thus subject to inclusion.mere proximity to adjacent,eligible parcels creates no exception.there is no error.the appeal of claimant is denied.

87 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $25,164 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $29, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP has appealed a BEL award to a real estate company on several grounds, including that it is an excluded Real Estate Developer. Since in its memoranda BP addresses only one of the several issues asserted in its Notice of Appeal, all such grounds are considered waived except for those asserted and argued in its memoranda. In this regard, BP only argues that Claimant's Property Maintenance Expense varies so widely and is so proportional to its activity in generating revenue that it should have been deemed Variable rather than Fixed. This panelist

88 appreciates that in its final proposal, BP has used a reasonable reduction figure rather than. This is a "baseball" process, however, and Claimant's acknowledgement that half its Property Management expenses should be deemed Variable is closer to this panelist's de novo evaluation of a proper amount in this record.

89 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount 0 $556,800 0 III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. Claim should have been excluded. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

90 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a BP appeal of an Oyster Leaseholder award made to Claimant under the Oyster Compensation Plan of the Seafood Compensation Program. An initial award was made on April 17, 2014, following which Re-Review was requested and a Post Re-Review Eligibility Notice containing an increase in the original award, was issued on May 20, The basis for BP s appeal is, of course, that Claimant is an excluded entity because it is an Oil and Gas Industry business. The entire Appeal Panel considered, in En Banc session, a body of appeals brought by BP from awards made by the Claims Administrator to this Claimant, all of which involved the threshold question of whether or not Claimant is excluded from the Settlement Class by virtue of being a business in the Oil and Gas Industry. On June 4, 2014, the Appeal Panel issued an En Banc Decision wherein it concluded that Claimant is excluded for that reason. The awards which resulted in that decision were overturned. After careful review of the entire record of this appeal and analysis of this claim, it is the opinion of this Panelist that this appeal is governed by the En Banc Decision. Accordingly, this award must be overturned and decision entered herein in favor of BP s Final Proposal. Decision: August 29, 2014

91 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $343, $242,200 $343, $242,200 III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a provider of recreational and amusement services forr tourists in Panama City Beach, filed a BEL claimm under the Settlement Agreement and received an award of $343, (pre-rtp). BP appeals and acknowledges that there are no matching issues presented in this appeal.

92 BP contended that the Settlement Program misapplied the BEL framework, erred in the classification of certain expenses, there were issues with the reconciliationn of Claimant s financial data, and that Claimant was not entitled to compensation. BP failed to file a memorandum with its initial proposal of, then abandoned the above arguments in its final proposal. Claimant and BP agree onn the compensation amount and the prior amount to be offset. The remaining issue is whether Claimant iss entitled to a RTP of 2.5 or, as BP contends, a RTP of 2.0. The record is clear that Claimant s business is tourism related, a fact not challenged by BP. Claimant s business was located at clearly within Zone A. BP notes that Claimant s tax returns for 2009 and reflect within Zone C and would entitle Claimant to a 2.0 RTP. All of the annual reports Claimant filed with the Florida Secretary of State reflect the principal place of business as duringg the Compensation Period. There is also photographic evidence that Claimant s business is located there. The record also contains a lease agreement signed by Claimant for the location, commencing on January 1, 2011, which Claimant explains was a move necessitated by the Spill itself. Although BP is correct that Claimant s 2009 and 2010 tax returns reflect the address, closer examination shows that they were signed on August 23, 2011 and September 16, 2011 respectively, after Claimant moved. The record offers more than ample proof that Claimant was located in Zone A during thee relevant period. Claimant s award is affirmed.

93 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): brought this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlementt Program denied the claim on multiple occasions. appeals. On appeal, contends that he has met the applicable test by providing a May 5, 2014 letter from a commercial real estate agent. BP observes that there iss no evidence in the record establishing that Claimant lost revenue as a result of the April, 2010 Spill and in accordance with Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. This is correct. Further, there is nothing about the May 5, 2014 letter that provides specific information demonstrating that met the specific tests of Exhibit 4B. The Settlement Program properly deniedd the claim.

94 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $65, $153, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant,a condominiumm rental company in northwest Florida, on the basis the Claims Administrator misclassified expenses incurred to clean thee units as fixed "cleaning and housekeeping costs" rather than as "variable COGS" costs. BP posits that whenn these costss are properly reclassified the resulting change reduces claimant's pre-rtp 4D of the Settlement Agreement.The nature of these costs is fixed award by $87,503.The Claims Administrator properly classified thesee costs as fixed under Exhibit and

95 inherent in operating the rental of condoo units.it is a necessary and certain component of the business operation.while the amount of this cost may vary with the level of customerr activity from season to season, it is an ever-present expense of doing business.there is no error.thee award is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

96 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $15, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.50 $50,000 $46, $50,000 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

97 - In this BEL claim, the Claimant appeals the Claims Administrator s award of $15,396.66, pre-rtp. Claimant is the owner and operator of three restaurants in Key Largo, Florida in Zone A. The basis of the appeal is that the three restaurants operated by the Claimant should have had separate loss calculations as if they were three distinct businesses. More specifically, the Claimant argues that only two of the restaurants were in operation in the years prior to the spill. A third restaurant opened on April 16, 2010, four days prior to the spill. Claimant argues that its 2010 P&Ls, which were based on three restaurants rather than two, unfairly distorted its revenue. Thus, Claimant argues that the Claims Administrator should have excluded income from the newly opened restaurant in calculating compensation. Contrary to the Claimant s interesting argument, there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement that provides for the separation of financial data within a claiming entity in a BEL claim. In other words, the fact that Claimant opened a third restaurant a few days before the spill would not be a relevant factor under Exhibit 4(B). In fact, Claimant s P&Ls themselves include revenue and expenses from the third restaurant, all of which was considered by the Claims Administrator. Thus, I find no basis in the Settlement Agreement to support Claimant s appeal. The Claims Administrator s award was correct and it is affirmed.

98 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $130, $132,100 $158, $132,100 III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant operates a seafood restaurant in Covington, LA and appeals the eligibility notice awarding him $130,, (pre-rtp) in his BEL claim. Claimant maintains thatt the Claims Administrator mischaracterized certain expenses such as linen/laundry supplies, restaurant and paper supplies, management fees, royalties/license fees and catering expenses as variable when they should be fixed. Specifically, Claimant

99 maintains that it reached an agreement with the Settlement Program that the royalties and management fees were to be classified as fixed. This panelist requested additional information from the Claims Administratorr relating to the alleged agreement as to the classification of the aforementioned expenses. Upon review of the Settlement Program s response, I am satisfied that no such agreement was reached and that the remaining expenses were properly classified. The appeal is denied.

100 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $51, $52, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP s appeal focuses on Claimant s designation as a tourism industry. Under the terms set forth in Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement, tourism is defined as businesses which provide services such as attracting, transporting, accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. Therefore, if you are in one of the following businesses or work for such a business, you in the tourism industry. On the list appears NAICS Code Golf Courses and Country

101 Clubs. Hence, a country club is specifically defined to be withinn the tourism industry, the finding of the Claims Administrator to that effect is hereby affirmed, and Claimant's Final Proposal approved.

102 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount 1.25 $2,298, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): I concur in the decision uploaded by my co-panelist on this appeal.; See reasons uploaded

103 CLAIMANT: : The Claimant is a law firm based in New Orleans, with offices in also. The Claims Administrator awarded the sum of $2, (pre RTP). BP did not object to the Claims Administrator s decision that matching and smoothing of revenues and expenses was not an issue on this claim and therefore this claim was not subject to analysis under Policy 495. BP appeals on four grounds: 1. the Claimant did not suffer any economic damage as defined by the Settlement Agreement; 2. the Claims Administrator failed to properly exclude revenue generated by the Houston office; 3. the Claims Administrator failed to properly allocate expenses among the four offices; and 4. the Claims Administrator mis-classified some fixed expenses as vauable expenses. The Panel will address the four grounds of appeal in order. 1. THE CLAIMANT DID NOT SUFFER ANY ECONOMIC DAMAGE AS DEFINED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The Claimant is located in Zone B. The Settlement Program analyzed Claimant s financial records and determined that Claimant met the V-Shaped Revenue Pattern as required by Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Claimant did suffer economic loss as a result of the spill. BP s appeal on this issue is without merit. 2. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO PROPERLY EXCLUDE REVENUE GENERATED BY THE HOUSTON OFFICE. BP asserts that Claimant received a fee of $4.74 million in May of 2010 as a result of its representation of BP assumes that since is headquartered in Houston that Claimant s Houston-based attorneys must have done some of the work for hat earned the fee. The fee was originally booked by Claimant as other income for its New Orleans office which was the point of origin. Claimant explained that the representation of in the involved matter was done under a combination hourly fee/contingency contract. Once the attorneys who worked on the matter turned in their time sheets, the actual time was allocated to fee income for the respective offices. BP complains that the contingency portion of the fee ($2.92 million) may not have been allocated properly because none was attributed to the Houston office. Claimant attributed all of that amount to the New Orleans location, as the originating office.

104 In fact, the Claims Administrator queried Claimant on this very issue and was provided an explanation that the entire contingency portion of the fee was booked to the New Orleans office because the representation originated out of the New Orleans office. The Claims Administration s accounting staff was satisfied with the explanation and allowed same and deemed it as compensable for calculation purposes. The actions and decision of the Claims Administrator on this issue were appropriate and correct. 3. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO PROPERLY ALLOCATE EXPENSES AMONG THE FOUR OFFICES. The Settlement Agreement provides, under the Multi-Facility Framework, that Multi- Facility Claimant s must provide an allocated cost schedule whereby all shared costs can be allocated among all facilities based upon each facility s share of the total revenue of the Multi- Facility Business. Claimant did just that, assigning 51.8% of revenue and expenses to New Orleans, 22.5% to 9.0% to and 16.7% to BP complains that because of the mis-allocations of the x contingency fee to New Orleans, the New Orleans office s share of expenses was inflated. However, given the panels affirmation of the allocation of the contingency fee to the New Orleans office, BP s appeal on this issue is moot. 4. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR MIS-CLASSIFIED SOME FIXED EXPENSES AS VARIABLE. Here BP complains about one expense item, namely Claimant s Promotional Events, client (100%) category. The Claims Administrator deemed the expense as variable and BP says it should have been categorized as Advertising Expenses - Fixed pursuant to Exhibit 4-D of the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator contacted Claimant about the September 2010 charge of $52, by the New Orleans office. Claimant advised that said charge was the cost of the firm s annual held at the stating This event is a client development and promotional expense that the Claimant has annually. BP asserts its an advertising expense and thus a fixed expense. However, if it is deemed an entertainment expense it is a variable expense. BP does not provide the difference that would occur if the Claims Administrator had deemed the expense to be fixed. The expense amounts to 0.022% of the pre-rtp Compensation Amount. The panel does not find that the Claims Administrator mis-classified the involved expense. Therefore, given that Claimant s Final Proposal is the amount awarded by the Claims Administrator and that BP s Final Proposal is.00, under the Settlement Agreement s baseball process, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

105 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Coastal Real Property Law Firm. Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID - Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant in this thrice-denied d Coastal Real Property Claim initially asserted that her parcel was within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone, and thus eligible for compensation. The map at page 58 of Appendix A to Ex. 11B to the SA she initially relied on does not reflect her parcel ass being within the Zone. She eventually conceded in the process of presenting her claim thatt her parcel was not within the Zone, except that she contends that Hwy. 98 immediately to the north of her parcel is within the Zone and her parcel "touches" that highway, such that "a small portion" of her parcel appears to bee within the Zone. A variety of aerial photographh maps are in the record and this panelist is satisfied from the onee appearing as page 5 to Exhibit 4 to BP's

106 "Opposition Memorandum" that the blue-shaded depiction of thee boundary of the Zone on and along Hwy 98 extends only to the edge of the State-owned right-of-way and does not reach into Claimant's parcel. Claimant'ss parcel, along with certain others along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in the stretch in question, are excluded from the blue-shaded Zone in an irregularly crenulate fashion that seems random, as over and again one or several parcels are excluded but adjacent ones are included, as one goes along the shore line. Nonetheless, thee boundaries of the Zone weree the product of long and intensive negotiations between the parties and this panelist is not allowed to second guess the resulting line drawing. The denial is upheld.

107 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $154, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons submitted to Appeals Coordinator.

108 Reasons for Decision Appeal # This is a BEL Claim. BP appeals the award on two grounds. First, BP argues that the Settlement Program relied upon questionable financial data. Specifically, BP claims that the monthly P&L s may not have been contemporaneously prepared. BP argues that the Settlement Program should have requested additional information from the Claimant to investigate this possibility. This Panelist requested the Claims Administrator to provide a narrative setting forth what efforts were undertaken to verify Claimant s financials. The response indicates that the Settlement Program was concerned that the financials might not be contemporaneously prepared. However, based on the response, and a review of the record, this Panelist is satisfied that a sufficient vetting of the financials took place and that it was proper to rely upon them in evaluating the Claim. Second, BP argues that certain expenses were misclassified. Changing the classification would result in a decrease pre-rtp of $5,603. Because BP s Final Proposal is zero, this Panelist would still adopt the Claimant s Final Proposal pursuant to the baseball process, even if BP s position on these expenses was valid. For the above reasons, this Panelist adopts the Claimant s Final Proposal.

109 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $21, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $38, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is an IEL claim. Claimant is an architect with located in Tampa, Florida. The Settlement Program award Claimant $46, BP appeals on the basis that the Settlement Program incorrectly accounted for bonuses based on the period received and not on a pro rata basis over the period of time the bonuses were earned. Claimant concedes that the Claims Administrator made an error in calculation relating to the bonus, but argues that the award should be reduced to $38,925, not $21,182.17, as proposed by

110 BP. Unfortunately, BP does not explain how it arrived at that figure, and one is only to speculated with the results of that speculation still insufficient to alter the results in BP's favor. I find in favor of Claimant's Final Proposal.

111 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,a sandwich shop owner in Gonzales,Louisiana,appeals the denial of his IEL claim.previously claimant had filed a BEL claim on behalf of his business,received compensation and executed a release on its behalf. The Claims Administrator in this instance invoked the provisions of policy decision 363 and denied the claim for dimunition of W-2 wages because the earlier settled claim in part embraced this element of damages.numerous other panel decisions have concluded policy decision 363 is a proper interpretation and application of the Settlement Agreement in such a setting.the conclusion reached by the Claims Administrator here is correct.there is no error.the appeal of claimant is denied.

112 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Parcel ID Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant made a Coastal Real Property claim, which was denied. Claimant filed a pro se appeal. Unfortunately for the Claimant, her property address is outside of the approved zone. Nor does the Claimant offer any evidence that her property falls within the exceptions that would qualify her property. Claimant suggests that the eligible zone is arbitrary. While she might be correct, this Panelist is bound by the zone set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Hence, the denial is upheld.

113 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This is an appeal claiming this Coastal Real Property Claim was wrongly denied by the Claims Administrator, who held the subject property was not within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. At issue is the effect of the subject property being intersected by the SCAT Line, an assertion that BP does not dispute. In the Amended Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 11A, Appendix B,

114 Compensation Framework for Coastal Real Property Claims, Item 1, the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone is described to include, Areas directly intersected by the portions of shoreline assessed by SCAT teams ( SCAT Line ), regardless of whether or not the presence of oil was reported on that portion of the SCAT Line are included in the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. BP argues that this language refers only to the methodology used to establish the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone initially, and are not the standard for adding a parcel to the existing Claim Zone. However, as areas intersected by the SCAT Line are deemed to be included in the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone, and Claimant s Property is directly intersected by a SCAT line, Claimant s Property is held to have been in the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone from its inception, not as an addition thereto. The denial of the Claims Administrator is hereby overturned.

115 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $34, $34, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,the owner of a shopping center located on highway 988 in Navarre, Florida,appeals the BEL award it received asserting it was erroneously classified as a non-tourism business with a RTP of 1.25 ratherr than as a tourism business warranting a RTP of 2.0.Evidence of record discloses that on its claim form and tax returns claimant listed a NAICS code of ( lessor of nonresidential buildings) and describedd its business activity ass real estate rental.on reconsideration review and in this appeal claimant contends a NAICS code of

116 452111(department stores) is more appropriate and applicable to support its contentionn that a tourism designation is warranted.claimant's business location is a clusterr of buildings containing a myriad of small retail shopss and a grocery store.there is no department store located on the premises.there is no other record evidence to support use of a NAICS code of While it is true that the shopping center is located on a tourist-travelled corridor this panelist cannot conclude the Claimss Administrator misinterpreted the dictates of the Settlement Agreement in determining claimant did not qualify for a tourism designation and a RTP of 2.0.There is no error. The appeal of claimant is denied.

117 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Start-Up Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $1, $3, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is a Zone D managed rental vacation property which is defined in the Settlement Agreement as a Start-Up business economic loss claim. See SA Exhibit IV.C.I. The Claimant had been in business only about 18 months prior to the spill. Claimant appeals both the time periodss and the compensation method used. The Claimant did not provide professional prepared financial records and selected "Claims Administratorr selected" on the application for determination of the Benchmark and Compensation periods. This panelist review convinces

118 me the correct periods were selected. The Claimant objects to the compensation methodology as well. He insists the only correct way to calculate his loss is by using the average going rate for vacation rentals in Venicee and multiplying that number by the number of months he expected to have rented the property. The Claims Administrator is bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement as to both appeal issues. The award of the Administrator is affirmed.

119 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $62, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This appeal involves the applicability of the Oil & Gas Industry Exclusion. It is a close call. This panelist requested and received a Summary of Review and additional responses from the parties. Claimant is a Mississippi Corporation who operates a title abstracting company and other related real estate "services" for oils and gas companies. The Claims Administrator determined that the primary business activity of Claimant was providing "landman services," and that the appropriate NAICS Code is Other Activities Related to Real

120 Estate, which includes a specific index entry for "Landman Services." That Code is not included in Exhibit 17. BP counters that Exhibit 17 excludes claimants who provide "SUPPORT Activities for Oil and Gas Operations" (emphasis supplied), that NAICS Code is just a general category, and that there are many different types of landman, including those who provide services to industries wholly unrelated to oil and gas. BP contends that what Claimant does is the Code for support activities for oil and gas operations which is excluded. Although there are issues raised by BP as to certain filings made by Claimant in , this panelist feels that the Claims Administrator adequately explained them away. Claimant's P & L's indicate its primary source of income is from "Services," corresponding to the title abstract and related services Claimant provides as a landman. The decision in this case somewhat turns on the distinction between "support" (bearing the weight, holding up, etc.), which would be excluded and "services" (helping, supplying a need, assisting, etc.), which would not be excluded. Claimant appears to be a provider of "services." Finally, giving due deference to the Claims Administrator's thorough analysis, the decision of the Claims Administrator is affirmed.

121 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons submitted to Appeals Coordinator.

122 APPEAL DECISION # AUGUST 22, 2014 This Appeal concerns a Seafood Program Shrimp Vessel Owner claim for the vessel The chronology of this Claim is relevant to the first issue presented on appeal. April 29, 2013 Settlement Program issued an Eligibility Notice to Claimant along with a written DWH Release. May 1, 2013 Claimant accepted the offer and submitted payment documentation, including a signed DHW Release. May 3, 2013 The signed DWH Release was reviewed by the Settlement Program and deemed complete. July 12, 2013 Prior to payment, the Settlement Program discovered an inaccuracy in Claimant s submission which the Settlement Program concluded disqualified Claimant as a Class Member. Claimant was given an opportunity to submit additional information, but Claimant was unable to do so. August 28, 2013 Settlement Program rescinded the Eligibility Notice (notwithstanding the aforementioned Release) and issued a Denial Notice. Claimant has appealed, arguing that the Claims Administrator failed to abide by Policy 206, which states that [t]he Claims Administrator will not revoke an Eligibility Determination after receipt of a properly executed Release, except for fraud.... [Policy 206 may have been superseded by Policy 319. However, the Claim s Administrator s Summary of Review suggests that Policy 319 v.1 may not have been published as a final policy. In any event, Policy 319 v.1 did not change that part of Policy 206 relevant to this Appeal.] Clearly, the Claimant s Eligibility Determination was revoked after Claimant executed a Release. Claimant argues that it did not commit fraud during the submission of its Claim and thus Claimant s settlement with the Program should be honored and enforced. As noted earlier, this is a Seafood Program Shrimp Vessel Owner claim. In order to qualify, a Vessel Owner must show either that (1) the vessel was home ported in the Gulf Coast Areas at any time from 4/10/10 to 4/16/12 or (2) the vessel landed shrimp in the Gulf Coast Area at any time from 4/10/09 to 4/16/12. See Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 10. Claimant asserted on the SWS-1 (Seafood Sworn Written Statement) that it met the second criteria. [Claimant has not asserted that it meets the home port criteria.] Relying on this assertion, the Settlement Program approved the Claim. [It should be noted that Claimant s assertion was based on its interpretation of the word landed. Claimant reads landed to mean where the shrimp was caught. The Settlement Program s position is that landed refers to the act of offloading the catch at the dock. See Policy 270.] 1

123 Subsequent to issuing the Eligibility Notice, but prior to payment, the Settlement Program examined Claimant s trip tickets and discovered that none of Claimant s catch was landed in the Gulf Coast Areas (as interpreted by the Claims Administrator). The Program gave the Claimant an opportunity to show otherwise, but Claimant was unable to do so. Thus, the Program revoked the Eligibility Notice. Claimant argues that its assertion was not fraudulent and that pursuant to Policy 206, the Release cannot be revoked. BP argues that [t]he Settlement Program s earlier error arose directly from its reliance on Claimant s demonstrably inaccurate submission and that [w]hether or not Claimant s error... was in good faith or not is irrelevant. This Panelist agrees with BP. First, Policy 206 (and Policy 316 v.1) is a Claims Administrator s Decision, and thus not binding on this Panelist. While there may be some circumstances where revoking an Eligibility Notice after a Release has been executed might be warranted, this is not one of them. Second, the integrity of the Settlement Agreement would be eroded if a payment was made to an ineligible Claimant based on the Claimant s erroneous sworn assertion. In the alternative, Claimant argues that Policy 270, which the Settlement Program relied upon in denying Claimant s Claim, misinterprets the Settlement Agreement. Policy 270 states that landings as used in Exhibit 10 of the Settlement Agreement refers solely to landing seafood at a dock located in the Gulf Coast Areas. The Claimant s trip tickets show that Claimant offloaded its catch at docks located outside the Gulf Coast Areas. Thus, pursuant to Policy 270, Claimant was ineligible for compensation under the Settlement Program. Claimant makes some interesting arguments as to why landings should be interpreted to mean the location where the shrimp was caught and brought on to the vessel. And Claimant correctly points out that Policy 270 is not binding on this Panelist. However, this Panelist finds that Policy 270 s interpretation of landings to be more persuasive and supported by the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, this Panelist concludes that Claimant did not meet the criteria set forth in Exhibit 10 and is thus not eligible for a Seafood Compensation award. In light of the above, BP s Final Proposal is adopted. 2

124 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Failed Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals this denial of his BEL claim. Exhibit 6 of the Settlement Agreement specifies that failed businesses that are located in Zone D and do not fit into the Tourism or Seafood Distribution Chain category are not entitled to compensation. The business address provided by claimant on the Claim Form and the Settlement Registration Form is in Zone D. Claimant contends "all the work which I was involved in" was in a different zone and he was employed by a company in this other zone. However, it is immaterial that claimant worked in other areas other than Zone D. The Settlement Agreement makes clear that it is the location of the business, Zone D in this instance, which controls. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal is denied and the dismissal is affirmed. It is so ordered.

125 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $2, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 3.00 $28,724 $12, $28,724 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons submitted to Appeals Coordinator.

126 Reasons for Decision This is an IEL Claim from a Claimant who worked in the Seafood Industry. Based on financial documentation submitted by Claimant, the Settlement Program selected what it determined was the most favorable Compensation Period and Benchmark Period for the Claimant. The Claimant has appealed, arguing that the Settlement Program should have used different Periods which would have resulted in a higher Award. At issue in this Appeal is Exhibit 8A of the Settlement Agreement, which defines the Compensation Period for Primary Seafood Industry workers (like this Claimant) as 90 or more consecutive days between April 21, 2010 and April 30, (emphasis added) Further, per Exhibit 8A, the Compensation Period must correspond with the pay periods used by the employer. The Benchmark Period is defined as 90 or more consecutive days in the Base Period that correspond to the same calendar months and days as the Compensation Period. The Claimant submitted weekly payroll records and paychecks for January 2009 through December However, there were gaps in the earnings records. [It is not clear why there are gaps. The record suggests that the Claimant was a seasonal employee, which explains some of the gaps. Additionally, Claimant argued that some of the gaps were due to lack of work as a result of the Spill, but documentation from the employer supporting this position was not provided.] The Settlement Program s interpretation of Exhibit 8A (as evidenced by the Summary of Review that was provided at this Panelist s request) is that the Program must look for 90 or more days wherein the Claimant earned wages during each of the employer pay periods during the 90 - or more days. If a pay period gap appears during the 90 or more days, then the 90-or-more-days calculation either ends, or begins again. Gaps in earnings may be included in the 90 or more days if a Sworn Written Statement is submitted attesting that the Claimant worked during these gap periods, but that earnings documentation for these gap periods are unavailable, or if the employer attests that the Claimant was unable to work during these gaps due to the Spill. In this matter, Claimant argues that a Compensation Period of 4/21/10 through 11/3/10 be used in calculating Claimant s Award. [Claimant actually requests that a Benchmark Period of 4/21/09 through 11/3/09 be used, but the analysis under Exhibit 8A begins with determining the most favorable Compensation Period, which then determines the corresponding Benchmark Period.]

127 Problematic for Claimant, there are payroll gaps in this time period specifically 4/21/10-5/18/10 and 7/28/10-8/3/10. The Claimant did not submit documentation to explain these gaps. [It should be noted that following receipt of the Claims Administrator s Summary of Review setting forth its rationale, and in particular noting the gaps in pay periods, Claimant was given an opportunity by this Panelist respond.] Therefore, the Settlement Program rejected Claimant s suggested Compensation Period and instead calculated the most favorable 90 or more days period (8/4/10-11/2/10) that complied with the Exhibit 8A. Based on this Panelist s review of Exhibit 8A, this Panelist finds that the Settlement Program s interpretation is correct, and that Claimant s Award was properly calculated. Hence, BP s Final Proposal is adopted.

128 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $6, $6, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See written reasons uploadedd

129 CLAIMANT: CLAIM #: This is a BEL claim filed by an Apalachicola, Florida business. The sole issue on appeal is the RTP. The Claims Administrator found the Claimant to be located in Zone B and assigned a 2.0 RTP. Claimant appeals asserting it is entitled to a 2.5 RTP because its business is in Zone A. The Claims Administrator awarded Claimant the sum of $6, with a 2.0 RTP. BP agrees with the Claims Administrator s award and RTP assignment. The total award applying the 2.0 RTP amounts to $20, The total award applying a 2.5 RTP amounts to $23,591.33, a difference of $3, BP correctly points out that Claimant s Claim Form, income tax returns and vessel registrations utilize addresses that are located in Zone B. Claimant asserts it is in the sailboat charter business and the addresses on the aforementioned documents were the owners residence addresses. However, Claimant steadfastly argues the business is located at the in Apalachicola which is Zone A. Specifically, the record shows Claimant paid the City of Apalachicola for at the at all times pertinent hereto. Further, the record contains a letter from the Apalachicola City Administrator which states: A) Claimant has rented a slip at the from the City for over 15 years; B) Claimant has operated from the marina for over 15 years; and C) the local U.S. Postal Service does not provide mail services to marina slip renters. The record also contains photographs of the vessel and advertising in the marina. The record clearly establishes that Claimant s actual business was located at the marina. Potential patrons come to the marina, see Claimant s sailboat and charter advertising and arrange a charter. Accordingly, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

130 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $87,145 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.00 $122, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award to a Lafayette, La. restauranteur on the general basis that the Administrator failed to comply with the matching requirements of Policy 495. Specifically, it asserts that Claimant's gross profit margin fluctuated materially in 2010, from a low of 32.6% in one month to a high of 75.8% in another. BP concludes that such fluctuation "makes no sense" and is "unlikely," and makes an unsupported final proposal of a reduction of the award by $35, or alternatively a remand to more closely examine matching issues. In

131 examining this record de novo, Claimant's financial records did not trigger any of the seven screening criteria that under Policy 495 require further matching analysis. Similarly, this record is absent of any other "significant indicia" that the claim was insufficiently matched. BP's conclusory arguments are simply insufficient to undermine the professional judgment exercised by the Claims Administrator which is verified in this record. As such, Claimant's final proposal must be accepted. No basis exists in this record for alternative remand of this matter.

132 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a New Orleans artisan which sells its own decorative pottery out of a appeals its denial of a BEL claim. Apparently not qualifying under Exhibit 4B for causation, Claimant asserts its presumed causation by claiming its entitlement to a Tourism designation. It attaches an affidavit of its owner describing the nature of its business and argues that it should be considered to qualify as a Tourist entity either under NAICS Code ("All other general merchandise stores") or ("Gift, novelty and souvenir stores"). BP contests this, pointing to the fact that the NAICS code used by Claimant in its earlier records ( "Independent artists, writers, and performers") is not one contained within the listed Tourism codes--although it admits this list is only illustrative. It further argues that neither code proposed by Claimant is applicable to its business. This panelist has carefully reviewed and generally agrees with Policy 289v2 concerning qualifying under the Tourism designation. Ironically, this Panelist's decision was most influenced by examining Claimant's website which was relied upon by BP in its opposition. Claimant's creations as depicted therein are exquisite and unique, and are far beyond what would be found in a utilitarian store. The fact that its store is located on a prime tourist location in the New Orleans uptown area, bolsters this panelist's considered decision to overturn the denial of Claimant's Tourism designation. Especially in light of the Claimant-friendly nature of the Settlement Agreement, this decision is not particularly difficult.

133 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This claim is yet another NAICS code dispute involving a Claimant which is clearly excluded as a business primarily engaged in the wholesale distribution of petroleum products. Claimant contends it operates separate retail truck stops and should be included in the class under the Multi-Facility Business framework. The Administrator denied the claim twice based on the Claimants' failure to submit proof it operated subsidiaries. Separate businesses must submit separate P&Ls and tax returns prepared in the normal course of business. A review of the documentation confirms the Claimant is a single business. The accountant confirms he was tasked to prepare P&Ls in order to file the claim on behalf of the truck stop/casino. This Claimant is not a member of the class pursuant to Section of the Settlement Agreement. The exclusion of this Claimant by the Administrator is affirmed.

134 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $30, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this IEL award in favor of claimant BP first contends that claimant is not an eligible class member because she worked for a real estate developer. BP also argues that the employer SWS did not provide adequate detail demonstrating how the claimant's losses were attributable to the spill. There is no question that there is conflicting evidence in the record regarding the identity of

135 employer. The payroll records and documents with claimant's initial proposal indicate the employer was a real estate development company. Claimant asserts she erred in her filings in connection with her initial proposal. Further, the payroll records also reference, which is a real estate sales company. Statements from the employer, including the SWS, also indicate the identity of claimant's employer was Moreover, there is no other indicia that claimant worked for a real estate development company. Accordingly, BP's objection on this issue is overruled BP's argument with respect to the adequacy of the SWS is also not well-founded. The employer's statements that the spill adversely affected the claimant's ability to sell units must be considered in context. It is not surprising that an agent selling units in a country club development on the Florida gulf coast would be adversely affectedly by the spill. Additionally, BP's argument that the real estate development arm went out of business before the spill does not support the argument that claimant's losses were not attributable to the spill. Instead, this just further establishes that claimant worked for the real estate sales entity (which was clearly ongoing) during the relevant period. For the foregoing reasons, the award in favor of claimant is affirmed.

136 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $151,440 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount 2.25 $260,000 $194, $260,000 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,a restaurant owner in Baton Rouge,Louisiana,appeals the sufficiency of its BEL award,asserting the Claims Administrator misclassified certain fixed expenses as variable.claimant sought re-review and reconsideration of this issue which was denied.principally claimant argues that management fees and licensing

137 fees are fixed expenses and not variable because claimant was contractually obligated to pay the parent company these fees to operate.secondarily claimant argues that expenses incurred for linen and laundry supplies,paper supplies,restaurant supplies,catering supplies and grease removal should be deemed fixed costs as well.relative to the first issue the record shows that the contracts in question provide that for licensing expenses claimant must pay the greater of $70,000 or 2% of gross sales annually;and for management fees the greater of $140,000 or 4% of gross sales annually.since claimant's revenues exceeded $3.5 million in 2009 and 2010 claimant was required to pay in excess of the minimum threshold amounts.for this reason the Claims Administrator in denying reconsideration stated:"however,as both these items are directly related to monthly revenues they remain classified as variable."while claimant presents persuasive argument to the contrary the record below contains a reasonable basis to support the conclusion of the Claims Administrator on this issue.relative to the remaining secondary issue this panelist concludes these expenses were misclassified as variable and should be treated as fixed in accord with Exhibit 4D of the Settlement Agreement.Because the final proposals of the parties do not conform to the result reached remand to the Claims Administrator to reevaluate the claim is appropriate.this decision in part conflicts with that published on , claim#

138 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $134,575 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount.25 $246, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

139 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a BEL claim asserted by a Mobile, Alabama entity which offers procurement and management services to other businesses. Claimant specializes in lift trucks and rolling stock. The Claims Administrator awarded the Claimant the sum of $241, (pre-0.25 RTP). The Claims Administrator subjected this claim to Policy 495 analysis. That analysis determined that the Claimant s financials were not sufficiently matched and the Claims Administrator matched Claimant s financials through the Annual Variable Margin Methodology (VMM) set forth in Attachment B of Policy 495. BP appeals asserting that the Claims Administrator applied the wrong NAICS Code to Claimant and that Claimant should have received an NAICS Code which would have subjected Claimant to the Professional Services Methodology set forth in Attachment F of Policy 495. Claimant cross-appeals asserting that its financials were sufficiently matched and that the Claims Administrator erred in applying the VMM provided for in Policy 495. Under Policy 495 the assignment of the appropriate NAICS Code is important because that determines which Policy 495 methodology should be applied to the claim. Claimant s income tax returns reveal an NAICS Code of This is a generic category for several related professional services. Claimant s BEL Claim Form uses the same NAICS Code. On that claim form, Claimant describes its business as Administrative Management & Consulting Services. The Occupational/Business License issued to Claimant by the City of Mobile list a different NAICS Code, namely Administrative Management Services. Obviously, the question for this Panelist is which NAICS Code is the one which best describes Claimant s actual business. The NAICS Code provides the following definitions: Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing operating advice and assistance to businesses and other organizations on administrative management issues, such as financial planning and budgeting, equity and asset management, records management, office planning, strategic and organizational

140 planning, site selection, new business startup, and business process improvement. This industry also includes establishments of general management consultants that provide a full range of administrative; human resource; marketing; process, physical distribution, and logistics; or other management consulting services to clients. and Office Administrative Services This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing a range of day-to-day office administrative services, such as financial planning; billing and recordkeeping; personnel; and physical distribution and logistics for others on a contract or fee basis. These establishments do not provide operating staff to carry out the complete operations of a business. A review of the above definitions shows that applies to consultants where applies to management companies. If one looks at the services Claimant provides to its customers, it is a very close call as to which NAICS Code best describes Claimant s actual business. However, the scale is tipped in favor of the because it is in the Code category that Claimant used to describe itself on its tax returns and its Claim Registration Form. Thus, BP s appeal on this issue is sustained. BP s Final Proposal of $134, is the amount BP asserts Claimant would be entitled to if the Claims Administrator had applied the Professional Services Methodology to Claimant s financials. This Panelist cannot verify BP s proposal. The solution is to remand this matter back to the Claims Administrator to apply the Professional Services Methodology. Claimant s cross-appeal is denied because Claimant s financials triggered 3 of the matching tests set forth in Policy 495. This matter is remanded back to the Claims Administrator with instructions to apply the Professional Services Methodology to this claim.

141 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): The Claimant owns 50% of a corporation that owns two fishing vessels and is otherwise engaged in the fishing business. Her husband filed claims with the GCCF, was paid $301, and signed a Release and Covenant Not To Sue. Claimant did not sign the Release. However, the Release clearly states it covers all claims of spouses, heirs, etc. Claimant makes a wild accusation that she is being discriminated against due to her gender and marital status. It is apparent from the record that if she has a complaint here she should take it up with her husband. This claim is a duplication of the claim filed by her husband with the GCCF and the claim cannot be paid twice under the Settlement Agreement. The denial is affirmed.

142 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $22,031 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $30,000 $66,093 0 $30,000 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

143 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: Claimant, a Shrimp Boat Captain, appeals an award made to him in that capacity under the Seafood Compensation Program. He argues that the Claims Administrator committed error in declining to exclude the years 2008 and 2009 from his Benchmark Period, thus improperly reducing his award amount. The record reflects that in 2007, Claimant worked in his normal capacity as the captain of an 85 foot freezer boat on fishing trips which lasted a month or more. In April of 2007, his wife gave birth to a child and he found it necessary to avoid the extensive absences that the trips required in order to support and assist her in the care of his newborn. He sought employment on smaller boats which take shorter trips; however, due to the fact that most of those vessels were owned and operated by members of area families, positions as captain were not available. Consequently, he began working as a deckhand in 2008 and 2009 which gave him the flexibility and time at home that he required. Due to the lack of work on such vessels in Texas, where he and his wife lived, they moved to Louisiana in a further, but unsuccessful, effort to obtain employment as a captain. He continued to work as a deckhand, though. In 2010, when the child was old enough to start daycare and his wife felt comfortable with him leaving for long periods of time, he began working again as a captain in the Texas freezer boat fleet, where he was able to regain the level of income as a captain that he had enjoyed two years earlier. For that reason, he requested that the Claims Administrator exclude the years 2008 and 2009 when calculating his claim. That request, supported by a series of sworn affidavits, was denied. His Re-Review and Reconsideration Requests, similarly supported, were likewise denied. The Shrimp Compensation Plan definitions found in Settlement Agreement Exhibit 10 contain the following pertinent comment: Benchmark Period is selected by the Claimant and can be (i) 2009, (ii) 2008 and 2009, or (iii) 2007, 2008 and If the Claimant elects to use years 2008 and 2009 or 2007, 2008, and 2009, the annual revenue amounts shall be averaged. In the event the Claims Administrator determines that the Claimant (individual or vessel) did not participate at the same level of effort in shrimp harvesting due to circumstances beyond the Claimant s control (such as illness, disability or major mechanical failure), the Claims Administrator may at his discretion allow the Claimant to exclude one or more years of the Benchmark Period. (Emphasis supplied)

144 The Claims Administrator s Approved Policy 261 is entitled Exclusion of a Benchmark Year for Seafood Program Claimants. It states that in any instance in which Exhibit 10 permits a Claimant to request such an exclusion, the Claims Administrator will consider each request on a case by case basis to determine: (1) Whether the circumstances presented justified the Claimant s absence from Seafood Harvesting exclusion for one or more years of the Benchmark Period; and (2) The level of proof required to establish such justification. The Claims Administrator cited this Policy in refusing the request for exclusion without further comment. While it is true that the above-quoted definition cites illness, disability or major mechanical failure as examples of circumstances beyond the Claimant s control, this Panelist is disinclined to accept that they are in any way exclusive. Given the substantially higher income this Claimant earned as a Shrimp Boat Captain during the time he was able to work in 2007 and, thereafter, in 2010 and 2011, this Panelist finds Claimant s explanation to be credible. He had a newborn son; his wife and child needed him and he could not, in good conscience, be absent from them for the extended periods of time required to operate the vessel in question. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Panelist is of the opinion that Claimant has established circumstances beyond his control which justify exclusion of the years in question from his compensation calculation. Utilizing his 2007 annual revenue of $123, as his Benchmark Revenue in calculating recovery as a captain of a freezer vessel in the 75+ foot category results in precisely the final compensation amount proposed by the Claimant. The determination of the Claims Administrator must therefore be overturned and decision entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: September 11, 2011

145 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $213,829 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.50 $90, $258, $90, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a beach equipment rental service in Destin,Florida.BP appeals the BEL award to claimant asserting the Claims Administrator used unreliable data in calculating the award and in failing to investigate whether a related entity contributed to claimant's business revenues.relative to this last assertion BP has withdrawn it based on claimant's response the related entity was a shell company that had no existing business activity and revenues. Relative to the primary issue a review of the record reveals there were inconsistencies observed by

146 the Claims Administrator relating to claimant's P&Ls and tax returns.bp contends that these uncorrected inconsistencies inflated claimant's award by $44,692.Documents provide reasonable explanation for these inconsistencies;and when all financial documents i.e.,tax returns,sales and use tax returns and P&Ls, are considered together the Claims Administrator was able to make a proper and correct determination with regard to this claim.there is no error.the award is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

147 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $57, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.00 $67, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

148 - BP appeals this BEL award to a New Orleans restaurant owner in Zone B. The Claims Administrator awarded $67, pre-rtp but BP contends that there was error in the classification of six expense items. BP chose to brief only three of these items resulting in abandonment of the other asserted errors. The thrust of BP s appeal is that the Settlement Program misclassified consumable goods incurred in connection with the restaurant s food service operation. More specifically, BP contends that these should be variable expenses because they are perishable and/or vary with the level of Claimant s sales. These categories are Linen, FOH Smallwares, and BOH Smallwares. BP argues that items such as linens, glassware, tableware, cooking equipment and related supplies should be classified as variable because they change in relation to the level of Claimant s business. Hence, BP urges that these expenses should be reclassified which would reduce the award by approximately $10,000. Claimant joins issue on BP s arguments, pointing out that Attachment A to Exhibit 4D of the Settlement Agreement clearly defines supplies as a fixed costs. Claimant also argues that items such as restaurant supplies have been found by various appeal panels to be fixed costs under the Settlement Agreement. Claimant analogizes linen and smallwares to paper supplies which, it argues, have been held to be fixed costs. A review of the record, including the accounting vendor s calculation schedules and claim notes, demonstrates that the Claims Administrator specifically investigated the nature of the expenses at issue and concluded that they were properly classified as fixed. In the view of this Panelist, the record supports this conclusion and I find no basis to overturn it. Accordingly, the Claimant s Final Proposal is selected.

149 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $178, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

150 - BP appeals a BEL award of $190, to a survey and mapping company in Fort Meyers, Florida (Zone D). BP s primary complaint is that the Claims Administrator failed to identify and exclude revenue from Claimant s out-of-zone facilities. BP also adds a claim for misclassification of expenses which the Claimant conceded in briefing. In support of its main argument, BP postits that because the Claimant sends field crews to various project sites for surveying and mapping projects, it received revenue attributable to facilities outside the compensable Gulf Coast areas class geography. Hence, BP argues with conviction that the Settlement Program failed to identify and exclude such outside revenue in calculating the award. Accordingly, BP seeks remand. In a pointed and concise reply brief, the pro se Claimant points out that it has only two facilities, both of which are located in Zone D. Each of the survey crews are supervised by personnel located at one of these facilities. Hence, Claimant explains that (1) it operates no facilities outside the economic loss zones, and (2) receives no out-of-zone revenue. This appears to be another case in which BP has drawn incorrect conclusions from the record based upon speculation as opposed to evidence. The record overwhelmingly supports the Claims Administrator s calculation of Claimant s revenue. With regard to the misclassification issue, the Claimant conceded these arguments in its Final Proposal which decreased the compensation amount by a total of $12,072. This results in a net award of $178,285.02, pre-rtp. Claimant s Final Proposal is clearly the correct result, especially in light of BP s Final Proposal of.

151 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $5,000 $10,000 0 $5,000 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. Claim should have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): reasons uploaded to portal

152 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a Seafood Compensation Program claim asserted by a Lithia, Florida resident. It involves Individual Fishing Quota ( IFQ ) shares under the Seafood Framework of the Settlement Agreement. The Claim Administrator awarded Claimant the sum of $ for her claimed fishing quota shares with a Prior Payment offset of $5, Claimant appeals, asserting she is entitled to $3,719, Interestingly, by asserting she in entitled to that amount, Claimant would have to pay a $2, appeal fee. However, Claimant only paid a $ appeal fee. Despite the repeated efforts of the Claims Administrator to secure the $2, filing fee, it was never paid. Accordingly, the Claims Administrator reduced Claimant s Initial and Final Proposals to $10, which is the maximum appeal amount that a $ filing fee allows. The panelist affirms the actions of the Claims Administrator in that regard. BP asserts Claimant is entitled to.00 because Claimant and her husband signed a GCCF release covering the same losses asserted here. Claimant has filed numerous claims all centered around the same nexis, namely the Claimant s IFQ shares under the Seafood Framework. While the record reflects numerous filings by Claimant criticizing the GCCF and the DWH Settlement Program, this pro se Claimant files nothing to address the Claims Administrator s calculation of the involved Eligibility Award. In another claim ( ) filed by Claimant under the Seafood Compensation Vessel Owner Framework, a different appeal panelist held that the GCCF release foreclosed any recovery by the Claimant. This panelist finds the same here; that is the GCCF release bars recovery by the Claimant on the instant claim. Given the $ award here and the prior payment offset, Claimant would recover.00 under either circumstance. Thus, BP s Final Proposal of.00 is the correct result.

153 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $148,000 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $166, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

154 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: In this appeal of a Business Economic Loss award to a St. Petersburg, Florida based pediatric medical clinic, BP asserts generally that the Claims Administrator failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the BEL framework and Policy 495; specifically, that he failed to determine whether Claimant s revenue was attributed to the correct months and failed to address distortions in variable expenses including Supplies ; Supplies-Medical ; and Supplies-Other. In its supporting memorandum, BP claims that sufficiently matched financial data was not utilized when applying the BEL framework. This issue is apparent, it states, with respect to Claimant s reports of revenues and expenses associated with providing flu shots. It noted that Claimant s revenue increases in months where it had a heavy volume of patients receiving flu shots. In those months, it argues, the added expense of buying more flu vaccine should correlate with Claimant s revenues from administering it. However, it contends that Claimant s cash basis profit and loss statements show that its vaccine costs not only diverge from its income but also fluctuate dramatically as a percentage of its revenue. Those patterns, BP says, are a telltale sign of unmatched data. expenses are recorded in one month while related revenue is recorded in another. In conclusion, BP states that one option would be to remand the case with instructions to perform the required matching. Another is to estimate the impact of applying properly matched data. It asserts that when the main variable expenses noted above are allocated in proportion to Claimant s monthly revenue, the award is reduced by approximately $19,000 Pre-Risk Transfer Premium. In that vein, BP submitted an Initial Proposal of $148,000 ($185,000 Post-RTP). Claimant argues, in reply, that the Claims Administrator thoroughly investigated this issue; that he sought and obtained all relevant financial information and discussed it extensively with Claimant s representatives. While Claimant believes that its award is unassailable, it reports that it reached out to BP with an offer to meet in the middle of the two analysis numbers with a negotiated settlement offer of $155,000 and had no response. It therefore reasserts its right to receive the Claims Administrator s award.

155 A careful review of all relevant claim file documents supports the Claimant s position. The Contact Notes report, the Accountant Compensation reports and Current/Last Review report, document a thorough analysis and evaluation. The Policy 495 criteria were not triggered. The error claimed by BP is insupportable and, in any event, de minimis. For the foregoing reasons, the determination of the Claims Administrator must be upheld and decision entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: September 12, 2014

156 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $ BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.50 $20,100 $11, $20,100 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a Zone A IEL Boat Captain and employee of who has received a $20, prior payment, which when offset, reduces his claim to -0- compensation. The Claimant and BP both questioned how the award was calculated. This Panelist requested and received a summary of review from the Administrator. A reading of the review satisfies this Panelist that the Administrator selected the appropriate Benchmark and Compensation periods. The problem came about due to gaps in the Claimants' earnings from

157 several different employers. The Administrator selected the optimal periods to result in the best possible award for the Claimant. The award is affirmed.

158 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,a resident of Lithia,Florida,appeals the denial of her Seafood Compensation Program claim as excluded by the Settlement Agreement because of a GCCF release executed by her husband relating to the same vessel and its activities.claimant filed multiple Seafood Compensation claims on several fishing vessels she co-owns with her husband.this claim covers one of those vessels.she contends her claim was wrongfully denied because she did not sign a release and because of discrimination based on her gender and marital status.the record is undisputed that her husband earlier presented a similar claim to GCCF,executed a release to settle the claim and was compensated.even though claimant did not sign the release and covenant not to sue its plain language makes clear that it also covers related claims of spouses and heirs.the Claims Administrator properly invoked the provisions of Section of the Settlement Agreement to exclude and deny this claim.two other panel decisions in claim# published on and in claim # published on have reached a similar conclusion.the appeal of claimant is denied.

159 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal.

160 : The Settlement Program denied this Individual Economic Loss ( IEL ) claim, because Claimant, the owner of., submitted a Business Economic Loss ( BEL ) claim for his business in addition to this Individual Economic Loss claim. The basis for the finding was Claimant, the owner, cannot recover employment losses from employment at a business for which he has submitted an Economic Loss Claim. Claims Administrator Policy 363 interprets the Settlement Agreement, and explains: The accounting methodology used for calculation of Business Economic Loss claims, pursuant to Exhibit 4C of the Settlement Agreement, treats owner/officer payroll costs as a fixed cost. All fixed costs, including owner/officer compensation, are inherently included in the compensation amount calculated under the Business Economic Loss framework. If the business has filed a Business Economic Loss claim and any Owner or Officer of the business has filed any Individual Economic Loss claims, and the Claims Administrator has identified the connection among the claims before any claimant is awarded a payment, the Claims Administrator will compensate the business entity for the loss and will deny the claims of the Owners and Officers. Accordingly, Claims Administrator Policy 363 unambiguously excludes owners and officers of businesses that are compensated under the BEL Framework from recovery under the IEL Framework. All fixed costs, including owner/officer compensation, are inherently included in the compensation amount calculated under the Business Economic Loss framework. Under this presumption, Claimant s alleged loss was already accounted for by the award his business received. The Settlement Program s denial of this claim was proper, and its decision should be affirmed.

161 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a musical entertainment company located in New Orleans,Louisiana,and headed by jazzz musician.it appeals the denial of its BEL claim based on a determination by the Claims Administrator claimant failed to satisfy the causation requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant contends it is a zone B enterprise warranting a tourism designation with presumptive causation.the Settlement Program thrice considered this argument and rejected it adhering to its original conclusion a non-tourism designation was appropriate. Claimant does not dispute the finding it does not satisfy the causation requirements of the Settlementt Agreement.The record discloses that claimant on its tax returns used the NAICS code whichh is non-existent.the Claims Administrator assigned claimant a NAICS code (promoters of Performing Arts...) neither of which is included in the Settlementt Agreement's list of businesses thatt meet the "tourism" definition.the record is devoid of evidencee that claimant's business activities are directed "to persons traveling to,or staying in,places outside of their home community" or "to attracting" such persons to do same.incidental involvement in the tourism trade is insufficient to warrant a tourism designation.presumptive causation should not be premised on presumption.there is no error.the appeal of claimant is denied.

162 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $105,230 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.25 $204, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is a BEL claim. The Claimant owns the in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Claims Administrator awarded Claimant $130,457. Claimant appealed with a Final Proposal of $$204,154. BP crossappealed with a Final Proposal of $105,230. The single issue in Claimant's appeal is that the Step 1 Compensation Amount can never be negative and therefore should have been treated as "0." The Settlement Program determined Claimant's Step 1 Compensation to be a negative $2, Claimant's novel argument is

163 that using a negative Step 1 Compensation Amount would mean taking money away from claimants and awarding BP., i.e. that this would be requiring Claimant in this case to pay BP. The Settlement Agreement does not say that Step 1 Compensation cannot be negative, and following the same logic used by the Claimant the argument can be made that treating a negative as "0" would require BP to pay for loses the Claimant did not incur. On its cross-appeal BP contends that "significant discrepancies exist between Claimant's P&Ls and it sales and use tax records" amounting to $25,228. Claimant counters that the "discrepancies" are "de minimis" ranging from less that 1% to 3.4% in the months at issue. It matters not whether the discrepancies are "significant" or "de minimis" under the circumstances of this case. Under the "baseball" process BP's Final Proposal is closer to the mark whoever is right or wrong on this issue. Therefore, BP's Final Proposal is adopted.

164 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $72,399 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $77, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

165 The Settlement Program awarded this Bay St. Louis, Mississippi physician s office the sum of $77,289 (pre- RTP). BP alleges two errors: 1) the Settlement Program applied the improper RTP; and 2) the Settlement Program misclassified an aspect of owner compensation. BP is correct that Highway 90 is not a limited-access highway with exit ramps and frontage roads in the area in question. Claimant s office is located north of Highway 90, as Claimant concedes. Claimant does not meet any of the exceptions in Exhibit 1-C of the Settlement Agreement. Claimant s physical address is in Zone C, and per Exhibit 15 of the Settlement Agreement, the correct RTP is.25 for this Claimant. As to the expense issue, the amount in dispute is $4, This issue is moot, as BP s Final Proposal ($90,499 post-rtp) is the correct result regardless of how it might be decided, given Claimant s Final Proposal ($193,223 post-rtp).

166 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $91,512 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $118, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of claimant. BP notes that, after a 495 analysis, the August leased employee expense was reallocated to the months of January through August. Without any sufficient explanation, BP contends this resulted in an overstatement of claimant's leased employee expenses for those months. This unsubstantiated argument is without merit. Accordingly, the award in accord with claimant's final proposal is affirmed.

167 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Failed Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This is yet another unfortunate pro se claimant who read news stories and filed a claim because he felt "affected" by the spill. The Claimant is a Zone D auto sales Failed BEL claim. The Settlement Agreement's failed business framework for a ZONE D business requires that business to meet the definition of either a Tourism related business or Seafood Distribution Chain. Clearly, an automobile dealer cannot satisfy those requirements. See, Exhibit 6. The decision of the Administrator is affirmed.

168 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $83, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $83, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of claimant BP objects to the tourism designation provided to this business. This case is the closest of calls. BP suggests that a movie theater caters to locals and not to persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. The claimant contends it is akin to a full-service restaurant since the establishment provides extensive food service, as well as alcohol, serviced by waiters who take patrons' orders and deliver their selections to them in the theater. While this is a good

169 argument, it is not dispositive. Surely, some individuals go to watch movies without ordering any food or beverage. Consequently, it is a stretch to say this is an "establishment primarily engaged in providing food service to patrons." (See Exhibit 2 of Settlement Agreement) It is primarily a movie theater which also provides food and alcohol. More germane in this case is the mix of claimant's patrons. BP makes a compelling point that claimant's revenues do not coincide with peaks and valleys in the tourist season as much as the highs and lows of the overall movie business nationally. Nevertheless, the ultimate deciding factor in this case is claimant's location. Since the theater is located right by the beach in a Florida tourist town and since the facility is surrounded by beach condos and other tourist accommodations, it is logical to argue that a large portion of this theater's business comes from tourists. While BP correctly points out that Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement does not reference location, the site of a business is critical. It gives the issue context. A company situated on the beach in Florida may be a tourist business whereas the same type of business several hundred miles from the coast in a non-tourist town may not be. For the foregoing reasons, the award in favor of claimant's final proposal is affirmed.

170 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $42,031 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $62, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

171 - BP appeals this BEL award of $62, pre-rtp to a dermatology practice and research center in St. Charles, Louisiana. The thrust of BP s appeal is that the Claims Administrator failed to comply with the court-mandated matching requirement embodied in Policy 495. BP s argument is that the Claimant often receives payments for services (mostly insurance) several months after the services are performed. Because the Claimant s P&Ls demonstrate revenue spikes in some months in 2009, BP asserts that the Claims Administrator failed, as a threshold matter, to restate Claimant s revenue and expenses. BP concludes that at least some of Claimant s revenues were not properly matched with expenses because it was recorded in the wrong month under the cash basis of accounting. In response, Claimant argues that the mere fact that it utilizes the cash basis of accounting does not alone trigger application of any part of Policy 495. Claimant argues that the Settlement Program properly followed Policy 495 and that its P&Ls for do not demonstrate a mismatch of revenue and variable expenses. This panelist has reviewed the P&Ls and the summary of their analysis in the Accountant s Compensation Calculation Schedules. As BP points out, there are revenue spikes in four months in 2008 and However, there are at least as many, if not more, dips or declines depicted in the same time frame. BP s argument seems to be that the Claims Administrator is required to preidentify claims in which the submitted financials are not properly matched and restate them prior to applying the seven criteria that are the hallmark of Policy 495. However, the methodology set out in Policy 495 is to the contrary. In order to identify unmatched claims, the Settlement Program only attempts to identify errors which are defined as accounting transactions that were inappropriately

172 recorded in the Claimant s P&Ls such as duplicate entries, oversights, calculation errors, etc. Then, the Settlement Program applies the restated P&Ls to the seven step criteria for further matching analysis. If one or more of these criteria are triggered, the Claims Administrator s accounting vendors will adjust the financials as set forth in Paragraph II of Policy 495. However, if none of the seven criteria are triggered, the accounting records shall be presumed to be sufficiently matched. A close review of the record demonstrates that the accounting vendor appropriately subjected Claimant s P&Ls to the filter of Policy 495. In the process, none of the seven threshold criteria were triggered. Neither the Fifth Circuit nor the District Court has required exact matching in BEL claims. The purpose of Policy 495 was to insure sufficient matching of revenue and variable expenses to comply with the Settlement Agreement as interpreted by the courts. Accordingly, BP s appeal is denied and the award is affirmed.

173 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

174 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a BEL claim filed by a Cape Coral, Florida realtor. The Claims Administrator denied the claim and Claimant appeals. Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement provides four avenues for a claimant to demonstrate its eligibility under the BEL Framework: 1) the V-shaped revenue pattern; 2) the modified V-shaped revenue pattern; 3) the decline-only revenue pattern; and, 4) spill-related cancellations. Claimant concedes she does not satisfy 1, 2 or 4 above. The basis of her appeal is that she does satisfy the Decline-Only Revenue Pattern. To meet the Decline-Only Causation Test, a claimant must do three things: A) Demonstrate a decline in percentage of revenue over three consecutive post-spill months in 2010 compared to the same months in the Benchmark Period. B) Provide specific documentation that identifies factors outside the control of the claimant that prevented recovery of revenues in C) Meet the Customer Mix Test Analysis. The Claims Administrator issued Policy 474 to deal with Part B above. The Policy acknowledges that the Settlement Agreement lists examples of factors outside the control of the claimant, such as: ) The entry of a competitor in 2011 ) Bankruptcy of a significant customer in 2011 ) Nearby road closures affecting the business ) Unanticipated interruption resulting in closure of the business ) Products/Service replacement by Customers ) Loss of financing and/or reasonable terms of renewal. (Settlement Agreement Section II.C. of Exhibit 4B) The Claims Administrator takes the position in the Policy that the use of the term such as means the six examples listed above are not exclusive. The Policy provides that Claimants may demonstrate other factors outside their control that prevented their recovery in 2011.

175 However, the Policy (and the Settlement Agreement) provide that to satisfy the second prong of the Decline-Only Causation Test, the claimant must submit objective, third-party documentation that identifies the factors outside of the control of the claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in Policy 474 further provides: A document prepared by the claimant, the claimant s accountant or the claimant s attorney is not sufficient on its own to satisfy this requirement... In the instant appeal, Claimant submitted a letter written by her which states that the illness of a family member in 2011 resulted in her being unable to replace revenue in While this may be true, Claimant s letter does not meet the specific documentation requirements of the Settlement Agreement nor the provision of Policy 474. Further, the documents created by Claimant, her accountant or her attorney do not meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement for the Customer Mix Test Analysis. Unfortunately, Policy 474 also provides: C. Failure to Provide Documentation Identifying Factors Outside the Control of the Claimant. The Claims Administrator takes the position that if a claimant has passed the Revenue Pattern portion of the Decline-Only Causation Test (i.e., the first prong) but has not provided specific documentation that identifies factors outside the control of the claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011 (i.e., the second prong), and has not established Causation using any other mechanism set forth in Exhibit 4B, then the outcome of the review shall result in a Denial Notice for failure to establish Causation. The Settlement Program will not issue an Incompleteness Notice for specific documentation identifying factors outside the control of the claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in So, in this case, the Claimant did not provide the sufficient documentation and records required of Decline-Only Revenue Claimants but was not issued an Incompleteness Notice and was not specifically told that was the basis for the denial. Instead, the Denial Notice utilized was the generic BEL-D-01. Then, after this appeal was assigned to this Panelist, Claimant s counsel files a memorandum advising that Claimant s first notice of the

176 particular reason for the denial was BP s memorandum which Claimant s counsel had received the day before. This Panelist agrees with Policy 474 except for Section C quoted above. Section of the Settlement Agreement provides: The Settlement Program, including the Claims Administrator and Claims Administration Vendors, shall work with Economic Class Members (including individual Economic Class Members counsel and Class Counsel) to facilitate Economic Class Members assembly and submission of Claims Forms, including all supporting documentation necessary to process Claim Forms under the applicable Claims Processes. The Settlement Program, including the Claims Administrator and Claims Administration Vendors, shall use its best efforts to provide Economic Class Members with assistance, information, opportunities and notice so that the Economic Class Member has the best opportunity to be determined eligible for and receive the Settlement Payment(s) to which the Economic Class Member is entitled under the terms of the Agreement. Therefore, in the spirit of Section , this matter is remanded to the Claims Administrator to provide an opportunity to Claimant to produce the specified documents to satisfy the Decline-Only Causation Test, if she can.

177 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $7,063 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.00 $33, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a Japanese restaurant located in Tampa, Florida. BP appeals based on its conclusion that the Administrator failed to properly analyze the payroll/officer compensation expenses. BP asserts that specific mismatches of revenue/expenses be addressed "before" applying the Policy 495 indicia. This demand is not the requirement of the policy or the court decisions leading to it. Policy 495 requires the Administrator to

178 "sufficiently" match revenues to expenses and that unmatched claims will be adjusted to reach "realistic" measurements of the economic loss. A review of the accountant notes and correspondence from the Claimant reveals the Administrator performed its analysis according to the policy requirements. Additionally, the Claimant reduced its claim to accommodate some of BP's accounting issues. The process worked in this claim and the Claimant's final proposal is affirmed.

179 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Real Property Sales Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $37, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. Claim should have been denied.

180 No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this Real Property Sales award in favor of claimant BP argues that filed a claim with the GCCF, recieved a payment and executed a release. Claimant contends that the GCCF action was filed as a business claim under her husband's SSN. Nevertheless, the GCCF claim was filed by who were the owners of the condo at issue. A payment was made to, and signed the release (as the authorized business representative of claimant). It does not matter that the parties in the GCCF action called it a business claim. co-owned the condo. The claim was filed under her name and her husband's name. The payment was made to her and her husband. To permit to recover again would put form over substance and allow for a double recovery. An individual who files a GCCF claim, receives a payment on that claim and executes a release is prohibited from recovering under the settlement program,except for exceptions not applicable here. A claimant cannot avoid the dictates of this policy because they chose a certain classification on the previous claim. In this instance, the party that filed the GCCF claim, received payment and signed the release is not a different juridical entity from the party seeking compensation in the immediate case. This claim should have been denied. Accordingly, there is a finding herein in favor of BP's final proposal.

181 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $73, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of an arts non-profit entity. BP's objection is based on the fact that the CA included grants and in kind donations in its calculation of income. Nevertheless, BP acknowledges that the District Court's prior order affirms the claims administrator's policy that non-profit grants are typically revenue for purposes of the Settlement Agreement. BP makes a strained argument that the grant at issue was not typical so it should not be covered by the court's ruling. Even though there is no evidence this

182 grant was not typical, the court's order does not say that the grant has to be typical. The ruling says that grants are typically treated as income. This attempt to twist the pertinent language does not give BP the basis of a valid appeal. Likewise, the CA has also adopted the policy that contributions are to be treated as income. The argument about the in-kind contributions is without merit as well. Moreover, even if BP was correct on both points, claimant's final proposal would be much closer to the number than BP's final proposal of 0. For all the foregoing reasons, the award in favor of claimant's final proposal is affirmed.

183 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $(539.18) BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.50 $2, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): reasons uploaded

184 CLAIMANT: : This is an IEL claim brought by a Dauphin Island, Alabama resident. This is an appeal by Claimant. The record in this claim proves the old axiom, Quit while you re ahead! The Claimant provided the Claims Administrator with financial records and documents which resulted in an Eligibility Notice issued on July 2, The compensation amount was $ (pre RTP). Unsatisfied, the Claimant provided more records and requested reconsideration. On September 20, 2013 the Claims Administrator issued a Post-Re-Review Eligibility Notice in the sum of $1, (pre RTP). Undeterred, Claimant filed another Request for Reconsideration form and eventually provided the Claims Administrator with more financial documents. After reviewing the claim this time, the Claims Administrator issued a Post-Reconsideration Eligibility Notice on June 18, 2014 with a compensation amount of negative $ Utilizing Compensation/Benchmark periods most favorable to Claimant, it was determined that Claimant s actual earnings exceeded Claimant s expected earnings. My review of the record convinces me that the final determination by the Claims Administrator was correct. Further, Claimant did not provide the required documentation to be re-imbursed for job search costs. Accordingly, BP s Final Proposal of ($539.18) is the correct result.

185 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $158,425 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $158, $199, $158, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $199,060.09, pre-rtp. BP appeals the Compensation Amount as the parties agree on the appropriate RTP and Payment Offset. The controversy, and this appeal, flows from the Settlement Program s classification of Paidouts-Cash Paidouts as a fixed expense. BP correctly notes that Paidouts-Cash Paidouts include some

186 components that are variable rather than fixed, such as cost of goods sold and consumables and, thus, are improperly placed in a category that is a fixed expense. To resolve the issue, we must first ascertain whether the Settlement Program correctly categorized the expenses as Paidouts-Cash Paidouts. There is little question that the Settlement Program correctly categorized these expenses as such. BP would have the Settlement Program first allocate the expenses between variable and fixed and then presumably have the fixed expenses go into Paidouts-Cash Paidouts and the variable somewhere else. This reverses the methodology, however. The Settlement Program correctly categorizes the nature of expense first and then applies the Settlement Agreement to determine whether the expense is fixed or variable. BP s real issue is with the Settlement Agreement s treatment of all Paidouts-Cash Paidouts is fixed when, as here, some may be variable. The Settlement Agreement controls, however. The Settlement Program correctly followed the Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 4D, attachment A. This is a baseball appeal where the Final Proposal closest to the correct award must be chosen. Final Proposal is closest.

187 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $29, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $16,599 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award of $32,088.76,pre-RTP,to claimant,a real estate management company in Mobile,Alabama.BP asserts that while the Claims Administrator properly recognized there were matching issues that invoked application of Policy 495 decreed by recent court decisions,he improperly applied the industry appropriate methodology,i.e.,annual variable margin(amv) instead of professional services methodology.if this revision were made BP argues claimant's pre-rtp award would be $29, BP further asserts there was a

188 prior GCCF payment to claimant that should be offset against this award.the gravamen of BP's complaint is the bulk of claimant's revenues(sales commissions)"were not earned entirely during the isolated months where revenue was recorded,but instead was a product of months of efforts to complete the sale...".bp further posits the AMV methodology is "not designed to address problems with the timing of revenues."bp offers no hard data to substantiate its argument but only supposition.in fact BP concedes the NAICS code for claimant does not fit that for professional services methodology.policy 495 at page 3,paragraph 6,states in part"...for the majority of claimants,sufficient matching of revenues and expenses will best accomplished through an annual variable methodology which totals variable expenses for each Fiscal Year and allocates them to each month on a prorata basis of monthly revenues for the same period,"this approach adequately addresses BP's compaint.finally, there is no offset of $16,599 applicable. Payment was made on January 12,2011,to an individual employee of claimant for $16,599.Subsequently on May 17,2011,claimant,a corporate entity,filed a separate GCCF quick payment demand for $25,000,action on which was not taken.there is no error.the appeal of BP is denied.

189 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $33, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $33,006.48, pre-rtp. BP appeals. BP claims that the Settlement Program erred in its award because (1) did not record revenue in the months he performs dentistry services and (2) does not match variable expenses properly. See BP s Initial Proposal at 1. BP concludes that Policy 495 requires either an award of 0 or a remand.

190 counters that Policy 495 matching is triggered if any of the factors listed in Policy 495 require it. A careful review of the record supports assertion that none of the aforementioned factors trigger further Policy 495 scrutiny in this case. Hence, the Settlement Program s decision in this claim is entirely consistent with Policy 495. I agree. This is a baseball appeal. BP submitted a Final Proposal of. submitted a Final Proposal of 33, proposal is closest to being correct and is therefore chosen.

191 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $32,250.77, pre-rtp. BP appeals. BP argues one central point on appeal, that The Settlement Program erred in its application of Policy 495. Policy 495 was adopted to address the rulings of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2013) and of the trial court in In re Deepwater Horizon, MDL 2179,

192 Rec. Doc (E.D. La. 2013). BP seeks to impose a level of scrutiny of claims that is not required, in this specific matter, under Policy 495. The Claim Administrator subjected claim to a seven point matching test. passed it. See Final Proposal and the test results themselves at 11. Having passed the test, argues that the revenues are deemed sufficiently matched and no further scrutiny is required under Policy 495. I agree. This is a baseball appeal. BP s Final Proposal is. Final Proposal is $32, Final Proposal is correct.

193 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $27, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals a BEL award to Claimant, asserting that the Administrator misapplied Policy 495 by failing to reallocate to 2008 a bad debt of $101,523, which its accountant acknowledged was attributable to invoices which "in many cases" were over 15 months old. BP claims that $85, 506 of said debt pertained to 2008 invoices and that therefore to comply with the matching requirements of Policy 495, either the claim must be remanded for reallocation of debts back to 2008 or else the Compensation amount should be reduced by $4191

194 pre-rtp to account for said reallocation. Claimant responds that the CSSP Accounting vendors did in fact reallocate the debt over the entire year of 2009, and that customary accounting procedures for the accounting method used by Claimant would militate against reallocating back to 2008, since a reasonable time must be given for invoices issued in 2008 to be deemed uncollectible. This panelist has examined de novo the accounting records in this case, recognizing that the CSSP Accounting Vendors used their best professional judgment in first finding no errors in the submissions and then applying the seven criteria of Policy 495 to find an insufficient matching. Thereafter, the Vendors' use of the Annual Average Margin method and their allocation of the existing bad debt was more than reasonable under the circumstances. As such, the final proposal of Claimant must be chosen in this case.

195 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

196 DWH: Primary Basis for Panelist Decision: No error Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a claimant appeal from the denial of an Oyster Boat Captain claim under the Seafood Compensation Program. The claim was denied by the Claims Administrator upon a finding that the losses claimed were duplicative of losses already compensated by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility. Although represented by counsel, neither an Initial nor Final Proposal memorandum was submitted on behalf of the Claimant. The Notice of Claimant Appeal of Denied Claim contains this brief Claimant comment: DHECC claims that her claim has been satisfied by paying her husband but she has not released anything or authorized her husband to receive any of her money. In response, BP echoes the findings of the Claims Administrator in his Reconsideration Analysis and asserts that his denial of this claim should be upheld. The record reflects that at all pertinent times, Claimant was the owner and operator of a vessel which she and her husband used for the purpose of harvesting oysters. All landings at seafood processors were officially recorded in her husband s name and on his license. Claimant submitted signed, preprinted statements executed by a majority of those purchasers that she was both a Boat Captain and the Vessel Owner; however, those statements, in the view of the Claims Administrator, did not provide evidence necessary to verify that the landings recorded under her husband s name and license should be attributed to hers, instead. Claimant argued, in correspondence to the Claims Administrator, that while all the catch tickets were in his name, she received cash from him which she declared on Schedule C of her federal income tax returns. Claimant s husband filed a claim for this oyster revenue with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, received a final GCCF payment at which time both he and Claimant executed the broad, standard form GCCF Release. Upon finding that Claimant provided no new, separate source of revenue that had not already been compensated by the GCCF, the Claims Administrator concluded that compensating her for her Boat Captain claim would result in a double payment. The Claims Administrator s Approved Policy 276 v. 1 states, in part, that a Claimant s spouse who signed a GCCF Release is not barred from pursuing his or her own claims, independent of his or her spouse s claims. Settlement Agreement Exhibit 10 contains the Seafood Compensation Program. The Oyster Compensation Plan provides that a Vessel Owner may also recover as an Oyster Boat Captain upon providing: Proof that Claimant landed oysters in the Gulf Coast Areas in 2009 or This can be demonstrated using trip tickets (or equivalent documents such as dealer forms) or federal or state tax returns. Paragraph 9.B

197 While it might be argued that the statements executed by the various seafood processors satisfy that requirement, it is clear that Claimant s husband submitted the same landings in support of his GCCF claim. As previously noted, the husband received a payment and both he and Claimant signed the release. After due consideration, this Panelist has concluded that the determination of the Claims Administrator was correct and that decision must be entered herein upholding denial of this claim. Decision: September 22, 2014

198 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $ $23, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): The Claimant owns a percentage of oyster leases with other family members. Fishermen harvest the leases andd pay the owners, including the Claimant. So far, so good. However, Claimantt submitted only two checks reflecting direct payments to her. Instead, she submits paymentt records from family members and argues she should receive the same award. Therein is the rub. The Settlement Agreement at Exhibit 10 requires proof of lost oyster reef revenue loss "by the Claimant". The Claimant only submits that other proof of specific payments made to her weree unavailable. The award made by the Administrator is affirmed.

199

200 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $66, $81, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a boat membership club with 69 locations nationwide. This claim relates to its facility in Perdido Key, Florida. The Settlement Program awarded Claimant $81,940 with a 2.5 RTP tourism designation. BP alleges that the Settlement Program erred by (1) designating Claimant as a tourism business, and (2) misclassifying "Boat Supplies" as fixed. The Settlement Agreement defines "tourism" as " businesses which provide services such as attracting,

201 transporting, accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community," and provides a list of NAICS codes that describe businesses that are generally covered by the tourism definition. On its original BEL Claim Form Claimant indicated that its NAICS code is (Marina), which is not on that list. But Policy 289, relating to the definition of tourism, provides that thee list of codes is illustrative, not exhaustive, and if the most appropriate NAICS code for the claimant is one of thee codes listed in Exhibit 2, the claimant will be considered to fall within the Tourism definition. Characterization off a claimant's business as Tourism is based on the totality of circumstances. Here 71% of Claimant's customers at a the Perdido Key location are tourist. The vast majority of the members have a designated club which is not near their actual residence or home. Claimant has 69 locations nationwide all of which are located in areas where the economies are primarily supported by tourism. Claimant is not a "marina." Claimant does not engage in operating docking and/or storage facilities for pleasure craft owners. Claimant actually rents from marinas. I also find that "Boat Supplies" expense was properly classified ass "Fixed." I uphold the findings of the Claims Administrator and adopt Claimant's Final Proposal.

202 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $26, $149, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

203 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a BP appeal of a Business Economic Loss award to a non-profit organization in which is dedicated to assisting in the development of small businesses owned by minorities and women. It solicits grants and contributions which pay for programs and provision of services intended to help them improve their skills and become active participants in the local economy. BP states, in the Notice of Appeal, that the Claims Administrator misapplied the BEL framework by (1) including certain revenue items that should not have been included in the calculation; and (2) erred in its treatment of certain expenses. BP also claims, without substantiation, that Claimant does not appear to be a Class Member. Since BP chose, in its Initial and Final Proposal memoranda, to brief error assignment (1), only, the remainder will be considered abandoned. BP takes aim at Claimant s Revenue-Capital Campaign account which, according to the record, is composed of grant money and contributions dedicated for the purpose of purchasing a building for the incubation of minority businesses. It argues that a capital campaign is not, by its very nature, a revenue stream ; that it was a unique, non-recurring event for a specific purpose. Such donations, it asserts, are not typical and are not revenue and therefore do not fall within the ambit of the Claims Administrator s Approved Policy 307. In response, Claimant cites the following portion of that policy: (a) Income received by non-profit entities in the form of grant monies or contributions shall typically be treated as revenue for that entity for purposes of the various required calculations under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. That policy, dated December 12, 2012, documents a Ruling of the Court handed down by Judge Barbier that same date. In a subsequent Order dated April 9, 2013, Judge Barbier instructed Appeal Panelists to follow and be bound by the referenced ruling and policy. The grant at issue here is clearly covered. For the foregoing reasons, this BP appeal cannot be sustained and decision must be entered herein upholding the determination of the Claims Administrator. Decision: September 22, 2014

204 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $86, $135, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This is an appeal by BP of an award to Claimant who is a plastic surgery center located in Florida. Claimant keeps its books on a cash basis which records revenue upon receipt which may be for services performed months before. BP alleges the Settlementt Program failed to assign revenue to the months of earningg activity. This is the "matching" issue-putting the income and expenses in the right month. BP also contends that the Settlement Program violated Policy 495 by improperly applying the Annual Variable ("AVM") methodology

205 instead of the Professional Services methodology. Contrary to BP's contention, under Policy 495 Claimant's P&Ls are not determined to be unmatched until and unless the data meets one off the threshold criteria. Only then is the matching inquiry undertaken. Here Claimant met 3 of the 7 criteria and were subsequently determined to be b unmatched. The claim was then processed under the AVM methodology. Policy 495 provides that claimant's P&Ls be "sufficiently" matched as directed by the Fifth Circuit. NAICS codes assigned to the Professional Services methodology do not include medical practices.in the Settlement Program's professional opinion the AVM methodology was the proper methodology under Policy 495, and I agree. As to the "Miscellaneous Income" issue, BP assumess and speculates that the Settlementt Program failed to review this item and that the item was unrelated to Claimant's core businesss practice. However, the record reflects the the Settlement Program reviewed the issue, at least,, three times. Furthermore, the record reflects that this would only make a negligible difference in the award value. However, Claimant graciously conceded inn its Final Proposal a reduction which appears to be more than thee value of ncluding this item in the calculation of o the claim. Claimant prevails.

206 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $70, $86, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of BP contends that Policy 495 was not properly applied which resulted in claimant's revenues and expenses not being sufficiently matched. The argument is made that the claimant's cash accounting did not address certainn spikes in income that were not properly tied to t expenses and the Claims Administrator did not follow proper procedure to correct thesee anomalies.

207 Despite these contentions, there was no error in this case in the application of Policy 495. Once the submittedd P and Ls have been analyzed for any errors, the Claims Administrator is to assess whether the claim fits one of 7 enumerated circumstancess in rule 495. In this case, none of the 7 issues were triggered. Accordingly, this claim, even though based on a cash method of accounting, is presumed to be sufficiently matched. A claimant's financials should be subject to further review only if one of the 7 circumstances apply. There is an additional provision in 495 which allows for the CSSP to perform further matching analysis, if the Claims Administrator believes there is sufficient indicia of non-matching. This assessment did not occur in the immediate case. Additionally, BP complained about distortions in expenses relating to supplements costs and medical supplies. However, the CA requested and received adequate information on these items. Based on the foregoing, BP's appeal is denied and the award inn favor of the claimant is affirmed.

208 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $185, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award to an MRI diagnostic imaging center, generally asserting that the Administrator's staff violated Policy 495 and prior decisions of the 5th Circuit and orders of the District Court by failing to determine whether Claimant's revenue was matched with the correct months. In this regard, they point to the fact that Claimant is on a cash accounting basis, with typical insurer payments lagging 30 to 60 days from time service is performed. BP further argues that such allegedly incorrect matching may cause Claimant to fail the

209 causation tests of Exhibit 4B's V-test because Claimant met that test for only a three-month period, and then by only two percentage points. This panelist has closely reviewed this record, including the various Compilation Schedules by the accountants. This record shows an exemplary job of application of the Annual Variable Margin methodology that was called for under policy 495 when it was determined that there was insufficient matching under the prescribed criteria. BP's argument is speculative at best, especially concerning the potential for outright ineligibility under the V-test for causation. Especially in light of BP's final proposal of in this baseball process, the proposal of Claimant must be chosen.

210 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $132, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant provides hospice services and is located in Mississippi. This is another appeal by BP of a BEL claim involving a healthcare provider where the issues are matching (putting the income and expenses in the right months) and utilizing the proper methodology (AVM vs. Professional Services) pursuant to Policy 495. This appeal is very similar to Claim # recently decided in Claimant's favor by this panelist, and Claim # recently decided in Claimant's favor by a fellow panelist. For the relevant reasons set forth in those decisions, the award by the Claims Administrator is affirmed and Claimant's Final Proposal is adopted.

211 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $75, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $75, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

212 : Claimant is a boat membership club located in Louisiana (Zone C). The Settlement Program awarded Claimant $75,504 pre-rtp ($226,512 post-rtp). BP asserts that in generating the award, the Settlement Program erred by designating Claimant as a tourism business. The Settlement Agreement defines tourism in Exhibit 2 as businesses which provide services such as attracting, transporting, accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. Settlement Agreement, Ex. 2, at 1. In addition, Exhibit 2 provides a list of specific NAICS codes that describe businesses that generally are covered by the tourism definition. Id. BP argues that while not dispositive, the fact that a particular business industry code is not listed in Exhibit 2 is persuasive evidence that the business is not a tourism business as defined in the Settlement Agreement. BP s position is that Claimant is a membership-only boat club. On its original Business Economic Loss Claim Form, Claimant indicated that its NAICS code is (Marina). That NAICS code is not listed in Exhibit 2 and thus does not qualify Claimant as a tourism business. BP goes on to characterize Claimant as not the type of business that caters primarily to tourists, and that more accurately, Claimant is a membership-only boat club that offers its members access to boats as an alternative to boat ownership; and Claimant does not rent boats to non-members. As such, BP argues, Claimant s business model is designed to cater primarily to local residents who have a recurring need to access boats at the club. However, a thorough examination of the record reveals a different picture. The Settlement Program determined that Claimant s initial NAICS code submission was inaccurate. Based upon the Settlement Program s analysis, the NAICS code was changed to NAICS Code (All Other Amusement and Recreation). This was deemed to be more appropriate as Claimant did not operate docking and /or storage facilities for pleasure craft owners, which are activities central to the Marina classification. Actually, Claimant is a lessee, not a lessor, of such facilities. Furthermore, Claimant presented persuasive evidence that over 68% of the club s users were from out of the area; apparently tourists. In this case, Claimant fully complied with requests for information and documentation by the Settlement Administrator. After reviewing the NAICS Code listed on the 2010 tax return as well as other information and documentation, the Settlement Administrator determined that Claimant s proper NAICS Code was , All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries, which states:

213 This industry comprises of primarily engaged in providing recreational and amusement services.(including boating clubs without marinas). CAO Final Policy 289 v.2 specifically grants the Claims Administrator the discretion to determine whether the claimant s business meets the Settlement Agreement s definition of Tourism. CAO Final Policy 289 documents that the Claims Administrator has established a special team to assess Tourism issues on a caseby-case basis; and further, that characterization of the claimant s business shall be based upon the totality of circumstances. That is what was done in this case. The Claims Administrator was correct in its determinations in this matter, both as to correcting Claimant s NAICS Code, as well as determining factually that Claimant was appropriately classified as a tourism business on the merits. The finding of the Claims Administrator is squarely within the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement, as interpreted by CAO Final Policy 289. The award is upheld, the Claimant s Final Proposal adopting the award is approved, and the appeal is denied.

214

215

216 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $242, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

217 - On this BEL claim, a Zone D crop dusting service was awarded $242, The basis of BP s single issue appeal is that the Claims Administrator should have applied the Agriculture Methodology rather than the Annual Variable Margin method in its restatement of Claimant s P&Ls. Because it uses the NAICS Code (Crop Dusting, Crop Spraying), BP argues that application of the Agriculture Methodology was mandated by the provisions of Attachment D of Policy 495. The Claimant responds that its financials did not trigger any of the criteria listed in Policy 495. Therefore, no matching restatement was required. As to this argument, the record reflects that the Claimant is incorrect. In fact, four of the seven criteria were triggered when Claimant s financials were subjected to the required analysis. However, this is not to say that BP s position is correct. Footnote 7 of Attachment A provides: A Claimant with a given NAICS Code will not automatically be assigned to a given methodology by virtue of the NAICS Code if, in the judgment of the Claims Administrator s office, there are factors that indicate that revenues and expenses would be more sufficiently matched by applying an alternate methodology. As a result, some businesses within a certain three digit NAICS Subsector may be treated under a different methodology from others within the same Subsector. Further, Section II (A) of Policy 495 reserves to the Claims Administrator and its accounting vendors the right to exercise professional judgment in the assignment of a methodology to achieve sufficient matching. Moreover, the terminology utilized in the Agriculture Methodology is at odds with BP s argument. Attachment D makes repeatedly refers to crops, crop season, bulk purchases, harvesting, and crop types. With the exception of crop season, none of these terms is germane to the operation of a crop dusting service. Stated another way, it is clear to this panelist that the Agriculture Methodology was intended for application to traditional agriculturerelated operations involving the planting, harvesting and sale of crops. Since the Claimant has no

218 crops and reaps no harvest, the Claims Administrator s accounting vendor was well within its professional judgment in applying the Annual Variable Margin method. Accordingly, the award of compensation was correct and must be affirmed.

219 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $35,734 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $48, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

220 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a BP appeal of a Business Economic Loss award to an individual who operates a chiropractic clinic located in Florida. BP alleges that the Claims Administrator misapplied Policy 495 in evaluating the claim. It argues that, as a healthcare provider which is paid by insurance carriers or other third parties, it often receives payment long after the services are provided. Since Claimant keeps its books on a cash basis, it records revenue upon receipt of payment. If not corrected, that has the potential to skew the financial data and result in an artificially inflated award. Specifically, in this case, BP claims that Claimant s financial data did reveal unexplained revenue spikes which the Claims Administrator addressed with the Annual Variable Margin Methodology ( AVM ) as opposed to the Professional Services Methodology ( PSM ). In other words, it seeks a more perfect matching. In response, Claimant points to the fact that its tax returns reflect an NAICS Code of and describes his business activity on Schedule B as Chiropractic. The product or service listed on each tax return is Healthcare. Policy 495 Attachment A contains the NAICS Codes assigned to the matching framework. It does not list any Healthcare related industries, industry subsections or NAICS Codes. 1 Consequently, unless in the professional judgment of the Claims Administrator there are factors that indicate revenues and expenses would be more sufficiently matched by applying an alternative methodology, the Annual Variable Margin Methodology should be utilized. Claimant asserts that the analysis of his financial records was thorough; that the AVM method was followed to the letter; that it resulted in a sufficient matching of his revenues and expenses; and that the award entered by the Claims Administrator was correct. A careful examination of the record reveals the Claims Administrator found, using the criteria established in Section I of Policy 495, that the claim was not sufficiently matched and, considering Claimant s business industry type, evaluated it under the Annual Variable Margin Methodology set forth in Policy 495 Attachment B. The record evidences extensive contact with and receipt of information from Claimant s representatives. That documentation and information was reviewed and then utilized, as reflected in the Claims Administrator s Compensation Calculation Schedules, in arriving at this award. There is nothing in the record which suggests that this claim was not properly calculated pursuant to the requirements of Policy 495. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment and determination of the Claims Administrator cannot be disturbed. Decision must be entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: September 25, This is not disputed by B.P.

221 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $38, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Written reasons uploaded

222 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a BEL claim brought by a Alabama company that does residential renovations and alterations. The claim was processed through the Policy 495 analysis and was flagged on three tests. The Claims Administrator applied the Annual Variable Margin (AVM) methodology and determined that Claimant was entitled to an award of $38, (pre-.25 RTP). BP appeals. The basis of BP s appeal is that Claimant s NAICS code assignment mandates that the claim be processed through the Construction Methodology framework. In response, Claimant cites Attachment A of Policy 495 which provides in pertinent part: This document summarizes NAICS codes that will likely fall into each methodology. However, it is important to note that a claimant with a given NAICS code will not automatically be assigned to a given methodology by virtue of the NAICS code if, in the judgment of the Claims Administrator s office, there are factors that indicate that revenues and expenses would be more sufficiently matched by applying an alternative methodology. As a result, some businesses within a certain three-digit NAICS Subsector may be treated under a different methodology from others within the same Subsector. Here, the Claims Administrator determined that the AVM methodology would more sufficiently match revenue and expenses than would the Construction methodology. This Panelist has carefully reviewed the records in this matter and cannot find sufficient reason to reverse the judgment call made by the Claims Administrator. Given BP s Final Proposal of.00, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

223 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $132, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

224 In this BEL appeal, a psychology clinic in Louisiana was awarded $132, pre- RTP. BP appeals on the basis that the Claims Administrator failed to restate unmatched revenue and variable expenses under Policy 495. More specifically, BP charges that the Settlement Program failed to take any steps to insure that Claimant s revenue was properly assigned to the months in which it was earned rather than when payment was received. BP posits that as a medical provider, the Claimant receives and records insurance payments several months after the services are performed. To support its position, BP argues that the Claims Administrator identified indicia that Claimant s P&Ls are not sufficiently matched but failed to restate or correct the mismatch. BP suggests that the first step of Policy 495 requires the Settlement Program to correct mismatches of revenue and expenses. BP contends that in the second step, the application of an industryappropriate methodology is required. Here, BP asserts that the Professional Services Methodology should have been utilized. The Claimant argues that its P&Ls were properly reviewed by the Claims Administrator and appropriately subjected to the matching analysis required by Policy 495. Claimant also argues that, contrary to BP s assertion, its financials were not mismatched in the first instance. As an example, Claimant points out that insurance payments are not received after the date of service, as contended by BP, because it does not accept insurance from patients. Claimant further argues that medical and mental health professionals are not included among the enumerated NAICS codes set forth in Attachment A of Policy 495. Claimant therefore argues that the Settlement Program was correct in applying the Annual Variable Margin method rather than the Professional Services method preferred by BP.

225 A review of the Claimant s financials and their analysis in the Accountant Compensation Calculation Schedules shows that the P&Ls were properly subjected to analysis under the seven criteria of Policy 495. In fact, five of the seven criteria were triggered. The Claims Administrator s accounting vendor then applied the Annual Variable Margin method to restate the revenue and variable expenses as required under 495. The accountant then conducted a causation analysis, also as required by the Annual Variable Margin provisions. Hence, it is the conclusion of this panelist that the financials were properly analyzed and restated followed by the appropriate causation calculation. This process resulted in an award of compensation. I further agree with the Claimant s argument that if the Claims Administrator or the District Court intended for medical or healthcare providers to be included in the Professional Services method, these professions would have been specifically identified in Attachment A. Accordingly, the Claims Administrator was correct in applying the Annual Variable Margin method. One final aspect of BP s appeal merits discussion. BP repeatedly argues that in the first step of Policy 495, the Settlement Program is required to correct mismatches of revenue and expenses. However, the procedure set out in 495 initially requires the Settlement Program only to identify errors such as duplicate entries, incorrect recordings, calculation errors, etc. Under step one, the only restatement of P&Ls required of the Claims Administrator is for any identified errors of this nature. Then the claim is subjected to the seven criteria for matching analysis. To the extent BP contends that Policy 495 requires any pre-analysis of matching and restatement of P&Ls, this position is not supported by the provisions of Policy 495. For the above reasons, BP s appeal is denied and the award is affirmed.

226 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $70, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision Comment uploaded.

227 Claim No. BP principally argues in its appeal of the BEL Claim Compensation Amount awarded a real estate broker which keeps its books on a cash basis, that the Claims Administrator erred in its application of the analyses due under Policy 495. In particular, BP contends that the CA, in selecting an industry-appropriate methodology to correct for insufficient matching of revenue and variable expenses, was wrong to utilize the Annual Variable Margin Methodology (the AVMM) rather than the Professional Services Methodology (PSM). Policy 495 explains that the AVMM is otherwise referred to as Short Revenue Cycle methodology, and the CA is apparently applying AVMM to real estate agents and brokers on a consistent basis, deeming the PSP not to be better suited to that class of claimants. Attachment A to Policy 495, at page A5, lists nine types of NAICS codes that are assigned to the PSM, and none of them relate to real estate brokers or agents. Footnote 9 on that page explains, however, A claimant with a given NAICS code will not automatically be assigned to a given methodology by virtue of the NAICS code if, in the judgment of the Claims Administrator's office, there are factors that indicate that revenues and expenses would be more sufficiently matched by applying an alternative methodology. As a result, some businesses within a certain three-digit NAICS Subsector may be treated under a different methodology from others within the same Subsector Page A1 includes this statement: In identifying those NAICS codes that would most likely fall into each methodology, there is a particular focus on the specialty methodologies - Construction, Professional Services, Agriculture, and Educational Institutions - with all other NAICS codes defaulting to the Annual Variable Margin (Short Revenue Cycle) methodology. There are no NAICS codes listed for the AVMM, and it is to be applied to adjust a claimant s contemporaneous P&Ls that have been deemed not to be sufficiently matched. (Policy 495, Attachment B, p. B1) The CA identified this BEL claim not to be sufficiently matched, and in the explanation provided at page 6 of the Eligibility Notice, stated, [b]ased on your business s industry type, the Claims Administrator has evaluated your claim under the Annual Variable Margin Methodology. This panelist cannot say, given the judgment Policy 495 allows the CA to exercise in assigning claimants to a methodology, that assignment of this Claimant to the AVMM was in error. Certainly Real Estate transactions generally have a shorter revenue cycle than the nine listed categories of Professional Services, e.g., legal services; accounting, tax preparation bookkeeping, and payroll services; architectural, engineering, and related services; etc. There being no error in the CA s choice of methodology to apply, and BP s Final Proposal, in the event a remand is not ordered, being, Claimant s Final Proposal of $70, is selected.

228 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $28, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

229 - BP appeals a modest BEL award of $28, pre-rt, to a medical services provider in Zone C, challenging the Claims Administrator s application of Policy 495 to achieve sufficient matching of income and expenses. BP s argument is premised on a single deposit of $19, made by the Claimant on December 1, 2010, outside the compensation period. BP argues that it is a near certainty that most, if not all of this deposit was for services performed in earlier months. Thus, BP suggests that there is a mismatch of revenue and variable expenses that was not properly restated. BP further asserts that if this payment is properly reallocated to prior months, the Claimant would not pass the V-Test and would not be entitled to compensation at all. Claimant responds that the accounting vendor properly applied the matching restatement provisions of Policy 495. Of the seven criteria, only one was triggered as shown by the Accountant Compensation Calculation Schedules in the record. This trigger pertained to revenue in January 2010 and an expense entry in February of 2009, not to the Claimant s compensation period of September, October and November of Claimant also correctly argues that, contrary to BP s position, Policy 495's first step is the identification of accounting errors rather than the identification of mismatched revenue and variable expenses. Application of the seven criteria to the P&Ls after they are restated for errors is the process by which 495 identifies such mismatches according to the Claimant. De novo review of the record in this case does not support BP s claim of error. The Claims Administrator properly applied Policy 495 and appropriately restated the Claimant s P&Ls utilizing the Annual Variable Margin method. BP s appeal is therefore not well taken and the award is affirmed.

230 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Subsistence II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $1, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.25 $1, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Subsistence claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $1, sought reconsideration by the Settlement Program arguing should be included. The Settlement Program agreed with the inclusion of but his inclusion did not change the Compensation Amount. Claimant appeals.on appeal, seeks to include and, based on this, to expand the RTP multiplier.the record does not

231 contain legally sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of Therefore, the Settlement Program s determination that should be excluded from claim is appropriate.this is a baseball appeal, meaning the Final Proposal closest to the correct award prevails. BP s Final Proposal is closest and is therefore chosen as the Final Award.

232 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $(1,250.60) BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $4, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): The Settlement Program determined twice that claimant was not entitled to compensation. now appeals that decision. Without any explanation as to why she might be entitled to compensation, claimant submitted a final proposal of $4, pre-rtp. There is some reference made to additional employment that now feels should be considered in the calculation. However, clearly, the claimant did not submit sufficient documentation to pass causation and render these positions claiming jobs. Therefore,

233 these are non-claiming jobs and were properly not considered in the calculations. Accordingly, the appeal of is denied.

234 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Subsistence II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount 2.25 $29, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision Comment uploaded.

235 - BP appeals this Subsistence Award of $29, pre-rtp to a resident of Louisiana. BP complains that the Claims Administrator based the award on an incorrect assumption - that Claimant harvested and consumed an implausibly large amount of seafood and game. BP further asserts that the award was based on an improper calculation of the Loss Period of 594 days, much of which was after the majority of Louisiana fishing grounds were reopened following the spill. BP supports its arguments with hypothetical calculations of the Claimant s consumption. It argues that the award would have required the Claimant to catch 10,636 lbs of seafood with only a rod and reel; that he would have been required to catch nearly 30 lbs of seafood per day, every day of the year and that he and his five family members would have been required to eat 2.2 lbs of protein per day, per person. As to the Loss Period, BP contends that the Claimant resumed fishing at his primary fishing grounds by January 1, BP submits a Final Proposal of. Claimant responds that BP s arguments are speculation and that Subsistence Claimants must be allowed the highest daily caloric intake, not mere averages. Moreover, Claimant points out that he was not only feeding himself but also his five family members. In any event, Claimant points out that the consumption ratio ranges from 0.61 to 0.81, well within the built-in failsafe sufficient to entitle him to the full monetary value of his claimed species. The record reflects that the Claims Administrator conducted a Field Interview with the Claimant. This visit by agents of the Settlement Program verified all aspects of Claimant s claim, including the Loss Period, with two exceptions. It was determined that a sixth dependent was a friend and not a family member which resulted in her exclusion. Additionally, it was determined that 450 lbs of deer meat had not been properly tagged which also resulted in its exclusion from the claim. The field agents also questioned the Claimant in-depth about his fishing experience, primary

236 fishing areas, routes to and from these locations, his fishing equipment, licenses, and the various species which he harvested. The agents also assessed the Claimant s credibility. After a detailed interview and inspection, the agents recommended the approval of the claim, as modified. The claim was then reviewed by the Claims Administrator s CADA Team which likewise approved it for payment. On de novo review, I find that the record amply supports the Claims Administrator s decision and that BP s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the award of compensation is affirmed.

237 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Start-Up Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $105, $142, $105, $142, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision Comment uploaded.

238 Claim No. BP appeals the compensation award for this Start-Up Business Economic Loss claim on the basis that (1) the Settlement Program ( the SA ) erroneously classified claimant as a tourism business and (2) misclassified its Shop Supplies as a fixed, rather than variable, cost. Claimant is a boat membership club operating out of a facility at Orange Beach, Alabama (Zone A). The Settlement Agreement defines tourism in Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement as businesses which provide services such as attracting, transporting, accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. Exhibit 2 also provides a list of specific NAICS codes that describe businesses that generally are covered by the tourism definition. On its original Claim Form, Claimant indicated that its NAICS code is (Marina). That NAICS code is not listed in Exhibit 2 and thus would not qualify Claimant as a tourism business. BP argues that because of that and because Claimant is a membership-only boat club that offers its members access to boats as an alternative to boat ownership, and does not rent boats to non-members, its business model is designed to cater primarily to local residents. CAO Final Policy 289 v.2 provides in pertinent part: (b) Exhibit 2... provides a list of NAICS codes which qualify a claimant for inclusion in the Tourism category. The Claims Administrator finds that the list of NAICS codes is illustrative, not exhaustive. (c) If the most appropriate NAICS code for a claimant is one of the codes listed on Exhibit 2, that claimant will be considered to fall within the Tourism definition. (d) If the most appropriate NAICS code for a claimant is not one of the codes listed on Exhibit 2, that claimant may still be considered to fall within the Tourism definition if the Claims Administrator determines in his discretion that the claimant s business meets the definition outlined in Subsection (a) above. (e) The Claims Administrator has established a specialized team to assess Tourism issues on a case-by-case basis. (f) Characterization of a claimant s business as Tourism vs. Non-Tourism shall be based on the totality of circumstances, including consideration of the business activities during the Benchmark Period and the Class Period. The Settlement Program determined that Claimant s initial NAICS code submission was inaccurate and that the most appropriate NAICS code for it is NAICS Code (All Other Amusement and Recreation: This industry comprises of... primarily engaged in providing

239 recreational and amusement services... (including boating clubs without marinas). ) Claimant does not operate docking and/or storage facilities for pleasure craft owners, which are activities central to the Marina classification. Claimant presented evidence that 85.5% of the club s users at the location are from out of the area, utilizing that facility as tourists. The Claims Administrator acted properly in correcting Claimant s NAICS Code, and determining factually that Claimant was appropriately classified as a tourism business on the merits. As to the Shop Supplies issue, BP acknowledges that Exhibit 4D to the SA classifies Supplies as fixed, but argues that this category must refer to fixed items such as office supplies, whereas it appears to BP that Shop Supplies would involve variable expense items of a type that are consumed as boats are used by the boat club members. Therefore, according to BP, Shop Supplies should have been classified as consumable goods, a variable expense per Exhibit 4D. Claimant persuasively counters: The Shop Supplies category actually refers to items purchased to supply the shop or mechanic with the supplies needed to work on the boats, such as tools, buffers, fittings, and tool boxes and are not consumable in nature, as BP suggests. Furthermore, the Shop Supplies do not change in relation to the level of sales, are not tied directly to output/services or to the level of sales revenue, and therefore, were properly classified as Fixed in nature. The CA properly classified this expense item. The Award Amount is upheld and the appeal is denied.

240 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount Compensation Amount.25 $58, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $58,179.49, pre-rtp. BP appeals, arguing two grounds of error and requesting a remand of the case.bp first contends that the Settlement Program incorrectly found that is a Zone B Claimant. The Settlement Program reached that conclusion because a Baton Rouge, Louisiana real estate agent, is an

241 independent contractor for is a real estate company based in New Orleans, which is in Zone B. BP correctly observes however that business is in Zone C and that her sales are in Zone C. If the Zone B designation is correct, the Settlement Program s determination of the is also correct.absent a showing that sales substantially occur in Zone B, the Settlement Program s determination is inappropriate. The record supports BP s contention that should be characterized as a Zone C claimant based on the location of her business and her sales.bp s second contention is also correct. BP argues that the Settlement Program did not properly apply Policy 495. I agree P&L s should have been restated because of the mismatch of revenues and variable expenses. See BP s Initial Proposal at 7-9.BP has requested a remand or in the alternative has submitted a Final Proposal of. Final Proposal is based on the wrong RTP. A remand is appropriate to address the Zone C designation and to ascertain whether a fuller application of Policy 495 leads to a different result in Compensation Amount.

242 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $800 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount 2.50 $25, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount.

243 Claim No. Claimant, a non-profit corporation which operates a 43-acre, multi-structure camp in Biloxi, Mississippi, appeals the Claims Administrator s determination that its Coastal Real Property claim compensation calculation should be derivative of the county s website listing of the property s total value as. Exhibit 11A.2.D. to the Settlement Agreement provides that the Coastal Real Property Compensation Amount, as it relates to the Harrison County, Mississippi, sites of Claimant s camp, should be 1.18% of the subject parcel s 2010 County Appraised Value, which, for that county, is specifically defined as the Total Value as determined by the Harrison County tax assessor. (Emphasis added.) BP, and the CA in using a total value figure of, rely on a Harrison County website of Official Landroll Information, listing Claimant s acreage as having Total Value of 0. However, Claimant has submitted a letter from the Chief Appraiser/Deputy Tax Assessor of Harrison County, stating the following concerning Claimant s parcel: I have researched the information regarding the 2010 valuation of the parcel listed above. Our records show the total value for 2010 of Because this is a non-profit organization it is considered exempt for ad valorem tax purposes; therefore the taxable value will be shown as for tax purposes, as may be reflected on the county website. The county appraised value for 2010 is $2,179,684. Additionally, Claimant has submitted copies of the Harrison County Tax Assessor s Property Record Card for the valuations of the various structures on the property, together with the total acreage, and they likewise reflect the Card Appraised Summary of an aggregate appraised value of $. Together, these documents (the authenticity of which BP interposed no challenge in its subsequently filed Final Proposal) establish that the Harrison County tax assessor has determined that the Total Value of Claimant s parcel is $ Under Section 2.C. of Exhibit 11A to the Settlement Agreement, Claimant s Coastal Real Property Compensation Amount should be calculated as the parcel s 2010 County Appraised Value multiplied by 1.18%, which County Appraised Value for Harrison County explicitly means the Total Value as determined by the tax assessor. As explained, that value has been determined by the tax assessor to be $ Accordingly, the decision of the Claims Administrator is found to have been in error and is reversed, and this appeal remanded for calculation and award of a Compensation Amount based on a 2010 County Appraised Value of

244 No error. Comment (optional): Decision Comment uploaded.

245 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $43, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of BP contends that, since receives some of its payments from insurance companies, there must be a mis-match between the services provided and the receipt of revenues. The argument is made that one payment received in August 2010, one month after the compensation period, was undoubtedly paid subsequent to the performance of services and reallocating a fraction of this payment to prior months results in claimant failing the causation test. However, this contention

246 is based on speculation. asserts that insurance claims are typically paid within days if filed by mail and within 5-10 days if filed electronically. There is no evidence which suppports appellant's unsubstantiated allegation on this issue. BP also argues the Settlement program erred by applying the Annual Variable Margin methodology instead of the Professional Services methodology. However, as claimant points out, medical and dental professionals are not included among the enumerated NAICS codes set forth in Policy 495. If these providers were intended to be included in the Professional Services methodology, these professions would have been specifically included in Policy 495. For the foregoing reasons, there is a finding in favor of claimant's final proposal.

247 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $(27,688.39) BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 3.00 $44, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a Southwest Florida seafood wholesaler and processor, filed a BEL claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator determined that Claimant s Step 1 compensation amount was negative because Claimant s 2010 variable profit exceeded its 2009 Benchmark Period variable profit by $27, When this negative figure was added to the Step 2 compensation amount, the result was still negative and, thus, Claimant was determined to have suffered no loss. Claimant appeals.claimant concedes that it is not

248 entitled to Step 1 compensation because it suffered no loss. Claimant takes issue with the concept of a negative compensation amount and argues that, since it is not being compensated, the Step 1 figure should reflect, instead of a negative amount. Further, Claimant argues that the Claims Administrator s reliance on Policy 372 is inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement. Claimant also maintains that the Claims Administrator failed to accurately calculate its Step 2 award and failed to reimburse it for accounting support.the Settlement Agreement clearly requires the Claims Administrator to add the Step 1 compensation amount to the Step 2 amount to determine a claimant s total compensation. It says nothing about whether either amount is a positive or negative figure. The Claims Administrator contends that, to substitute a 0 for a negative amount in the Step 1 analysis could overstate a claimant s loss. This is the basis for Policy 372 and is in keeping with the Settlement Agreement. I find no error on the part of the Claims Administrator in calculating Claimant s entitlement to compensation. Since Claimant is not receiving an award, it is not entitled to reimbursement for accounting support.the appeal is denied.

249 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This is yet another Seafood Compensation Claim filed by this Lithia, FL resident. The Claims Administrator has denied this claim three times, noting that Claimant is excluded from the Settlement Agreement by virtue of her husband s receipt of compensation from the GCCF for the same losses (Claimant owns 50% of the corporation that owns the vessel) and his execution of a Release and Covenant Not To Sue. While it does not appear that the Claimant signed the release, it applies to all claims brought by a spouse. Claimant maintains that the denial of her claim is based upon gender discrimination and marital status; however, three previous panelists have concluded that the Claims Administrator acted correctly (s ).Following a thorough review of the record, I find Claimant s arguments to be without merit and concur with my fellow panelists. The Claims Administrator acted appropriately and the appeal is denied.

250 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount 1.50 $190, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

251 filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $190, BP appeals. On appeal, a Summary of Review was requested on whether the Settlement Program properly addressed the issue of related party transactions between Claimant and the. Following a Response from the Claims Administrator and a Supplemental Memorandum from BP, the claim is ripe for appellate consideration. BP raises three points of error, one of which requires a remand to the Claims Administrator. Two points of error are overruled: (1) BP s assertion that Claimant earned revenues from facilities outside of the affected area. The record evidence is strongly to the contrary; and (2) BP claims the Settlement Program improperly included reimbursed expense as a revenue item. A review of the record indicates the Settlement Program carefully examined the issue and reached the correct conclusion. With respect to related party transactions, however, the record indicates the Settlement Program relied on Claimant s explanation of Revenue, Line Item I. See Claims Administrator s Response to Request for Information/Summary of Review, at 1. In addition, the Claims Administrator states, The Claimant s representation of the relationship contends that the relationship between the two parties was not close enough to influence the Claimant to bill less than an amount charged at arm s length. Id. This is conclusory and relies upon representations from a self-interested party. Related party transactions may serve legitimate business purposes. They should, however, be subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny than that shown here. After remand, it may be that the Settlement Program reaches the same conclusion or not. However, such a conclusion must rest upon more specific and exacting evidence than that in this Record. The claim is remanded to the Settlement Program.

252 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Start-Up Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): This has been a difficult Start-up BEL claim. Claimant is a real estate agent with 100% of her business clients in Zones B & C for both Benchmark and Compensation Periods. Under the Start-up Framework, a non-tourism Zone C claimant must, in this instance, pass the Upturn Revenue Pattern Test which requires claimants to show: (1) An increase of an aggregate of 10% or more in total revenues over a period of 3 consecutive months from May 2011 to April 2012 compared to the same months from May 2010 to April 2011, and (2) Proof of an aggregate of 10% increase in the share of total revenue generated by customers located in Zones A-C over the same period of three consecutive months from May 2011 to April 2012 as selected by the claimant for the upturn revenue pattern compared to the same 3 consecutive month period from May 2010 to April The Claims Administrator ruled that the Claimant failed to satisfy the second requirement. Claimant contends that the Claims Administrator is misreading share of total income by assuming it means a percentage figure rather than a whole dollar figure, and by allowing the Settlement Agreement to be interpreted as it has been would mean that a non-tourism, non-seafood Start-up business operating exclusively in Zones A-C would never qualify under the Start-up Business Framework. BP counters that if the Customer Mix Test required that claimants simply show a 10% increase in the dollar value of revenue, then the test would be entirely duplicative of the first prong of the Revenue Pattern Test above. Unfortunately, among the examples in the Settlement Agreement

253 this panelist could fine no examples where the claimant operates exclusively within Zones A-C. This case represents another anomaly in results under certain factual scenarios, but this panelist believes that the Claimants Administrator's interpretation is the correct one.

254 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $22, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $79, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

255 BP asserts in this appeal that the revenues used in the BEL framework were not properly matched. Claimant is a real estate agent located in Sanibel, Florida. A careful review of the record discloses that the Settlement Program reviewed Claimant s data and the program accountants determined that her BEL claim was sufficiently matched under Policy 495 following the initial review as required under Section I thereof.. The Settlement program s Accountants reviewed Claimant s data under the seven factors set forth in Policy 495, Section I, and found that the information in the record adequately addressed the potential matching issues, as revenue was supported by third party commission statements and dormancy months are due to the nature of the real estate agent business. See Doc. ID No. Hence, the Settlement Program s accountants conducted the required analysis and due diligence outlined in Policy 495 and correctly found that Claimant s data was sufficiently matched. BP s brief failed to address the seven factors set forth Section I of Policy 495, or provide any basis on how, specifically, the Settlement Program s accountants erred in reviewing Claimant s data in light of those factors. Policy 495 provides no basis for imposing changes to the Claimant s contemporaneously maintained financial information where, as here, the Settlement Program s accountants followed the Policy s requirements and exercised their accounting judgment to determine that the claim s supporting financial information did not contain errors, and was sufficiently matched. Claimant s data was not required to be reviewed under the methodology set forth in Section II of Policy 495 (as urged by BP) because the Settlement Program s accountants determined that her financial information was sufficiently matched. Settlement Program s Eligibility Notice, Doc. ID No. at 6. The Section II analysis was not triggered. In addition, BP asserts the Settlement Program erred by failing to properly classify Claimant s Remax Rent & Fees expense. This expense is clearly fixed in nature, and was properly classified by the Settlement program. BP s appeal is denied; the award of the Claims Administrator is upheld, and Claimant s Final Proposal is hereby approved.

256 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Pro Se II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $142, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

257 CLAIMANT: : Claimant is a non-profit electrical workers union in Louisiana. BP asserts that the Claims Administrator erred in this BEL claim by treating dues and assessments paid by members to Claimant as revenue for purposes of analyzing variable profit. BP maintains that the Settlement Agreement requires the analysis of the actual profit of a business during the defined post-spill period of Settlement Agreement, Ex. 4C at 1. The thrust of BP s position is that the union is not a business as it does not produce goods or services, and dues and fees paid by members do not constitute revenue for the purpose of analysis under the Settlement Agreement. Claims Administrator s Approved Policy 307 v2 (not cited by BP in its brief) puts this issue to rest. The following subsection is applicable: (a) Income received by non-profit entities in the form of grant monies or contributions shall typically be treated as revenue for that entity for purposes of the various required calculations under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This policy manifests Court Orders of December 12, 2012 and April 9, 2013 entered by Judge Barbier, instructing the Parties, Settlement Program, Claims Administrator, and Appeal Panelists to follow and be bound thereby. Accordingly, there is no doubt that non-profit organizations are eligible to pursue BEL claims. BP also alleges a minor mischaracterization of expenses as fixed. Given the baseball arbitration provision that applies to this appeal, the Claimant s Final Proposal would be selected in any event, and this issue is thus rendered moot. BP s appeal is denied, the Claims Administrator s Award is upheld, and Claimant s Final Proposal is approved.

258 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons uploaded

259 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: claim. Claimant brings this appeal after the Claims Administrator twice denied this BEL Owns/operates a video bingo facility at a racetrack in Alabama. Claimant became the subject of an investigation by Alabama authorities for allegedly operating illegal gambling machines. laimant s monthly revenues began a steady decline. In June of 2010 the State of Alabama seized 800 video bingo machines asserting the machines were illegal under Alabama law. From that point, Claimant s monthly revenue began a steady decline. Information in the record indicates that had the Claims Administrator not denied the claim, Claimant eligibility award may have exceeded $22 million (pre-.25 RTP). The Claims Administrator denied the claim stating: This claim is denied on the grounds that the alleged loss of revenues followed a law enforcement seizure of alleged illegal gambling devices, which seizure was effected after specific order of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Claims Administrator finds that such alleged damages are not cognizable under the terms of the Settlement Agreement nor allowed as a matter of public policy. Claimant appeals asserting that the Claims Administrator has no authority to inject an element of causation not contained in the Settlement Agreement and to create a public policy element in claims review.

260 This Panelist respectfully disagrees with the Claimant. Here, there is evidence in the record prior to the Denial Notice which clearly establishes that Claimant s revenue plumeneted after it surrendered its liquor license and after the State of Alabama seized all of its electronic bingo machines. The Claims Administrator is not prohibited by the Settlement Agreement from investigating and denying suspicious or implausible claims. To the contrary, it is part of his duties. Here, the decision of the Claims Administrator to deny this claim was appropriate and correct.

261 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss. II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $40,051 BP s Final Proposal 1.25 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $46, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

262 The sole issue raised by BP in its appeal of this claim relates to the classification of expenses. The Settlement Program categorized Claimant s expenses for Supplies and Equipment Rentals as fixed expenses under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and made an award based upon those classifications. BP offers case law to support its position that variable expenses change in relation to sales, while fixed expenses must be expended regardless of sales levels. BP argues that the Claims Administrator erroneously failed to apply these principles to the expenses at issue, and erred by holding them to be fixed, as opposed to variable. BP makes no reference to the Settlement Agreement in its analysis, nor does it refer to any Claims Administrator s Policies. As this claim was decided in the context of the Settlement Agreement, the specific provisions thereof control over any general case law which might define given terms. Rather than rely on case law definitions of Fixed Costs and Variable Costs, the parties to the Settlement Agreement created a schedule of expenses and categorized them as Fixed or Variable. Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 4D, Attachment A. The Claims Administrator issued a Policy which speaks directly to the issue at hand: The Claims Administrator will treat expenses as Variable or Fixed if they fall within either of those categories pursuant to Exhibit 4A, Attachment D. If an expense does not fit the description of the Variable or Fixed expense categories in Exhibit 4D, Attachment A, the accountants will use discretion to apply the classification that best conforms to delineations made by the Parties, as reflected in Ex. 4D. Claims Administrator s Approved Policy No. 361 v5. The Settlement Program s characterization of Claimant s Supplies and Equipment Rentals expenses were made by application of Exhibit 4D of the Settlement Agreement. The Program correctly found that Supplies and Equipment Rentals were fixed expenses under. Exhibit 4D. Each are specifically listed within Exhibit 4D; hence, no further examination or analysis was called for. The Settlement Program correctly applied the terms of the Settlement with respect to the expense classifications at issue herein. BP s appeal is denied, the Claims Administrator s Award is upheld, and Claimant s Final Proposal is hereby approved.

263 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $31,000 BP s Final Proposal.25 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $40, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

264 CLAIMANT: : This is a BEL Claim filed by a Baton Rouge, Louisiana realtor. The Claims Administrator awarded the pro se claimant the sum of $40, (pre -.25 RTP). BP appeals. The essence of BP s appeal is that the Claims Administrator did not correctly apply the provisions of Policy 495 to this claim. Further, BP asserts that the claim should have been processed through the Professional Services (PS) methodology of Policy 495 instead of the Annual Variable Margin (AVM) methodology. The record reflects that claimant failed four of the seven tests set forth in Policy 495. Thus, revenues and expenses were not sufficiently matched. Per Policy 495, the Claims Administrator had to choose one of the seven methodologies to be applied to claimant s financials. Here, BP asserts that the Claims Administrator should have applied the PS methodology. It should be noted that claimant s NAICS code (531210) is not among the codes listed in the PS framework of Policy 495. Footnote 9 on page A5 of Attachment A to policy 495 explains: A claimant with a given NAICS code will not automatically be assigned to a given methodology by virtue of the NAICA code if, in the judgement of the Claims Administrator s office, there are factors that indicate that revenues and expenses would be more sufficiently matched by applying an alternative methodology. As a result, some businesses within a certain three-digit NAICS Subsector may be treated under a different methodology from others within the same Subsector. Thus, Policy 495 allows the Claims Administrator and its accounting professionals the ability to use their professional judgment to determine what methodology should be applied to this category of claim. This Panelist has seen at least two other appeals addressing the same issue involving real estate agents or brokers. Both decisions affirmed the application of the AVM methodology. After full review, this Panelist determines that the application of the AVM methodology was correct. For the foregoing reasons, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

265 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $283, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $372, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award to a Louisiana concrete manufacturer. Essentially its basis of appeal is its assertion that Claimant's prior accountant was fired in 2009 because of errors she had made in Claimant's financials between 2007 and It then argues that the Administrator erred in allocating Claimant's significant inventory write-downs only to 2010, and instead should have reallocated those write-downs into prior years. Failure to do so, it posits, artificially reduced Claimant's Compensation Period variable profit and artificially

266 inflated its Benchmark Period variable profit. It proposes either a remand to re-examine these financials or alternatively a reduction in the award by $89,000. Initially, the record contains no explanation of how BP justifies its proposed reduction figure. This record has been carefully reviewed. In full compliance with Policy 495, the Administrator had detailed discussions with Claimant's representatives after finding errors in the prior financials. Applying the seven criteria of that Policy, it found that financials were not sufficiently matched and exercised its judgment in utilizing the Annual Variable Margin method to reallocate financials over As is pointed out by Claimant, to reallocate over a longer prior period is unjustified, as its prior accountant's errors pertained to a misstatement in its prior tax returns--not in misstating pre-2010 P and L's, which were always accurate and correct. As such, and in respecting the professional judgment of the Administrator's accountants,claimant's final proposal, seeking affirmation of the Administrator's award, must be affirmed. No alternative basis exists in this record for a remand of this matter.

267 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $173,932 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $193, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

268 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: The Claims Administrator awarded this $193, (pre -.25 RTP). BP appeals. Florida chiropractor the sum of This is another appeal where BP asserts that the Claims Administrator (CA) did not follow the three-step process set forth in Policy 495. Specifically, BP complains that the CA did not correct errors in the claimant s Profit & Loss statements which it says is the first step provided for in a Policy 495 analysis. Policy 495 at footnote 1 on Page 3 provides: Errors will be defined as accounting transactions that have been identified in the ordinary course of processing to have been inappropriately recorded in the claimant s contemporaneous P&Ls and will include, but not be limited to: duplicate accounting entries; debit entries recorded as credits or vice versa; mistakes in applying applicable accounting principles based on the claimant s method of accounting; oversights or misinterpretation of the facts; input or calculation errors; and/or postings to the incorrect revenue and/or expense categories. Recognizing that the Settlement Agreement does not mandate that the P&Ls be based on GAAP or any particular basis of accounting, the CSSP will analyze the P&Ls under the basis (e.g., accrual, cash, modified cash, income tax, etc.) of accounting used by the claimant in the normal course of business and reflected in the contemporaneous P&Ls. In general, accounting estimates now determined to be inaccurate based on subsequent events will not be considered accounting errors if the entries were made using the best available information at the time. Here, BP complains that a significant revenue spike in November 2010 probably included revenue earned in claimant s May - October Compensation Period and that the CA did not correct this error. However, the record reflects that the CA vetted this issue with claimant and was satisfied with claimant s explanation. Accordingly, the CA determined that there were no errors in claimant s Profit & Loss statements. The CA also determined that claimant s Profit & Loss statements were not sufficiently matched. Application of the claim to the Annual Variable Margin Methodology produced an award as set forth above. This Panelist is satisfied that the CA appropriately applied the provisions of Policy 495 to this claim. Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

269 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $52, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached decision uploaded in the portal.

270 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: In this appeal of a Business Economic Loss award, BP assigns error to the Claims Administrator in (1) failing to identify and exclude financial data from out of zone facilities; (2) misclassifying certain of claimant s expenses as fixed when the record evidence indicates that they are variable; and (3) failing to comply with the court ordered Policy 495 matching requirement. The record reflects that the Claimant is an entity located in New Orleans which specializes in the design and manufacture of sweaters and seasonal garments which it distributes on a wholesale and retail basis to more than 250 stores throughout the United States. In support of error assignment (1), BP argues that, according to its website, Claimant employs agents who sell its clothing on a wholesale basis to retailers through showrooms in New York City and Los Angeles. It contends that Claimant pays commissions to these employees based on their work in the out of zone locations; moreover, that it operates trunk shows throughout the country and that, as is typical in the industry, at each trunk show, Claimant likely obtains a showroom or other space for its clothing and sells the clothing directly to end customers, during which it necessarily employs agents who handle the inventory and sell the clothing. BP says that there is no evidence that the Settlement Program investigated to determine whether revenue from out of zone facilities was included in its financial data. In response, Claimant asserts that it is not a multi-facility business; that it does not own, rent or lease any distinct physical location outside of the Gulf Coast area; that the rent expense shown on its income statements and tax returns was for its location in New Orleans and not for anywhere else. All sales originate in New Orleans. Its customer stores place written purchase order contracts with it. Once those contracts are received, Claimant manufactures the clothing based on the purchase orders. Once produced, they are shipped to the stores. Claimant does not sell clothes to stores on consignment. Its website, it states, merely advises those who are interested in viewing its line of clothing that they may visit its largest retailers in New York City and Los Angeles. The record reflects that the Claims Administrator s analyst sought additional information from Claimant on a number of issues, including this one and correctly concluded that it was not a multi-facility enterprise. Error assignment (2) consists of BP s claim that five of Claimant s expenses, including Makeup, Models, Photography, Supplies, and Taxes Trade Show should have been treated as variable, as opposed to fixed. According to BP, each time Claimant attends a trade show, it

271 incurs such expenses which undoubtedly vary in relation to its amount of work and consequently should be classified as variable. To the contrary, retorts Claimant, these expenses come under the heading of Advertising, Supplies and Professional Services which are characterized as fixed by Settlement Agreement Exhibit 4D and the decision of the Claims Administrator on this issue is entirely correct. This panelist agrees. In error assignment (3), BP again contends that the first step in the application of Policy 495 calls for the Claims Administrator to restate Claimant s profit and loss statements where there is a mismatch of revenue and variable expenses which can be explained and exported by appropriate documentation. For that reason, the matter should be remanded for further investigation. Curiously, Claimant does not dispute that contention, instead arguing that the Claims Administrator requested and received extensive information regarding its P&L statements and that those, in turn, were subjected to a stringent Policy 495 review. The record supports Claimant s position. To begin with, Step 1 of Policy 495 initially requires the Claims Administrator only to identify errors such as duplicate entries, incorrect recordings, calculation errors, etc. Restatement of profit and loss statements is required only for the purpose of correcting any such errors. Then the Claims Administrator applies the restated P&Ls to the seven-step criteria for further matching analysis. If one or more of these criteria are triggered, the Claims Administrator will adjust the statements in keeping with the requirements of Paragraph II of Policy 495. The record reflects that that is precisely what the Claims Administrator did in this case. Four of the criteria were triggered following which Claimant s financial statements were, in fact, appropriately restated. After careful review of the entire record, this panelist has concluded that this BP appeal cannot be sustained and that decision must be entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: October 2, 2014

272 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is an associate of a law firm that filed a BEL claim and was found to be an eligible employer pursuant to Exhibit 8 A paragraph 1. B. 2. b. i. The employer's claim was paid. Claimant now seeks an IEL claim award. The Administrator denied the claim based on erroneous information that Claimant was an owner of the firm. The confusion arose from the CPA's for the firm issuing a Form K-1 to him for 2007 and 2008, assuming he was a part owner of the firm. This error was corrected in 2009 prior to the spill. Claimant, his employer and the CPA each submitted sworn affidavits addressing the error. The Claimant and his employer are officers of the court which subjects them to discipline and possible severe penalties for false swearing. As such, the Panelist finds the Administrator must accept these sworn statements as true and process the claim unless a false or fraudulent statement can be proven. The denial is reversed.

273 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount.25 $111, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded the Center $111,,962.89, pre-rtp. BP appeals.reduced to its essence, BP contends the Settlement Program misapplied Policy 495. Specifically, BP complains that the Settlement Program should have applied the Professional Services Methodology instead of the Annual Variable

274 Margin (AVM) Methodology.Policy 495, Attachment A, specificallyy articulates the NAICS codes applying to each different methodology. A cursory review of Attachment A indicates the Settlement Program correctly applied the AVM to this matter. The larger question is whether the business activities of Claimant and of a host of other medical and health service providers should be characterized instead as Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, as BP urges.there is logic to BP s position. However, Policy 495 was carefully negotiated by the parties to the Settlement Agreement and must be applied strictlyy according to its terms..if I were writing on a blank slate, I would agree with BP. I am not, however. In my judgment, it would be beyond my role as an appeals panelist to rewrite Policy 495 or to ignore its specific terms.in this case, the Settlement Program correctly applied the specific terms of Policy 495 and I affirm thee resulting award to Claimant.

275 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $34, $51, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):. filed this Business Economic Loss claim underr the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awardedd $ 51,546.38, pre RTP. BP appeals.onn appeal, BP complains chiefly that the Settlement Program misclassified several expenses as fixed, instead of variable.when classifying expenses, the Settlement Agreement requires the Settlement Program to applyy Attachment A of Exhibit 4D. If the cost in question is listed on Attachment A, then the cost must be classified per the strict terms of Attachment A. The

276 Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 4D, and Attachment A were all carefully if not laboriously negotiated and must be given full effect. Two of the expenses BP argues were misclassified are listed as Fixed Costs under Attachment A: new tire fees and tire disposal fees. BP s arguments on these two fees are clearly erroneous.the next cost challenged is that of shop expenses. This category includes miscellaneous small tools and supplies used within the shop for the maintenance of vehicles. The Settlement Program categorized this as standard overhead, a fixed cost under Attachment A. I agree because the materials involved were not for sale to or use by the public.the same logic applies to equipment and lug nut expenses. Since these were consumed internally and not sold to or used by customers, the Settlement Program s classification of the expenses is appropriate.this is also a baseball appeal, meaning that the Final Proposal closest to the proper result must be chosen. This is material, for example, to whether the classification of lug nut expense matters. Reclassifying it would reducee the award by less than $500 leaving Claimant s Final Proposal still closest to the mark.on balance, Claimant s Final Proposal is closest.

277 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm. II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $121, $134, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals a BEL award to a Zone D automotive service center on two grounds. First, it asserts that despite thee listing on Exhibit 4D of the Agreement of contract services as presumptively Fixed, in the present case Claimantt listed said services on its 2009 tax return as costs of goods sold,, which are considered Variable under Exhibit 4D. BP further points to evidence of monthly fluctuation of the contract service amounts in proportion to its output/services, a further indication of their variable nature. Claimant's counsel merely responds with the

278 argument that contract services were negotiated under the Agreement to be deemed Fixed. Secondly, BP asserts that theree should have been an analysis under Policy 328v2 to determine if there were related party transactions between Claimant and at least two other entities that contained common shareholders; however, its allegations are conclusory and other than being located in thee same city as Claimant, BP has failed to bring forth sufficient data to justify a remand of this matter for Policy 328v2 analysis. This panelist does, however, agreee with BP that simply branding an item as contract services does not entitle it automatically to Fixed status, although a presumption of such applies under Exhibit 4D. Hereinn BP pointed to specific data and admissions by Claimant that effectively undermined that presumption, which data went largely uncontested in Claimant's response. As such, BP's final proposal, reducing the award by the contract services item, must be accepted.

279 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $45, $68, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

280 . - CLAIM ID The Settlement Program awarded claimant the sum of $68, (pre-.25 RTP) on this BEL claim. BP appeals asserting: 1) The Settlement Program did not properly assign revenue to the months where it was earned; and 2) The Settlement Program mis-classified claimant s maintenance expense as 100% fixed. Addressing issue 1, this claim was properly handled under Policy 495. The Claims Administrator determined that claimant s financials were not sufficiently matched and calculated the claim under the Annual Variable Margin (AVM) methodology. This panelist has reviewed the record and finds that BP s appeal or this issue is without merit. Moving to issue 2, it should be noted that claimant s Final Proposal was $68, (pre-.25 RTP) and BP s Final Proposal was $45, (pre-.25 RTP). BP s Final Proposal is based upon claimant s maintenance expense being treated as 50% repair expense and 50% maintenance expense. Exhibit 4D of the Settlement Agreement provides in pertinent part: If claimant s financial statement, books and/or records do not separately identify Maintenance costs and Repair costs, claimant shall allocate costs associated with Repairs and Maintenance 50% to fixed costs and 50% to variable costs. Claimant s P&L s have a category labeled automobile repair expenses. The P&L s have three categories of maintenance expense, namely Building Maintenance, Equipment Maintenance and Computer Maintenance. Claimant asserts that since its P&L s have an automobile repair category, the 50/50 provision does not apply. This Panelists has reviewed claimant s P&L s and tax returns. The monthly entries under the three Maintenance categories vary significantly from month to month and from year to year. Accordingly, this Panelist finds that the 50/50 rule in Exhibit 4D applies here. Accordingly, BP s Final Proposal is the correct result.

281 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $43, $77, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision Comment uploaded

282 Claim No. - In appealing this BEL claim award, BP contends (1) that the Settlement Program applied Policy 495 improperly in dealing with P&Ls that reflected insufficiently matched revenues and expenses; (2) the Program erred in classifying Claimant s expense categories of Outside Services and Contract Services as fixed rather than variable; and (3) the Program erred in not determining whether Claimant is an excluded Defense Contractor/Subcontractor. As to #1, the Claims Administrator explained in Section B, Application of Policy 495: Matching of Revenue and Expenses, of the Eligibility Notice, that it had found Claimant s P&Ls to contain indicators of insufficiently matched revenues and expenses and had proceeded to evaluate the claim under the Annual Variable Margin Methodology, set forth in Attachment B to Policy 495. BP asserts that the CA misapplied that methodology whereas Claimant says the CA applied it properly. This panelist has painstakingly analyzed all of the detailed analyses of data and accounting adjustments and calculations set out in the myriad tables, charts, reconciliations, etc., contained in the 38-page Doc. ID and to the best of his ability to track and understand the process followed by the accounting specialists, cannot say BP has sustained its position on this issue. BP s issue #2 doesn t require in-depth analysis because in BP s Initial Proposal it says that correcting the classification of the two expense items in question from fixed to variable would reduce Claimant s Compensation Amount by $5,802 (in its Final Proposal it eschews any statement of monetary effect), yet BP s Final Proposal is $34, less than the Eligibility Notice Compensation Amount and Claimant s Final Proposal. Specifically, the CA awarded, and Claimant accepts as its Final Proposal, a Compensation Amount of $72,732.04, but BP s Final Proposal, without explanation of how arrived at, is $43, Under the controlling Baseball method, the panelist is bound to choose Claimant s figure, even assuming the $5, deduction BP argues for, were to be adopted. Finally, as to issue #3, both of the Settlement Agreement, and Exhibit 18 thereto, at page 15, include as excluded Defense Contractors/Subcontractors those firms as businesses which derive at least 50% of their annual revenue... from contracts with the United States Department of Defense. (Emphasis supplied.) Claimant s business is a specialized one whereby it provides rust protective coatings to air conditioners ad similar metal units to prevent corrosion from the weather elements associated with the Gulf of Mexico. BP cites to Claimant s website where it listed among its customers From that, BP speculates that Claimant may be an excluded defense contractor or subcontractor. Claimant counters with an affidavit from its owner/president attesting that when it is engaged by an air conditioning service company to provide rust protection for air conditioning units for a Department of Defense facility, its involvement is simply to coat the units prior to installation by the third party, and it is paid by the third party, not the Department. Moreover, the affiant further attests that such engagements represent less than 1% of [Claimant s] revenues. The panelist does not find any of BP s grounds of appeal well taken and the appeal is, therefore, denied.

283 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm. II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $28, $50, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a commercial real estate broker located in Florida. This is yet another appeal by BP off the reoccurring matching issue with BP contending that the Settlement Program erred in using the AVM methodology instead of the Professional Services methodology under Policy 495. Claimant keeps its books on a cash basis, and records its revenues from a project upon receiptt of paymentt after a project is completed, even though the revenue is earned over a period of time. This appeal raises the same issue as were raised in other

284 appeals decided by this panelist (e.g. Claim # and and other panelist (e.g. Claim # with the same result. For the reasons stated therein, Claimant prevails. In the Settlement Program's professional opinion and judgment the AVM methodology was the proper methodology to be applied under Policy 495, and I agree. The award by the Claims Administrator is affirmed.

285 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the threefold denial of a Seafood Compensation claim for Blue Crab as alleged vessel owner of Vessel Although represented, no memorandum on behalf of Claimant exists in this record. The Notice of Appeal simply avers that Claimant very clearly earned income as a commercial fisherman from 2007 to Exhibit 10 of the Settlement Agreement requires that proof of vessel ownership must be established in order to be considered for Blue Crab Vessel Owner awards. Despite outreach from the Administrator's office when such documentation was not forthcoming, neither Claimant nor her counsel provided such proof. Apparently Claimant's husband, the last record owner of the vessel, passed away in No judgment of Possession or other documentation transferring vessel tittle to Claimant was ever submitted or found. Although there is some evidence that Claimant co-guaranteed a loan for the vessel, this does not suffice for ownership documentation. Neither does the fact that a vessel registration dated December of 2012 exists in this record. Unfortunately for Claimant, the crucial period of documentation, April 20-December 31, 2010, contains no proof of vessel ownership by her. As such, the denial of her claim was proper under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

286 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the denial of her Coastal Real Property claim. contends her property is within the applicable claim zone and,therefore, she is eligible for compensation. This is the rare instance where the parties agree. In its final memorandum, BP states it has determined that this parcel is located within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. BP agrees to a remand of this claim so the Settlement Program can evaluate the claimant's right to compensation under the coastal real property framework. Accordingly, the claim is sent back to the Claims Administrator so an award may be calculated under the applicable framework.

287 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $16,792 BP s Final Proposal.25 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $29, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of Allegedly, this company's financials were not sufficiently matched as required under the court's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement. BP's principal argument is that claimant's variable profit percentages fluctuated by as much as 49% between certain months.. Nevertheless, BP acknowledges that none of the 7 criteria in Policy 495 are triggered. Item #6 references variable margin percentages varying by more than 50%. A close call does not trigger one of the criteria. That is

288 why there is a bright numerical line. It is true that, if there is other significant indicia of a matching problem, the CSSP has the right to identify the claim for further matching analysis. In this case, the Settlement Program obtained substantial additional information from this claimant and there was not a finding that further inquiry was necessitated. The result in this claim under the 495 analysis was correct. Accordingly, the final award in favor of claimant is affirmed.

289 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $21, BP s Final Proposal.25 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $56, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

290 - The Claims Administrator awarded $56, pre-rtp to this car dealer in Zone C. BP appeals. The single issue raised by BP is the Claims Administrator s asserted failure to resolve discrepancies between the Claimant s sales tax returns and its P&Ls. Thus, BP seeks remand. Alternatively, BP submits a Final Proposal of $21, The thrust of BP s argument is that there are significant differences between the monthly sales tax returns and P&Ls that were not resolved by the Claims Administrator. From this, BP posits that some of Claimant s financial data must be incorrect. Thus, BP concludes that according to the sales tax returns, Claimant s post spill revenue was higher than indicated on the P&Ls. BP argues that the Claims Administrator should have requested additional information or documentation to resolve the alleged discrepancy. The Claimant responds that the sales tax records and P&Ls are reconciled and that no discrepancy is presented. However, the record reflects that the accounting vendor did recognize a $10, difference between the sales tax and P&Ls. The record further demonstrates that, contrary to BP s position, inquiry was made with the Claimant requesting information to explain the discrepancy. The Contact Notes clearly show that the Claimant s accountant explained that the difference was due to a year-end adjustment in December of 2010 which reconciled the two figures. The record supports the Claims Administrator s acceptance of this explanation and the resulting award. Since the Claims Administrator has already resolved any discrepancies, remand is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Claimant s Final Proposal is selected.

291 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

292 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID Claimant appeals the denial of this BEL claim by the Claims Administrator. Claimant is located in Zone B and its financials failed to meet the requirements for a Zone B claimant unless it is categorized as within the tourism industry. That categorization forms the basis of claimant s appeal. Claimant s tax returns list NAICS Code The Claims Administrator reviewed the documents submitted by claimant and assigned NAICS Code The claimant asserted on its BEL claim form that NAICS Code best describes its business. That code, if correct, would bring claimant within the tourism industry definition of the Settlement Agreement. In that case, causation would be presumed. NAICS Code , which claimant asserts, is titled Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Stores. Examples provided under the Code listing are: Balloon shops, Greeting Card shops, Christmas stores, Novelty shops, Curio shops, Souvenir shops and Gift shops. NAICS Code is titled All other Consumer Goods Rental and examples include: Party (i.e. banquet) equipment rental, Party Rental Supply Centers, Silverware rental, Table and Banquet Accessory rental, tableware rental and Tent party rental. NAICS Code is titled General Rental Centers and examples include: General rental centers and Rent-all centers. Claimant does rent tents and other party supplies. However, it also rents power tools, contractor and remodeling tools and other items rentable at general rental centers. NAICS Codes / best describe claimant s true business. Therefore, claimant s business does not fall under the tourism designation and because claimant does not meet the causation requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement, the Claims Administrator properly denied the claim.

293 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Real Property Sales Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $28,125 BP s Final Proposal 0 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $53, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error.

294 Comment (optional): Claimant, a 50% owner of property located in Panama City, Fl., appeals pro se a reconsidered Real Property Sales award. In essence, Claimant admits that Exhibit 13A, Sec. 2B.a. of the Agreement allows compensation based upon the listed Sales Price of relevant documents, which in this case was $225, He argues, however, that the imputed sales price was actually $424,086.50, because it also inherently included payment of the mortgage balance on the property, and his share thereof amounted to an additional $199, He further argues that the Administrator's interpretation of the Agreement is too literal, and should acknowledge this de facto sales price. This panelist has reviewed this record, noting that both the sales contract and the closing documents specifically list a sales price of $225,000.00, the amount which the Agreement requires us to apply for Real Property Sales. A search of approved Policies for Real Property Sales produced no leeway in the application of Section 13A. Although this Panelist can appreciate Claimant's position, we are constrained to apply the specific provisions of the Agreement, reserving to Claimant what ever rights he might have to pursue his argument against the entity responsible for drafting the relevant sales documents in a manner that he claims has cost him an additional award.

295 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal 0 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $21, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): brought this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $44,408.32, pre-rtp. BP appeals, asserting two grounds of error.first, BP contends the Settlement Program erred in accepting conflicting and unsubstantiated financial information. Much of the confusion emanates from Claimant s November 2010 filing with the GCCF. When filed, Claimant produced tax returns and monthly profit and loss statements for 2007, 2008, 2009, and for 2010, through

296 October. Later, other data was added. The Claimant and the Settlement Program both used the same three month period for testing causation. Both used the same three month period for calculation purposes. While BP complains there are inconsistencies in the data, the record is replete with evidence supporting the methodology used by the Settlement Program. BP s first point of error is overruled.bp s second point of error is that the Settlement Program mischaracterized certain variable expenses as fixed. Claimant concedes BP s point and has submitted a Final Proposal that fully reflects the error. BP argues the error would reduce the Final Award by $22,925 (See BP s Initial Proposal at 6). Claimant has reduced the Settlement Program awarded by that exact amount.as modified to account for BP s second point or error, Claimant s Final Proposal is closest to the correct award.

297 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $28, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

298 filed this Individual Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program found to be eligible for an award of $28,547.57, pre-rtp. BP appeals on two grounds. BP first challenges the Employee Sworn Written Statement (SWS). The SWS must establish a nexus between the Spill and the claimed loss. a commission-based salesman of mausoleums, was employed by earnings declined in BP theorizes that the decline in 2010 earnings was not spill-based but rather appears to suggest that the federal government s drilling moratoria was the cause of Claimant s alleged losses. BP s Initial Proposal at 3. The evidence in the record does not support BP s suggestion that the moratoria caused the loss. In fact, the record evidence is to the contrary. See, for example, the Employer SWS at page 3 which contains sworn representation as to Support Services to Oil & Gas Industry. The issue then is whether the SWS is sufficient to establish a causative nexus between the Spill and diminution in earnings. The SWS in question is very specific as to the areas and projects being worked on. It observes that the projects closest to the Spill were the most difficult. It references the program for Houma being postponed because Houma was the largest area that was affected by the Spill. Further, it states that the adjustments made to counter the Spill caused declines caused us to move our sales team to Monroe and to start a sales program that was not totally ready and which we knew would be very difficult. The Employer Sworn Written Statement in this claim is more than sufficient to establish the causative nexus required by the Settlement Agreement. BP s first point of error is overruled. BP s second point is that Claimant s earnings history suggests he was paid bonuses and that bonuses have to be allocated across the period for which they were awarded. Conceptually, BP is correct with respect to allocating bonuses pro rata. Further, compensation does reflect spikes in income. The record evidence however is that compensation is 100% commission-based. Claimant s Final Proposal at 2. Any spikes in compensation are caused by increases in sales as opposed to bonuses. BP s second point is without merit. Claimant s Final Proposal is closest to the correct award and is thus chosen in this baseball appeal.

299 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $28,230 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $76, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached decision uploaded in the portal.

300 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a BP appeal of a Business Economic Loss award to a dental practice located in Montgomery, Alabama. BP alleges error on the part of the Claims Administrator in (1) misapplying Policy 495 in analyzing the claim; (2) failing to properly account for year-end employee bonuses; and (3) erroneously adjusting Claimant s 2009 health insurance expenses. In support of point (1), BP claims that, as a health care provider which receives at least some of its compensation from insurance carriers or third parties, there is a delay between the time that services are rendered and payment is received. Consequently, those entities which keep their books on a cash basis and record revenue upon receipt of payment generate profit and loss statements which do not accurately reflect when the actual earning activities associated with that revenue occurred. According to BP, that is precisely what this Claimant s profit and loss statements demonstrate. Although he determined that Claimant s revenue and expenses were not sufficiently matched, the Claims Administrator did not correctly apply Policy 495. He should have corrected the mismatches first and then applied the Professional Services Methodology as opposed to the Annual Variable Margin Methodology in order to most appropriately perform the matching exercise. Claimant, of course, points to the fact that BP s Policy 495 position is not correct; that the Claims Administrator was first required to examine its P&L statements to determine whether or not they contained any errors such as duplicate entries, incorrect recordings or errors in calculation. Thereafter, unless in the professional judgment of the Claims Administrator there are factors that indicate revenues and expenses would be more sufficiently matched by an alternative methodology, the Annual Variable Margin Methodology should be utilized. Claimant is correct. A thorough review of the record reveals that the Claims Administrator found, using the criteria established in Section 1 of Policy 495, that the claim was not sufficiently matched and, considering Claimant s business industry type (health care), evaluated it under the Annual Variable Margin Methodology set forth in Policy 495 Attachment B. None of the NAICS Codes attached to the matching framework and nothing about the business of this healthcare professional require application of the Professional Services Methodology. The record evidences extensive contact with and receipt of information from Claimant s representatives. That information was, in turn, utilized, as reflected in the Claims Administrator s compensation calculation schedules, in arriving at this award. This panelist finds no abuse of the broad discretion accorded the Claims Administrator in making this determination.

301 In response to BP s error assignment (2), Claimant submits that it has no written bonus plan in place for its employees; that any bonus it elects to pay is purely discretionary; that the decision whether to pay a bonus in whatever amount and when is entirely within its discretion; consequently, any such bonus can only be deducted in the period in which it is paid. The suggestion that such a bonus should be randomly accrued or applied to various time periods with no supporting reason or bonus formula is inconsistent with accounting standards and common sense. This panelist is in agreement. BP s final error assignment is also insupportable. The Claims Administrator analyzed Claimant s health insurance and created a contra-account to break out the owner portion. The expenses in question were then designated as Fixed so that they would not be included in the calculation of variable expenses. BP s conclusion that the adjustment led to an understatement of variable expenses is not correct it was not part of the calculation at all. For the foregoing reasons, this panelist has concluded that the award made by the Claims Administrator should be upheld and decision must be entered in favor of Claimant s final proposal. Decision: October 8, 2014

302 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $8,930 BP s Final Proposal.25 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $42, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. After applying Policy 495, the Settlement Program awarded $42,122.95, pre-rtp. BP appeals. BP s sole point on appeal is that the Settlement Program improperly applied Policy 495. In doing so, BP argues the Settlement Program failed to match revenues and expenses as required by both the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the supervising Federal Court, and Policy 495.My review of the various Calculation Schedules indicates

303 that Policy 495 was followed and that BP s true objection must be to the methodology and assumptions underlying Policy 495. Here, it is evident that the Settlement Program scrupulously followed the Policy. For example, Doc. ID reflects correspondence from the Settlement Program accounting team to Claimant s accountant, The correspondence requested significant documentation for the Profit & Loss Statements for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and In addition, other information was requested. All of this information was needed to process claim properly under Policy 495.Given that the true challenge is to Policy 495 itself, let me address the topic briefly. Policy 495 is a well-reasoned, carefully applied methodology designed to address concerns over the proper matching of revenues and expenses over time. It may be that from time to time there can be disputes over choices made in applying the methodology. However, Policy 495 itself is sound, especially given the lack of a reliable alternative.this is a baseball appeal, meaning that the Final Proposal closest to the correct award prevails. Final Proposal is closest.

304 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional):

305 brought this Individual Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program denied the claim on multiple occasions. excellent Opening Memorandum first addresses whether Policy 363 applies and attacks the perceived reliance of the Settlement Program and BP on it. While is persuasive on the point, BP does not rely on Policy 363 in its Initial or Final Proposal (although some attachments to the Initial Proposal are appellate opinions dating from when Policy 363 was operative). Likewise, the Settlement Program does not need to rely on Policy 363 to deny claim. The Settlement Program bases its denial on a construction of the Business Economic Loss Framework. In its Post-Reconsideration Denial, the Settlement Program concludes that the Business Economic Loss Framework permits compensation for fixed expenses associated with owner or officer payroll cost. Indeed, in the instant case, is an owner of is an officer of Moreover, filed a Business Economic Loss claim. Under the Business Economic Loss Framework, the Settlement Program properly treated salary as an owner and as an officer as a fixed expense. This was required under the methodology and had the effect of increasing award. asserts that on a mathematical basis he would have been better off if the business of which he is an owner and an officer had not treated his salary as a fixed expense. While math is correct it does not address the fundamental problem: If approach is adopted then BP is forced to pay both the Business Economic Loss claim and This is the essence of a double-recovery. There is no basis whatsoever to reach this conclusion. Likewise, there is no basis for suggesting that the Settlement Program modify its methodology on its Business Economic Loss claim computation to adjust for instances like these. Finally, as an owner and an officer of does best over time with a vibrant and healthy business. To adopt approach favors the individual over and favors both of them over BP. I decline to adopt suggested approach.

306 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $29,939 BP s Final Proposal.25 Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount $73, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

307 - In this BEL claim, the Claims Administrator awarded $73,376.32, pre-rtp to this Zone D claimant. BP appeals, asserting as error that the Settlement Program failed to utilize financial data that properly matches Clamant s revenues with corresponding expenses. More specifically, BP argues that Claimant s variable profit percentages fluctuate materially among months throughout the Benchmark and Compensation periods. BP posits that these monthly swings are highly indicative of a failure to match revenue with corresponding expenses. Accordingly, BP seeks remand. Claimant s primary response is that its revenues and variable expenses were properly matched. Claimant points out that BP s argument is speculative and fails to recognize that it uses the accrual basis of accounting. Hence, Claimant s sales revenue is recorded when services are performed, not when payment is received. Claimant also argues that the Claims Administrator properly applied Policy 495 and emphasizes that none of the seven criteria were triggered when the P&Ls were subjected to the 495 analysis. A review few of the record confirms that Claimant s financials were properly tested by the accounting vendor and found to be sufficiently matched. Accordingly, BP s appeal is not well taken and the award must be affirmed.

308 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Coastal Real Property Law Firm Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID F Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional):

309 - The Claims Administrator denied this Coastal Real Property claim, finding that the parcel is not within the Claim Zone. Claimant appeals. The basis of Claimant s appeal is that there is an error in the parcel s physical address, parcel identification number and geographic location. In essence, Claimant maintains that her parcel is, in fact, situated within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. Claimant s primary argument is that the parcel s geographic location on U.S. Hwy. 98 West in Carrabelle, Florida, places it between the highway and St. George Sound. Because the physical location of the parcel is adjacent to the shoreline, Claimant maintains that the Claims Administrator erroneously excluded it. BP argues that the parcel is not geographically located within the Claim Zone and points out that the Claims Administrator s mapping tool is for informational purposes only. BP adds that the co-owner of the parcel also filed a Coastal Real Property claim which was denied by the Claims Administrator for the same reason. The co-owner s appeal was apparently denied by another appeal panelist. The record reveals that the Claims Administrator determined that the address, parcel identification number and geographical location of the Claimant s parcel placed it outside the eligible zone. But a de novo review of the controlling maps in Appendix A of Exhibit 11 appears to indicate that the parcel may well lie within the blue shaded area defining the Claim Zone. At a minimum, the zone map is inconclusive in that the blue shaded area appears to track U.S. Hwy. 98 as it runs parallel to the shore of St. George s Sound which would encompass the parcel. Reference to the Claims Administrator s mapping tool, although solely informational, also appears to place the parcel within the Claim Zone, adding further ambiguity to the issue.

310 The panelist in the companion appeal noted that the parameters of the Claim Zone were based on data available to the parties in Thus, my colleague concluded that the physical location of the parcel was outside the zone. If not for the companion appeal, this panelist would be inclined to reverse the present denial and find that the parcel is situated in the Claim Zone. However, out of deference to my fellow appeal panelist, I have determined that the better approach is for the claim to be remanded to the Claims Administrator with instructions to resolve the discrepancy between the apparent inclusion of the parcel on the map in Attachment A and on the mapping tool. The Claims Administrator shall determine and place the exact location of the parcel in such a manner that will allow it to demonstrate to all parties that it is or is not located within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone.

311 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program Law Firm. II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $119,672 0 $102,866 $145,688 0 $102,866 III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

312 CLAIM ID Claimant is the owner of a shrimp fishing vessel, and filed a claim for compensation under the Seafood Compensation Program. The Settlement Program issued an Eligibility Notice on December 21, Claimant requested Re-Review of its claim, and later received a Post-Re- Review Eligibility Notice awarding a Compensation Amount (including an RTP of 8.25) of $145, BP appealed on the grounds of calculation error, stating It appears that the Settlement Program used the improper vessel length in its calculation. In effect, BP urges that the Settlement Program s initial finding be adopted, rejecting the amended finding following Re- Review. The compensation amount awarded to New Entrant vessel owner claimants in the Seafood Compensation Program is based in part on the size or length of the vessel. See Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 10 at 18 (Table 9). The central issue here is the length of the subject vessel. The length was recorded by the US National Vessel Documentation Center Certificate of Documentation, the valid registration at the time of the Spill, as being 72.1 feet. This evidence formed the basis of the Settlement Program s initial finding. Claimant submitted evidence that the vessel length as initially determined by the Settlement Program was incorrect. Claimant filed an affidavit of an accredited marine surveyor that the length of the vessel was seventy-nine feet, nine inches (79-9 ). Affidavit of A 2011 USSG (United States Coast Guard) survey was also introduced into the record, which put the length of the vessel at 76.1 feet. Under the Seafood Compensation Program s New Entrant Compensation Method, a foot Freezer vessel yields a base compensation award of $119,672, and a greater than 75 foot Freezer vessel equates to a base compensation award of $145,688. See Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 10, at 17. Accordingly, the award rests upon the ultimate finding of whether the length of the vessel exceeds 75 feet, as the Settlement Program determined it did upon Re-Review. To assist in determining this sole issue, the Settlement Program engaged the services of a neutral marine surveyor (HUB Enterprises) to conduct an independent investigation into the length of the vessel. That survey found the length of the vessel to be eighty feet (80-0 ). Accordingly, the Appeal panel finds that the record contains substantial, credible evidence that supports the conclusion reached by the Settlement Program. The Award of the Claims Administrator is upheld, and Claimant s Final Proposal is selected.

313 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Individual Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $7, $44, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

314 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is yet another BP appeal of an Individual Economic Loss award to an employee of In an Initial Proposal memorandum filed prior to the issuance of the court ordered injunction last year, BP asserted six allegations of error. In one filed by it after the injunction was lifted, it reduced those claims to two; namely, that the Claims Administrator (1) failed to properly allocate Claimant s bonuses/commissions pro rata across the period for which they were awarded; and (2) incorrectly granted Claimant the industry classification of Tourism. In the opinion of this panelist, neither one has merit. BP has raised these same issues in appeals of virtually identical IEL awards to at least seven other employees and, in each case, was unsuccessful. In at least two of those cases, BP sought Discretionary Court Review and in each case its request was rejected by the court. This panelist is aware of one other appeal in which BP succeeded in urging that the Tourism industry designation was incorrectly applied based upon that individual claimant s employment duties. Contending that the proper test is that of business activities, that claimant sought Discretionary Court Review. Apparently that request is pending. This panelist further notes that BP has appealed at least eight separate Business Economic Loss awards made to one of which was assigned to this panelist. In all eight, the Claims Administrator had applied the Tourism industry designation and in all eight that designation was upheld on appeal. While those decisions are not binding on this panelist in this appeal, they are overwhelmingly persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, this BP appeal cannot be sustained. The determination of the Claims Administrator must be upheld and decision entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: October 10, 2014

315 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount 1.25 $56, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a convenience store and gas station located in LA, and as part of its business earns commissions by collecting utility payments and remitting the payments to the utility companies for which it receives a commission. Claimant received a Compensation Amount Award of $56, BP appeals contending that Claimant's P& &Ls mischaracterize the amounts collected from utilities as revenue and the remittances as COGS, and if treated as BP contents Claimant fails the Exhibit 4B V-test and is not entitled to

316 compensation. Claimant counters that BP apparently takes its position solely with respect to utility collections and not other revenue items which are typical of a convenience store (e.g. gasoline, lottery tickets, etc.). Claimant's CPA states that the inclusion of revenues from utility companies as a gross revenue with disbursements to the utility company treated as COGS is the appropriate way to handle such items. Under the circumstances, I believe that the Settlement Program and the Claimant are correct.bp also contends that the Settlement Program failed to match Claimant's Inventory Adjustments expense with Claimant's monthly revenue. Claimant recorded in several months which BP contends indicates that Claimant's P&Ls and physical inventory match up perfectly which BP contends is highly improbable. Reallocation, according to BP (without any work papers or calculations to support same) would reduce the claim by approximately $25,096. If BP's argument that the missing months should be approximated it would appear that an appropriate method to be used suggested by the Claimant's CPA would result in a increasee in Claimant's compensation. Finally, under thee baseball,process with BP's Final Proposal, BP's appeal is denied and Claimant's Final Proposal is adopted.

317 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $21, $38, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

318 - In this BEL appeal, the Claims Administrator awarded a real estate agent in Eros, Louisiana $ , pre-rtp. BP appeals on the basis that the Claims Administrator failed to properly apply Policy 495 so as to match revenue and expenses. BP hangs its hat on a revenue spike of $17,999 in the last month of the Benchmark Period and revenue of in one month of the Compensation Period. These positive and negative spikes are seen as red flags to BP signaling the mismatching of revenue and expenses. BP again argues that Policy 495 requires the Claims Administrator to first restate revenue that is mismatched from corresponding expenses. Stated another way, BP urges that the accounting vendor should have restated the revenue and expenses prior to applying the seven criteria of 495. BP apparently believes that the Claims Administrator skipped this first step and went directly to the seven criteria. BP seeks remand or alternatively submits an Initial Proposal of $21,943. Although BP acknowledges that this claim triggered three of Policy 495's matching criteria, it contends that the Claims Administrator should have corrected Claimant s revenue and applied the Professional Services Methodology to reallocate revenue and expenses. A detailed and exhaustive review of the record, including the Accountant Compensation Calculation Schedules, does not support BP s argument. First, Policy 495 has no provision that requires the initial restatement of revenue and expenses as argued by BP. To the contrary, the first step of 495 requires the accounting vendor only to restate P&Ls for any identified errors such as duplicate entries, mistakes, calculation errors, incorrect posting, etc. Instead, the P&Ls are tested using the seven criteria in Section I to identify mismatching of revenue and expenses. The provisions of Rule 495 explain that it is the application of these criteria that the accounting vendor must utilize to identify mismatches. When

319 one or more of the criteria are triggered, the revenue and expenses are restated utilizing one of the methods set forth in Section II. Here, three of the seven criteria were triggered. Thus, Policy 495 required the claim to be adjusted or restated using an appropriate methodology. In this case, the Claims Administrator utilized the Annual Variable Margin (AVM) methodology to restate the Claimant s P&Ls to achieve sufficient matching. BP s argument that the Professional Services methodology should have been utilized is not supported by the record nor the provisions of Policy 495. Further, there is nothing in Attachment F suggesting that a real estate agent should be included in the Professional Services framework. Hence, the Claims Administrator appropriately defaulted to the AVM methodology for this claim. In effect, BP is asking the Appeal Panel to engraft onto Policy 495 a new first step that requires the restatement of revenue and expenses before resorting to the seven criteria. This argument is unsupported by the provisions of Policy 495. An appeal panelist is bound to interpret and apply the provisions of this court-approved rule as written. Here, the Claims Administrator correctly applied each step of Policy 495 to achieve sufficient matching of revenue and expenses. Further, the AVM methodology was correctly utilized to restate the Claimant s P&Ls. No error has been shown and the award is due to be affirmed.

320 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $29, $58, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See written reasons uploaded.

321 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a BEL Claimant asserted by a Mississippi (Zone D) used car dealership. The Claims Administrator awarded the sum of $58, (pre RTP). BP appeals. The only issue on appeal is BP s assertion that the Claims Administrator erred when it included finance charges as revenue. BP claims that error inflated the award by $28, (pre RTP). BP claims the finance charges amount to interest and are governed by Policy 328 v.2. That policy reads: The Claims Administrator interprets the Settlement Agreement such that the following items shall not typically be treated as revenue for purposes of the various calculations to be performed under the terms of the Settlement Agreement with regard to entities asserting BEL claims: (a) insurance proceeds, (b) interest income, (c) gains or losses from sales of assets, (d) reimbursed expenses, (e) capital assessments, (f) intercompany sales, (g) related party transactions that are not arm s length transactions, and (h) grants for for-profit entities. 2 The foregoing is not an exhaustive list. The Claims Administrator in his discretion may require that the claimant provide further explanation and/or additional documentation underlying the monthly revenue and related expense amounts in question. In arriving at this conclusion, the Claims Administrator has in part relied upon the fact that these items are not typically earned as revenue under the normal course of operations in an arm s length transaction. Claimant admits they had interest income from bank deposits and that these were excluded from revenue for claims calculations. Claimant asserts that finance charges relate to revenue earned by the dealership on the financing of the sale of automobiles and that this revenue is incurred in the normal course of business for any car dealership. Car dealerships (new or used) have three potential profit centers, namely sales, service and finance/insurance. To be able to sell a vehicle to most customers, the dealer has to be able to arrange a loan for the buyer. The finance charges the dealer earns from that arrangement is part of the profit earned from sale of that vehicle. It is apparent to this Panelist that the Claims Administrator determined that finance charges for this claimant are an exception (not typical) to the provisions of Policy 328 v.2. This Panelist agrees with that determination and thus Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result

322 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $89, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a used car sales business located in Sarasota, Florida, a Zone C, Non-Tourism enterprise under the Settlement Agreement. BP appeals alleging misclassifications of certain expenses and a lack of investigation into financial documentation by the Administrator. BP's accusations of failures to investigate are disproved by reviewing the Administrator's accountants notes of the requests for additional information and the Claimants' accountant responses. The explanations are certainly adequate and sufficient to support the award. There is

323 nothing surprising about the award as BP asserts, nor anything to be learned by detailing its appeal issues. The award is affirmed.

324 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $7,610 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $31, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): In this appeal Claimant is a residential real estate agent located in Punta Gorda, Florida, where again BP contends that the Settlement Program misapplied Policy 495 relating to matching and the appropriate methodology-professional Services as opposed to AVM. Not to be repetitious, for all the reasons on similar appeals ruled on by myself and the vast majority (if not all) of my fellow panelist on these issues to date, BP's appeal is denied and the Claimant's Proposal is adopted.

325 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $322,542 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $373, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): The Claimant is a Zone C pathology specialist engaged in disease diagnosis. Policy 495 indicia were triggered. The Claims Administrator's accountant vendors attempted to create sufficiently matched revenues to expenses in order for the Administrator to make an award. BP appeals the designation of Billing Expenses as fixed, contending these expenses are classic variable costs of goods sold. The Claimant contends the vendors properly used the classification designation closest to Contract Services and Professional Services described in Exhibit 4D

326 which are designated fixed costs. Abe Lincoln once asked a young man, if you call a cow's tail a leg, how many legs would it have? Five he replied. No Abe said, because calling a cow's tail a leg doesn't make it one! In this claim, the Administrator has called a classic variable expense a fixed one. Variable expenses are those that change in relation to the level of sales by a business. Here, the Claimant performed pathology services for a fee (revenue). It then incurred an expense by having a billing service send a bill to the patient. The more revenue the Claimant generated, the greater the billing expense it incurred and vice versa. If the Claimant had temporarily shut down, the billing service expense would not have continued to be incurred. A review of the vendor notes shows the accountants recognized that as a disease diagnostic practice, Hospital Services, Laboratory Fees and Specimen Pick-Up expenses were properly characterized as variable expenses. This Panel Member finds Billing Services to be a variable expense and selects BP's final proposal to be the correct award.

327 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Coastal Real Property Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Assessment ID Parcel ID Denial Upheld II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant asserts there were many sections of coastline in Franklin County, Florida for which maps were not available from the county property appraiser at the time the Claims Administrator s Database was developed, including his parcel; and that had those maps been available, his parcel clearly would have been included. However, as the Settlement Program found, the property is clearly not located within the Coastal Real Property Claim Zone. An examination of Claimant s brief and exhibits provides no basis to disturb the finding of the Claims Administrator. The denial is upheld.

328 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is an owner/officer of a Zone C architecture firm located in Tampa, Florida. His employer filed a BEL claim and was awarded $853, Claimant now appeals the denial of his IEL claim based on his theory that since that Policy #363 has been withdrawn, there is no prohibition to an award and it does not constitute a double recovery under the Settlement Agreement. Claimants' attorney filed an excellent and thought provoking brief in which he examines all relevant sections and exhibits to show the entitlement. He asserts he has not been made whole from the BEL award and is prepared to offer a credit of his proportionate share against the amount he collects from this IEL award, thus avoiding a double recovery. He submitted an accountant calculation of the additional amount he believes he should be awarded. As King Herod stated to Saint Paul, almost thou persuade me. However, BP asserts that the BEL framework treated Claimant's salary as a fixed expense which provided a full recovery for both the employer and Claimant. See S.A. Section Having reviewed numerous appeal panel decisions which considered this double recovery issue under Policy #363, I find that the policy was based on an interpretation of Exhibit 4 C of the Settlement Agreement which would also prevent double recoveries. The denial of the claim is affirmed.

329 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

330 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a Claimant Appeal from the denial of a Business Economic Loss claim filed on its behalf. It asserts that the Claims Administrator erred in (1) denying it a Tourism industry designation; (2) determining that its business location was in Economic Loss Zone C; and (3) denying that it established causation as a Causation Proxy Claimant. In its original BEL claim form, Claimant described its business as that of [w]holesale of gifts to tourist shops and festival vendors in Florida, primarily the S It provided an NAICS Code of ( Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchants Wholesalers ) and listed an address in St. Petersburg, Florida. In reliance upon that information, the Claims Administrator concluded that Claimant s business was located in Zone C and applied the Non-Tourism designation. It then analyzed Claimant s profit and loss statements and other, relevant financial data and concluded that it did not satisfy the causation requirements contained in Settlement Agreement Exhibit 4B. Claimant sought Re-Review and Reconsideration alleging that more than 50% of its gross sales were wholesale to gift shops and tourist shops on Clearwater Beach, which is in Zone A. It also claimed to have sold directly to tourists on the beach from time to time. Those requests were denied. On appeal, Claimant asserts that the business address designated on its claim form is actually a residence; that no business was conducted at that location; that, in fact, all of its business was conducted on the beach with gift shops and tourists. That, it claims, coupled with the fact that the bulk of its sales were to customers in Zone A, entitle it to both a Tourism Industry and Zone A Business designation. It offers no documentation to support the Causation Proxy claim. Careful examination of the entirety of this record, together with a thorough review of Settlement Agreement Exhibits 2 (Tourism) and 4B (Causation Requirements for BEL Claims) leads this panelist to conclude that the Claims Administrator committed no error. This Claimant appeal cannot be sustained. Decision must be entered herein upholding denial of this claim. Decision: October 13, 2014

331 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $22,560 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $34,560 0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

332 - This appeal involves a claim for oyster leases under the Seafood Compensation Program. The Claims Administrator initially awarded $9, to the Claimant. The Claimant then requested reconsideration seeking inclusion of additional leases. In support of his reconsideration request, Claimant submitted documentation that he and his co-owners were forced to take the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to court to force the LDWF to renew eight oyster leases. On 9/4/13, the lease owners, including the Claimant, entered into a Consent Judgment with LDWF whereby the court declared them to be owners of the leases in question retroactive to the date when they should have been renewed by LDWF. On reconsideration, the Claims Administrator determined that the Consent Judgment established title and provided standing on seven of the eight oyster leases. The Claimant received a Post-Reconsideration Eligibility Notice awarding compensation of $22,560. Because the Claims Administrator did not include in its award, Claimant appeals. The basis of Claimant s appeal is that a Judgment was entered on 8/16/11 likewise requiring the LDWF to renew and reissue retroactive to January 1, Thus, Claimant asserts that he has established satisfactory ownership and standing to receive compensation for his 7.5% interest (80 $2,000/acre = $160,000 x 7.5% interest = $12,000). BP acknowledges that the Claimant owned an interest in the oyster lease as of 9/1/11 but argues that he failed to submit documentation establishing ownership at the time of the spill. BP (and the Claims Administrator) appears to argue that the Petition for Damages, Mandamus and Injunctive Relief submitted by the Claimant (Doc. ID fails to establish ownership retroactive to 4/20/10. This position appears to be correct as far as it goes. However, the Judgment dated 8/16/2011 (Doc ID does establish Claimant s ownership retroactive to January 1, Further, the record reflects that

333 the Claimant promptly paid all required lease renewal payments. On de novo review, I find that the record does establish Claimant s ownership interest and standing with regard to the oyster lease in issue. Accordingly, the Claimant s Final Proposal of $34,560 is adopted.

334 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $160, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to this Sarasota, FL pet store which the Claims Administrator determined was entitled to $163, (pre-rtp). BP argues that the Settlement Program erroneously relied upon financial information from three separate, distinct and unrelated legal entities and, further, mischaracterized Claimant s expenses for outside services and grooming. Alternatively, BP contends that the Claims Administrator should have processed the claim as a failed business, rather than under the BEL framework.the Claims Administrator

335 considered financial information from Claimant ( as well as and, calculating the award. Despite BP s claim that these companies are separate and distinct, the record demonstrates that Claimant is a qualified subchapter s of its parent company, and, thus, is not considered a separate entity. Further, Claimant purchased in 2008, becoming successor-in-interest and carrying on the same operation of business, without interruption. I am satisfied that the Claims Administrator properly considered financial information from these entities and, further, that the claim was properly processed as a BEL Claim. Claimant conceded the issue of the characterization of its outside services and grooming expense and reduced its claim by $2,614 (pre-rtp), thus rendering the issue moot.bp s final proposal of is not supported by the record and, accordingly, I find that the claimant s Final Proposal is the proper award.

336 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $11,484 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $28, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

337 : This appeal involves a recurring issue with respect to the methodology used to analyze financial data used in the Business Economic Loss ( BEL ) framework in addressing the matching of revenue and variable expenses. Claimant is a realtor located in Palm Harbor, FL (Zone D) In making its determination, the Settlement Program applied the annual variable margin methodology ( AVM ) of Claims Policy 495. BP asserts that the Settlement Program should have applied the Professional Services Methodology ( PSM ). It argues that CAO Policy 495 calls for application of the PSM, and that the AVM methodology, which the Settlement Program applied in its analysis, was not designed to address problems with the timing of revenue, as was manifested in this case. An examination of the Underlying Issues/Principles CAO Policy 495, at 2 is instructive. It explains that in light of the rulings and instructions by the Court, the Claims Administrator, in conjunction with the CSSP Accounting Vendors, arrived at a number of conclusions with respect to the matching issues presented. Among the stated conclusions, those most notable for the purposes of this appeal are as follows: 1. Different industries tend to present different issues and require different methodologies in terms of trying to achieve sufficient matching. 2. It is not feasible in the context of a class-wide settlement involving thousands of different claims, with each claimant s financial information potentially spanning a time period in excess of four years, to attempt to match specific expenses to specific revenues on an individual transaction by transaction basis. The time, effort and expense required under this approach would be prohibitive. Further, it is unlikely that such individualized matching of specific expenses to specific revenues would be possible based on information and documentation available to the claimants or the CSSP. 3. It is the CSSP s considered assessment that, for the majority of claimants, sufficient matching of revenue and expenses will be best accomplished through an annual variable margin methodology (AVM) which totals variable expenses for each Fiscal Year and allocates them to each month on a pro-rata basis of monthly revenues for the same period. This approach reasonably accomplishes sufficient matching and is the most feasible methodology in the context of a class-wide settlement. 4. The operating characteristics of certain businesses will not lend themselves to the application of an annual variable margin methodology. The following industries in particular each warrant a customized methodology in order to achieve sufficient matching in a way that reasonably depicts economic reality for purposes of loss measurement: construction, agriculture, education and professional services.

338 5. Consideration of whether revenues and expenses are sufficiently matched necessarily involves an element of professional judgment. The CSSP recognizes and reserves the right of the CSSP Accounting Vendors to exercise such professional judgment to achieve sufficient matching as ordered by the Court. 6. It is the CSSP s considered assessment that, for the majority of claimants, sufficient matching of revenue and expenses will be best accomplished through an annual variable margin methodology which totals variable expenses for each Fiscal Year and allocates them to each month on a pro-rata basis of monthly revenues for the same period. This approach reasonably accomplishes sufficient matching and is the most feasible methodology in the context of a class-wide settlement. CAO Policy 495, p 2-3 Determination of the applicable methodology is controlled by Attachment A to Policy 495, entitled NAICS CODES ASSIGNED TO MATCHING FRAMEWORK. Id. at A1. The attachment lists the NAICS codes that fall into each of the special categories as set forth in paragraph 4 above.. Further, the attachment explains, In identifying those NAICS codes that would most likely fall into each methodology there is a particular focus on the specialty methodologies Construction, Professional Services, Agriculture, and Educational Institutions with all other NAICS codes defaulting to the Annual Variable Margin (Short Revenue Cycle) methodology. Policy 495 at A1. Attachment A does not list any NAICS codes for real estate brokers and agents. It was certainly known to all parties that there were a significant number of claims filed by members of the real estate industry during the Policy developmental process. Had the Claims Administrator and CSSP Vendors felt this industry should be analyzed under the PSM methodology, they would have included the appropriate NAICS codes in Attachment A. They did not. A review of the CAO s record regarding this claim reveal the Settlement Program s satisfaction that the Claimant s financials were sufficiently matched after implementation of the AVM method. The Settlement Program found no reason to deviate from CAO Policy 495 s default provision at A1 in applying the AVM methodology. The AVM methodology was appropriate for this claim and the Settlement Program s analysis should be affirmed. The Award is upheld, and Claimant s Final Proposal selected.

339 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $18,671 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $27, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant, a pharmacy located in Bruce,Mississippi.BP asserts the revised accounting protocol decreed by recent court decisions and Policy 495 was not followed and misapplied because two entries,one in July 2009 for deferred Medicaid payments and the other in January2010 for employee medical reimbursement expense,were not properly attributed to periods when earned or accrued.bp also contends bank charges were misclassified as a fixed expense.a review of the record discloses in the eligibility

340 notice the Claims Administrator concluded the claim was not sufficiently matched and using the annual variable margin methodology granted an award less than that sought by claimant.the program accountants noted certain anomalies in claimant's financial data,obtained explanation from claimant and made necessary adjustments.bp's argument relative to how the 495 protocol and evaluation thereunder should be initially applied has been repeatedly rejected.the Claims Administrator acted properly and there is no error in the calculation.revenues and expenses were sufficiently matched.exact matching is not required.finally, BP's argument relating to the misclassification of bank charges is rejected as procedurally barred and on the merits as without evidentiary basis.the appeal of BP is denied.

341 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $39,648 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $52, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a Zone D, Tourism related located in Florida. The Administrator awarded it $52, pre-rtp for its BEL claim. No Policy 495 indicia were triggered. BP filed the instant appeal asserting that the Administrator improperly classified the Supplies Expense as fixed when it should have been variable if any of these expenses went to the cost of pizza production. This issue has no merit. A review of the accountant vendor notes clearly reflects that inquiry was made into expense items and those that went into

342 COGS were labeled as variable. Further, a review of the expenses classed as fixed varied less than 6% when compared to the reduction in revenues that occurred after the spill. There were no notable matching issues so the BEL methodology was used to calculate the award. The award of the Administrator is affirmed.

343 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $30,572 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $69, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant,a tavern owner in central Florida.In its notice of appeal BP raised several issues but in its supporting memorandum asserts only one ground,viz.,the Claims Administrator failed to reconcile significant discrepancies between claimant's P&Ls and its sales tax returns for May and September 2008 and May and September 2010,the former relating to the benchmark period and the latter to the compensation period.a review of the record discloses in the eligibility notice the Claims Administrator concluded

344 the claim was not sufficiently matched and used the annual variable margin methodology to calculate the award.the program accountants observed inconsistencies in the financial documents,queried claimant,considered the response and resolved the issues.they examined adjusted sales tax returns filed with the Florida Department of Revenue and compared the P&Ls to claimant's federal tax returns,noting no inconsistencies in them.this information along with other companion documents is persuasive evidence the Claims Administrator acted with due diligence in resolving this claim.this action comports fully with the obligations required of him under Exhibit 4A of the Settlement Agreement.There is no error.the award is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

345 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $7,520 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $11,520 0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant has appealed this Oyster Leasehold Claim, asserting error in the Claims Administrators's determination that claimant had failed to show ownership in the subject lease as of April 20, 2010, as required by the Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 10 at p. 26.Following a careful review of all of the documents reviewed by Settlement Program, this Panelist finds no proofs that establish claimant's individual ownership interest retroactive to 4/20/10, as he had with companion leases within the same claim. The Claims Administrator

346 correctly determined that the documentation submitted regarding, at issue here, did not meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The appeal is denied, the award upheld, and BP's Final proposal hereby selected.

347 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,a non-profit entity in Key West,Florida, appeals the three-time denial of its BEL claim on the basis it is an excluded real estate developer under section of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant asserts it is not a real estate developer and under policy 468 as enacted it qualifies for the construction contractor exception.the record upon review discloses there was ample objective data upon which the Claims Administrator could reasonably base the determination that claimant was a real estate developer,i.e.,engaged in condominium development -related activities,and not an excepted construction contractor particularly in light of existing public records.considering the various criteria delineated in policy 468 this panelist is satisfied there was a reasonable basis in the record supporting exclusion and denial of this claim.there is no error.the appeal of claimant is denied.

348 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals its reconsidered denial of a BEL claim. Admitting it would not qualify for causation under the various tests of Ex. 4B, it argues its entitlement to a causation presumption under a Tourism designation as described in Exhibit 2. The affidavit of its President describes Claimant as both a day spa and store located on in New Orleans. Claimant sells skin and body products, home products, women's and children's clothes and apparel, women's accessories, costume jewelry, and various greeting cards. Although not controlling, the record indicates that during relevant periods Claimant consistently sold more retail products than spa services. Claimant advertises in periodicals geared to tourists and appears in several tourist and travel blogs. Its location on is in the heart of one of the primary tourist shopping corridors in the entire city. Although it is true that in tax returns it listed an NAICS (453990, All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers) not listed in Exhibit 2, Policy 289v2, with which this panelist agrees, notes that this list is illustrative, not exhaustive. Applying the totality of circumstances to this Claimant's operation, especially in light of the claimant-friendly provisions of the Agreement, mandate on a de novo review that it qualifies for Tourism designation under several NAICS codes, including (General Merchandise). As such, the Administrator's finding must be respectfully reversed.

349 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is owner/ officer of an architectural firm in Tampa, Florida.The Settlement Program denied the claim because the firm received an award under the BEL framework.this is a companion claim to Claim # wherein another owner/officer of the same firm that had the BEL claim also filed an IEL claim which was denied. In that appeal my fellow panelist in a well written opinion, while acknowledging Claimant attorney's thought provoking brief, concludes as I have that for the reason stated in that opinion the denial must be affirmed.

350 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $14,400 $37, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. Claim should have been excluded. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the award of $37, (pre-rtp) to the Claimant in her BEL claim. Although BP raised several issues in the appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the claimant previously received payment from the GCCF and executed a release, thus excluding this claim.claimant is a real estate agent in Ft. Myers, FL. She previously

351 filed a claim with the GCCF on behalf of, received a payment of $14,400 from the GCCF, and signed a release as the President/Owner on May 15, This BEL claim is designated as an individual filing as a business and the record contains 1099s to Claimant from R, bank statements indicating that does business as, and commissions paid to BP maintains that Claimant is seeking compensation for the same business for which she has already received compensation and released further claims.to all of this, Claimant responds with a generic statement that Claimant filed the claim as an independent contractor who received 1099s and that the losses were separate and apart from the losses attributed to the company which Claimant owned and of which she was the president.the release signed by Claimant clearly excludes any other claims of any type in the future, whether known or unknown. It appears from the record that the claim arises from the same claim submitted to the GCCF, and Claimant fails to provide a basis to refute BP s argument that the claim should have been excluded. Accordingly, I am compelled by the terms of the Settlement Agreement to find that BP is correct and BP s final proposal is correct.

352 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $28,546 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of a gas station owner. The contention is made that revenues were not adequately matched with expenses and Policy 495 was not correctly applied to rectify the problem. Specifically, BP points to the fact that claimant recorded zero credit card fees in several months despite having substantial revenues during these periods. However, BP does not even suggest that one of the 7 criteria laid out in Policy 495 was triggered. As stated, it is not

353 required that there be perfect matching which would be essentially impossible to achieve. Policy 495 is a comprehensive mechanism designed to achieve reasonable matching. BP cannot expand the parameters of 495 by picking apart certain aspects of a financial statement that do not run afoul of the enumerated matching policy. Accordingly, the award in favor of the claimant is affirmed.

354 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $7, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $89, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a bakery goods manufacturer located in Samson, Alabama, and the Settlement Program awarded Claimant $89, on its BEL claim. BP appeals on the followings basis: 1. The Settlement Program misclassified certain expenses, namely: a. Other Expenses as N/A despite evidence they included variable bad debt expenses; b.marketing-broker Fees as fixed, and c. Consulting Fees as fixed. 2. BP argues that had the Settlement Program properly classified $76,128 of Other Expenses applying Policy 495 would have

355 triggered number six which would require the application of the AVM methodology which was never done.to this Panelist the more significant of Claimant's responses are: 1. Other Expenses: The revenue written off was recorded in 2005, and since the Claimant is using a benchmark period, the January 2008 write off of the 2005 revenue item has zero impact; 2. Market-Broker Fees: The fees are properly classified as an advertising expense which the parties decided was to be classified as a fixed expense, and 3. Consulting Fees: The Agreement specifies five items that are deemed fixed when part of COGS, and since Consulting Fees are not listed as part of COGS-Fixed, that are properly classified as variable.for these retorts and others rendered in Claimants reply, there is no error.

356 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the denial of its BEL claim, which denial was based on its location as a Zone D business and the fact that the entity did not meet the causation test for a Zone D business. Claimant is a property management company and contends that the Zone D site is only a place where rent is dropped off and where bills are generated. avers that all of its managed properties are in Zone A and,therefore, derives 100% of its revenues from Zone A. However, unfortunately for this claimant, this is not the test under the Settlement Agreement. It is the situs of the office for the business. In the instant case, the billing address, the address set forth on its business plan, the address listed on the tax returns and the location on the bank records all show a Zone D address. It is not enough that the company derives its revenues from Zone A or that claimant makes a self serving submission to the claims administrator showing a Zone A location. A company cannot hold itself out to the world as having one location and then attempt to alter this fact for purposes of fitting into the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the decision of the Settlement Program denying this claim is affirmed.

357 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $54,135 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $162, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This appeal involves the recurring issues relating to Policy 495-matching and methodology (AVM vs. Professional Services). Claimant is a real estate agent located in Tierra Verde, Florida, who was awarded $162, pre- RTP by the Settlement Program. Claimant adopted the award amount, but BP appeals requesting a remand or reducing the award to $54, In reaching this figure BP makes assumptions admittedly because the record does not have sufficient information. BP gives little or no indication of how this figure was computed. BP's

358 arguments on these issues have been rejected numerous times by prior appeal panelist including this panelist, e.g. see claims and those attached to Claimant's brief. There is no error. Claimant's Final Proposal is adopted.

359 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $32, $84, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

360 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a BEL claim where the Claims Administrator awarded $84, (pre-2.50 RTP). BP appeals alleging: 1) The Settlement Program did not correct mismatches of revenue and expenses; and, 2) The Settlement Program did not correctly classify expenses. Here, the Claimant submitted additional substantive documentation with its Final Proposal (under Rule 13 Section (h) of the Appeal Panel Rules). The documents submitted by Claimant demonstrate that the Settlement Program did not mismatch revenues and expenses. Next, if BP were correct on the expense classification issue, it asserts the award would be reduced by $12, This Panelist has reviewed the record here carefully and finds that the documents in the record and the voluminous Contact Notes therein support the classification by the Settlement Program of the involved expenses. The Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

361 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $148, $214, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

362 CLAIM ID BP appeals this BEL claim, asserting that the Settlement Program failed to adequately match certain variable expenses to the revenue they generated. BP concedes that none of the seven Policy 495 screens for insufficiently matched data are triggered in this case. However, BP argues that matching problems requiring resolution still exist, as Claimant s monthly gross profit percentages for its largest revenue account fluctuated drastically in 2010, and this requires further examination, despite the absence of a trigger pursuant to the seven-screen analysis. Policy 495 provides that it is not feasible in the context of a class-wide settlement involving thousands of different claims to attempt to match specific expenses to specific revenues on an individual transaction by transaction basis. The time, effort and expense required under this approach would be prohibitive. Policy 495, p. 3. Here, it is apparent that the CSSP Accounting vendors, in their professional judgment, did not find significant indicia that the claim may not be sufficiently matched, as required by Policy 495, pp. 5-6 to warrant further review. This Panelist agrees. As has been repeatedly held by other Panelists in Policy 495 cases, the policy requires sufficient matching, not exact matching. Applying the Baseball Arbitration method requires that Claimant s voluntarily reduced Final Proposal be selected. BP s further arguments with respect to the alleged mischaracterization of certain variable expenses have been rendered moot, as the result would not change, even were BP to prevail on these issues.

363 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $68, $86, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): The Claimant is a metal fabrication company located in Jackson,, Mississippi. It is a Zone D, non-tourism enterprise for award purposes. The BEL methodology was used because no Policy 495 criteria weree triggered and the accountant vendors found the claim to be sufficiently matched. The claim proposal was professionally prepared and based on contemporaneously submitted P/Ls. BP complained of variable profit fluctuations and payroll distortions. However, a review of the accountants notes and calculations do not support these concerns. The award of the Administrator is affirmed.

364 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $40, $50, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant,a realtor in Islamorada,Florida.BP raises two issues: the revised accounting protocol decreed by recent court decisions was not properly followed because revenues were not attributed to the months they were actually earned rather than when payment was received;and an improper industry-appropriate methodology was used.the eligibility noticee issued acknowledged the claim was not sufficiently matched and employed the Annual Variable Margin Methodology(AVMM) for its revised award to

365 claimant.claimant maintained her records on a cash basis and recorded her commissions when closings were completed.bp points to one revenue spike of $31,680 in December '09 which was the last month of the benchmark period(july-december'09).bp argues this financial data confirms that commissions paid during that period were not matched to when they were earned.the recordss disclose that during the benchmark period revenues of $13, 800(August '09),$18,750(September '09) and$31,680(december '09) were recorded with no reported revenues for July,October and November.Ev ven if revenues were allocated to those months from the December '09 period the sum total of $64,230 for the benchmark period upon which the award was calculated would have remained unaltered.thus this alleged error would have been inconsequential.revenues and expenses were sufficiently matched.finally,it is noted under Attachment A,policy 495,realtors were not listed ass one of those businesses covered by the Professional Services Methodology.Other recent decisions have concluded that application of the AVMM is appropriate for claimss such as this one.theree is no error and policy 495 was properly utilized. The award is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

366 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $21, $31, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

367 The Claims Administrator awarded compensation of $21,690.26, pre-rtp to this retail store in Zone D. The Claims Administrator determined that the Claimant was entitled to the Tourism designation. Further, two of the matching criteria of Policy 495 were triggered which resulted in the application of the AVM methodology for matching. BP s appeal raises only one issue and it is unrelated to the application of Policy 495. Instead, BP argues that the cost of goods sold (COGS) on Claimant s P&Ls differs materially from the COGS listed on its tax returns. BP therefore argues that the award is artificially inflated by over 30%. The record reflects that the Claimant does not maintain monthly profit and loss statements for its business. The Claimant acknowledged to the accounting vendor that the P&Ls it submitted were created from bank statements. As noted, tax returns were also submitted. The difference between the COGS for 2009 was - $7, For 2010, the difference was + $4, BP argues that the differences overstated variable profit for 2009 and understated it for The Claims Administrator s accounting vendor investigated this issue and concluded that the differences were due to end of year adjustments. Because the P&Ls were recreated from bank statements, they do not contain the year end adjustments reflected on the tax returns. BP s argument for remand is therefore without merit. The record supports the award of compensation by the Administrator. BP does not challenge the Tourism designation nor application of the AVM. Accordingly, the award is affirmed.

368 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a franchisee with 4 locations in Panama City and Panama City Beach, Florida. The Settlement Program denied this BEL claim because Claimant did not meet the applicable test under Exhibit 4B for a claimant located in Zone C. Claimant has appeal contendingg that it should be considered to be located in Zone B and that it satisfies Exhibit 4B's test for claimants locatedd in Zone B. Claimant alleges that it should havee been included in Zone B because the Settlement Agreement provides that when a parcel is the requisite the boundary between two zones it shall receive the more favorablee one. Exhibit 1C of the Settlement Agreement provides only two exceptions where a parcel may be included in the same zone as a surface road, namely: (1) that a parcel located on a surface road is directly accessible to a surface road via a driveway, parking lot, or on- streett parking; or (2) any that a parcel has the road as a street address. Neither applies here. The denial is upheld.

369 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Businesss Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement program denied the claim and, upon request for reconsideration,, denied the claim again. I affirm the denial.the Settlement Program denied the claim because did not pass any of the tests for eligibility enumerated in Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. contends that the Settlement Program erred in including in revenues the receipts of a company acquired in the third quarterr of Indeed, if thee revenues of that acquired company are excluded, may passs the 4B test. However, the revenues of an entity acquired before a Spill cannot be excluded. Exhibit 4B articulates a straightforward, objectivee test for determining eligibility. On its face, does not meet it.to holdd otherwise would defeat the purpose of Exhibitt 4B. BP would attack revenuee streams as unrelated and thus excludable. Claimants would engage in similar tactics. This would disserve the purpose of Exhibit 4B.The Settlement Program s denial of the claim is upheld.

370 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm. II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, the owner of in Okaloosa County, Florida, appeals its denial of a BEL claim. The Administrator determined that Claimant could not meet the causation requirements of Ex. 4B of the Agreement, and specifically Sec. III.C.2 thereof, which requires, under the Decline-Only revenue pattern, that Claimant provide factors beyond its control that prevented its recovery of revenues in While this matter was being processed, the Administrator issued Policy 474, which requires that to meet the Decline Only test, a Claimant must submit third party proof of factors beyond its control to recover 2011 revenues. This policy is well- This reasoned and logical, and does allow that factors listed therein are only illustrative and not exhaustive. record contains a sworn written statement by employed by (a separate entity from Claimant and contracted by Claimant as third party property manager of the subject Therein, identifies and attaches several revised tenant leases that were changed to the benefit of the respective tenants as a response to tenant rent reduction requests in an effort to keep the tenants from going out of business. Thoughh Claimant executed these agreements, and thus arguably controlled its subsequent loss of revenue, this was a matter of losing the rent battle but winning the rent war in at least retaining solvent tenants,albeit at reducedd rent. also identified and attached too his sworn statement certain Daily Activity and Safety reports executed by third party security personnel verifying that a power outage occurred at the forr

371 several hours during Sept. 3, 2011, one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year. This panelist believes that the evidencee submitted more than qualifies as third-party documentation envisioned by Policy 474, and thus finds that the factors beyond its control requirement has been satisfied by this Claimant, requiring the overturning of this denial.

372 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $53, $76, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss Claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlementt Program awardedd $76,783.10, pre-rtp. BP appeals. On appeal, BP seeks either a remand or submits a Final Proposal of $53,712, pre-rtp.bp claims in its Initial Proposal that the Settlementt Program ignored a matching issue presented by revenues in June, Claimant recorded $231,879 in Commission Income that month. BP correctly notes this was almost 20% of revenues for the year. In Reply, however,

373 notes the revenue was properly matched with the month because paid out $186,369 in commission expenses, which was also 20% of the total commissions paid out for the year. This corroborates Claimant s view of the record.in reviewing the record, it appearss that Claimant passes, as the Settlement Program found, all seven matching rules under Policy 495.Given this, Premiere s Final Proposal is closest to the correct award in this baseball appeal.

374 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $44, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant, a seller of residential fireplaces and heating accessories in Jackson,Mississippi.BP raises two issues for review:an incorrect industry- appropriate methodology was used to calculate claimant's award and there were inconsistencies in the P&Ls which flawed the calculations.in the eligibility notice issued the Claims Administrator acknowledged the claim was not sufficiently matched and used the Annual Variable Margin Methodology(AVMM) to calculate the award.bp asserts AVMM was not the

375 appropriate methodology and that Construction Methodology should have been used.it contends that NAICS code ( Plumbing,Heating and A/C contractors) should have been designated to this claim by the program reviewers and not which applies to businesses engaged in the wholesale distribution of plumbing and heating equipment.an analysis of claimant's business records reveals it sells inventory both to home builders and to walk-up customers.the P&Ls do not reflect income derived from labor charges.there is no factual basis to support this assertion.the Claims Administrator properly classified claimant's business and used the industryappropriate methodology to calculate the award.finally the record discloses there was communication and inquiry by the program accountants relating to COGS entries on the 2007 and 2008 P&Ls.Claimant's accountants explained those variances were due to omissions relating to year-end adjustments.once these adjusted documents were provided the program accountants were able to reconcile the P&Ls to claimant's federal tax returns.there is no error.remand is not appropriate.the award is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

376 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional):

377 - The Claimant, a Zone B video gaming operator, appeals the denial of its BEL claim. The basis of Claimant s appeal is that the Claims Administrator erred in failing to recognize the Claimant as a Tourism business. This is important because without the Tourism designation, the Claims Administrator determined that the Claimant could not satisfy any of the causation tests in Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. The gist of Claimant s argument on appeal is that 100% of its income derives from restaurants, bars and truck stops in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes. Claimant posits that it is therefore entitled to the Tourism designation and its corresponding causation presumption. Interestingly, Claimant makes no argument that its financials actually satisfy any of the causation tests in Exhibit 4B. BP responds that Claimant is in the gaming rather than any tourism business. Additionally, BP forcefully argues that the record fails to establish that Claimant s business provides services catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to or staying in places outside their home community, as opposed to local patrons The record discloses that the Claims Administrator assigned NAICS Code which is not included in the list of NAICS codes for businesses that meet the Tourism definition. Moreover, the record lacks evidence that the Claimant s video gaming operations satisfy the Tourism definition in the Settlement Agreement. It is also undisputed that the Claimant s financials themselves fail to establish causation under any of the revenue tests in Exhibit 4B. The Claims Administrator was therefore correct in classifying the Claimant as a non-tourism business. The result is that no presumption of causation is available to get the Claimant over the causation hurdle. Accordingly, Claimant s appeal must be denied.

378 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): In a classic case of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, the Claimant, a Zone D housing authority supported by donations as revenues, attempts to prove a BEL loss. It fails every test for causation as required by Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. A review of the submitted documentation confirms that the claim was properly denied by the Administrator. The denial is affirmed.

379 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $197, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award to a concrete manufacturer/distributor. Though asserting various familiar grounds in its Notice of Appeal, it asserts in brief a single basis, namely that the matter should be remanded to allow the Administrator to investigate the possibility that Claimant's revenue was derived from out-of-zone facilities in contravention of Exhibit 5 and Sections and of the Agreement.In support, BP refers to references in

380 Claimant's website that it maintains satellite plants in Latin America and to La. Sales Tax returns showing all its revenue is derived from sales outside Louisiana (though admitting that the records do not segregate between Gulf Coast and Latin American sales).central to this panelist's ruling is the oft-cited proposition that it is the location of the source facility that controls eligibility under the Agreement, not the ultimate destination of the sales and services. Claimant in brief has explained to this panelist's satisfaction that its sole manufacturing facility, spanning some 40,000 square feet, is located in New Orleans, and that the satellite plants referred to in its website are actually locations owned by distributors who purchase Claimant's concrete. Claimant's sole involvement concerning those facilities is to provide these distributors at no cost a concrete mixer with which to mix Claimant's purchased product. This panelist, after reviewing the record, is satisfied that the Administrator s award to Claimant was in full compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

381 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, located in Belle Chasse, LA, filed a BEL claim that the Settlement Program excluded on the basis that the NAICS Code assigned... identifies it as a business in the oil and gas industry which is excluded under the Settlement Agreement. Claimant appeals contending that the NAICS Code in its 2010 tax return is not listed in Exhibit 17 of the Settlement Agreement, and that Claimant is more akin to NAICS Code (Other Gasoline Stations) which fall within the Tourism definition. BP counters that the record evidence, including the NAICS Code selected in its Louisiana Sales Tax Returns, establish that Claimant is excluded under the Settlement Agreement. That Claimant's selected NAICS Code is not listed because is not a valid NAICS Code. That the Settlement Agreement provides that the Claims Administrator determine the appropriate NAICS Code and the Settlement Program properly assigned NAICS Code , which the Claimant used in its 2009 and 2010 Louisiana Sales Tax Returns. NAICS Code (Other Gasoline Stations) is not applicable to the Claimant because (a) Claimant is not a gasoline station; (b) Claimant describes itself as a fuels and lubricants wholesaler and distributer, not a retailer; (c) Claimant admits that its business is Wholesale sales on its 2008 and 2009 Federal Income Tax Returns, and (d) Claimant's income statements are not consistent with a retailer. This panelist finds that the record evidence is sufficient to show that the Claims Administrator's determination and assignment of an appropriate NAICS Code was sufficient and the claim should have excluded.

382 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons for ruling uploaded

383 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: Claimant, a Patterson, Louisiana business, filed a BEL claim. The Settlement Program twice denied the claim on the basis that the Claimant is excluded under the Oil & Gas Exclusion of the Settlement Agreement. Claimant appeals. Claimant s tax returns reveal Claimant used NAICS Code The 2389xx Code section refer to Other Specialty Trade Contractors. Claimant asserts the appropriate NAICS Code designation for its business is (Machine Shops), (Welding, On Site Contractor) or (Site Preparation Contractors). On the record, Claimant describes itself as follows: is actually in the metal fabrication business. Although its work has included fabricating certain equipment (or metal parts) to be used by its employees to install cement units on drilling rigs, it does not manufacture the cement units. Those units are manufactured by third parties and is hired to install the units. In order to do the installation, was required to manufacture certain metal parts in-house at is fabrication facility in Patterson, Louisiana. employees along with fabricated components parts would then do the installation on site on the drilling rigs. The same is true with respect to its work on jobs in the Gulf. In that work, would fabricate (in its fabrication shop) various metal structures or parts that were then used on site in connection with the job. In the BEL claim form, Claimant stated that all of its 2009 revenue was derived from providing services, goods and supplies to businesses in the offshore oil & gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico. It is incumbent upon the Claims Administrator to apply the appropriate NAICS code to a Claimant after review of a Claimant s business activities. The assignment of NAICS (Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing) to this Claimant is totally appropriate. The Settlement Agreement excludes claims by businesses who meet that description (Exhibit 17). Accordingly, the Claims Administrator was clearly correct in excluding this claim.

384 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $90, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a non-tourism, Zone D, Trucking and Hauling Service Company located in Ashford, Alabama. The Administrator made an award for Claimant's BEL claim. BP appealed asserting two main issues for review on appeal. First, BP argues that the Administrator misclassified the Miscellaneous Operating Expense account which contained 27 subaccounts. Exhibit 4D provides that generally Miscellaneous Expenses are treated as fixed for award purposes. The Administrator's accountant vendors made inquiry into the subaccounts and was

385 satisfied with the responses from Claimants' accountants. A review of the accountants notes satisfies this Panelist as well. Secondly, BP complains that the Administrator should have excluded in total the Maintenance and Repairs expense as variable. However, Exhibit 4D which was negotiated and agreed to by the parties, clearly states that these expenses are to be split 50/50 between maintenance (fixed) and repairs (variable). BP seeks to create an exception within 4D to which this Panelist is unwilling to agree. The Award is affirmed.

386 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $12,539 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $33, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded $33,320.12, pre-rtp. BP appeals.on appeal, BP argues that the Settlement Program did not comply with judicially imposed matching requirements. BP argues that the Settlement Program should have used the Professional Services Methodology instead of the AVM Methodology. See BP s Initial Proposal at 2, Fn. 1. However, there is no basis under Policy 495 to apply the Professional

387 Services Methodology. The PSM lists the specific NAICS codes governed by the PSM. None of those codes apply to real estate agents or brokers, such as The record amply supports the Settlement Program s application of the AVM Methodology. Moreover, Policy 495 is itself the procedure used to identify and address matching problems.bp also complains of alleged matching issues. The record, however, demonstrates that the Settlement Program correctly identified the claim as not sufficiently matched. This determination necessitated application of a methodology to resolve the matching issues, in this case the AVM. See Eligibility Notice at 6. Application of the AVM thus addressed all matching issues.this is a baseball appeal, meaning the Final Proposal closest to the correct award is to be chosen. There is no basis for BP s Final Proposal (See BP s Initial Proposal at 2. Fn.1 wherein BP argues for application of PSM but then admits the record does not contain sufficient information to properly apply the PSM. ) Final Proposal is closer to the mark.

388 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Seafood Compensation Program II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $44, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 8.75 $109, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): No error

389 filed this Oyster Leasehold Lost Income claim under the Settlement Agreement s Seafood Compensation Program. The Settlement Program awarded $44,461.42, pre-rtp. appeals. contends the Settlement Program, in determining average revenue for a three period, erred in failing to recognize any oyster leasehold income for 2007 and The Settlement Program did recognize 2009 revenue. The effect of this was to understate claim. During the claim handling process, requested a review and provided bank documents and revenue spreadsheets for 2007 and The Settlement Program reviewed those records but did not change the calculation because the Settlement Program concluded the documentation produced was inadequate for 2007 and On appeal, argues that the documentation provided meets the test of Section 2.2.B of the Oyster Compensation Plan. BP rejoins that 2007 and 2008 were properly excluded by the Settlement Program because that framework [Leaseholder Lost Income] does not deduct for variable expenses incurred in harvesting the oysters. BP s Initial Proposal, at 1. Alternatively, BP suggests a remand to determine whether the Combined Leaseholder & Harvest program would apply. rejects this suggestion: Claimant would reject the idea of remanding the claim for consideration as a combined leaseholder/harvester claim. Claimant s Final Proposal, at 1. A remand is not an option here under the appellate framework. The choice is then between BP s Final Proposal, which is the amount of the Settlement Program s Final Award, pre-rtp, and Final Proposal. Contrary to assertion, the voluminous documentation produced does not demonstrate that the Settlement Program erred in excluding the 2007 and 2008 documents from the three year calculation. Indeed, a review of the record demonstrates the Settlement Program correctly did so. BP s Final Proposal, which represents the Settlement Program s award, is the proposal closest to the correct amount and I therefore uphold it.

390 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

391 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: Claimant, a New Port Richey, Florida based retail seafood business appeals the denial of its Business Economic Loss claim. It is not represented by counsel and did not submit an opening memorandum or other document assigning error or otherwise articulating a reason or reasons for its appeal. The Claimant Comment section of the Notice of Appeal asserts that [c]laimant can not account for the cash purchases from the business that the guidelines set up long ago and are not fair to many businesses such as this. Further, that [a]ll forms and proof available were sent in. BP did a as promised the first month, but because of the guidelines established after that, it was difficult to prove. The Claims Administrator issued a Denial Notice advising that Claimant had not provided documents sufficient to establish that its lost revenue occurred as a result of the Spill in accordance with Settlement Agreement Exhibit 4B. Claimant s Requests for Re-Review and Reconsideration were denied for the same reason. There is no dispute about the fact that Claimant is located in Zone D and therefore must pass one of the required causation tests or qualify for a presumption of causation. According to its records, Claimant s business actually generated greater revenue in the months following the Spill than it did during the previous year. Similar increases occurred during As a business in the Secondary Seafood Industry, Claimant did not qualify for a presumption of causation. Accordingly, the Claims Administrator correctly concluded that Claimant failed to demonstrate that it incurred a compensable loss caused by the Spill. For the foregoing reasons, this Claimant appeal cannot be sustained. Decision must be entered herein upholding the Claims Administrator s determination. Decision: October 23, 2014

392 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $81,027 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $88, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

393 CLAIM ID This is a BEL Claim brought by a Fort Myers, Florida dental practice. The Settlement Program awarded claimant the sum of $88, (pre RTP). BP appeals. BP asserts, as it has in other medical/dental claims, that the claim should have been subjected to the Professional Services Methodology of Policy 495 instead of the AVM Methodology. BP acknowledges that the NAICS codes assigned to the Professional Services Framework do not include dentists. This Panelist and other appeal Panelists have affirmed awards for health case providers and real estate agents where said claims were processed under the AVM Methodology. BP s appeal on this issue is without merit. BP also asserts that the Settlement Program did not attribute claimant s revenue to the months where it was earned. In 2008, a Benchmark year, claimant s monthly revenue, taken from its financials, fluctuate from nearly $40, to over $106, Also in the records are claimant s Provider Productivity reports for the month/year in question. Utilizing these reports as being a more accurate gauge of montly revenue would reduce the award by $7, (pre RTP). After a careful and thorough review of the record, this Panelist finds that BP s Final Proposal is the correct result.

394 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $7, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $29, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant, a real estate broker in Birmingham,Alabama.BP asserts two issues for review:the revised accounting protocol decreed by recent court decisions was not properly followed because revenues were not attributed to the months when they were earned rather than when payment was received;and an improper industry-appropriate methodology was used.the eligibility notice issued acknowledged the claim was not sufficiently matched and employed the Annual Variable Margin

395 Methodology(AVMM) which resulted in a reduced award to claimant.claimant maintained his records on a cash basis and recorded commissions when closings were completed.bp points to one revenue spike of $28,588 in July '09 which was the first month of the benchmark period(july-september '09).BP argues the existence of this financial data confirms that the five,separate commissions paid during that period were not matched to when they were earned.the records disclose that during the benchmark period revenues of $12,100(August '09) and $7,420(September '09) were also recorded;and in the previous three-month period revenues of $26,405(April '09),$5,878(May'09) and $18,007(June'09) were recorded.by comparison these two separate periods are relatively matched and no adjustments to revenues were necessary.revenues were matched to expenses using both policy 495 and 466(Assignment of Expenses for Low Dollar Claims).Exact matching is not required.finally it is noted under Attachment A,policy 495,realty-related businesses are not listed as one of those businesses or occupations covered by the Professional Services Methodology.Other recent decisions have concluded that application of the AVMM is appropriate for claims such as this one.there is no error.the award is affirmed and the appeal is denied.

396 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $44, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Written reasons uploaded

397 CLAIMANT: : This is an BEL Claim filed by a Burmingham, Alabama realtor. The Claims Administrator determined that revenues were not sufficiently matched and worked the claim through the AVM Methodology of Policy 495. The result was an award of $44, (pre RTP). BP appeals on the following recurring themes: 1) The Claims Administrator did not first match revenues and expenses; and, 2) The Claims Administrator applied the AVM Methodology of Policy 495 instead of the Professional Services Methodology. After a thorough review of the record, it is clear to the Panelist that the Claims Administrator properly applied Policy 495 to this claim including the use of the AVM Methodology. Given BP s Final Proposal of.00, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

398 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $93,372 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $275, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals a BEL award to a Baton Rouge medical practice. Its sole preserved appeal basis is the allegation that in contravention of the Fifth Circuit's recent decision, the Program accountants failed to remedy allegedly artificially spiked revenue during Claimant's Benchmark period and artificially depressed revenue during the Compensation period. This panelist has carefully reviewed the record, including communications between the Program accountants and that of Claimant. Accountant Compensation Calculation Schedules have also been

399 reviewed. This panelist is more than persuaded that the accountants simply exercised their judgment and discretion in recalculating revenue and expenses pursuant to the AVM methodology of Policy 495. BP's arguments are not warranted by this record, and the award must be affirmed. No basis exists for remand.

400 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $62,138 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount.25 $133, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): The Claimant is a Zone D surveying and engineering company located in Pace, Florida. The issue with which this panelist has struggled is the claim by BP that the Administrator misclassified a Leased Labor Expense as fixed, when it clearly appears to be a contracted labor services type expense which is variable. This is a significant

401 part of the award. A Summary Review was requested and the reply confirms that these people are employees of the leasing company. This is the type of labor force that would vary with the amount of work the business contracted and is therefor a variable expense. The classification of the Supplies Expense is correctly presented by the Administrator. The claim is remanded to the Administrator for calculation of the award reduced by the Leased Labor Expense.

402 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $26, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, located in Cottonport, LA, filed a BEL claim in which the Settlement Program awarded $46, Claimant in its Final Proposal indicated a willingness to accept an adjustment to $32,925.38, but BP's appeals requesting a remand with instructions to resolve material discrepancies in Claimants financial data, or if a remand is deemed not appropriate, a Final Proposal of $26, BP contends that the Settlement Program's use of suspect P&Ls and failure to utilize the amounts from Claimant's sales and use tax returns and

403 reconciliations provided by the Claimant resulted in a potential overstatement of $19,611 pre-rtp, and subtracting that figure from the Settlement Programs award of $46, results in BP's Final Proposal of $26, Claimant does admit that BP's arguments have some merit but that its Initial and Final Proposals are not supported by the record, the alleged discrepancies are not material, but small and the Claims Administrator is provided with the power to exercise its discretion in such matters. As to the accounts payable adjustment, Claimant does concede that some of this amount are variable expenses, and provides a worksheet showing the differences. After a long a tedious journey thought the financials, this panelist is convinced that Claimant's downwardly adjusted figure is closer tho the mark that BP's. Claimant's Final Proposal prevails.

404 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $78,130 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $84, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of It is suggested that 2 cost items, bank fees and auto expenses, were mis-classified which resulted in an award to claimant which was slightly more than $6,000 too high. BP contends that the line item for bank charges was probably for credit card charges since patients were allowed to pay with credit cards and there is no other entry in the financials for credit card fees. Accordingly, the argument goes that, since credit card charges are listed as variable costs in the Settlement Agreement, the

405 bank charge should be considered variable. Despite this contention, bank charges are listed as fixed under the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the claimant articulated a credible reason why these bank charges were incurred, although no explanation was given as to why no credit card charges appear in the financials. Nevertheless, with claimant's explanation along with the classification of bank charges found in the Settlement Agreement, there is a finding that this argument is without merit. BP's second point of contention is that auto expenses should be categorized as 50% variable since there is no entry for fuel, and fuel expense is listed as a variable cost under the Settlement Agreement. Nevertheless, auto expenses are listed as fixed. Additionally, even if BP was correct in arguing for an allocation of 50% of this expense into the variable column, it would not be enough to move the needle in a baseball appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of BP is denied and the award in favor of claimant is affirmed.

406 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $21,580 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $32, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of It is argued that the Claims Administrator did not receive adequately detailed financial records to ensure that income was properly allocated to the correct months. However, a review of the record establishes that the financials provided were sufficient for the Settlement Program to perform the necessary calculations. BP also argues that, since payments to

407 physicians are often made by insurance companies, these payments are often tendered significantly after services are provided. According to this line of reasoning, BP contends the Professional Services Methodology should have been utilized. However, claimant suggests that most of the plastic surgery it performs is elective. Therefore, the charges are not paid by insurance and are paid at the time services are rendered. Moreover, also correctly points out that, if physicians's revenues were supposed to be matched under the Professional Services Methodology, doctors would have been included in Attachment A of Policy 495 pertaining to the relevant NAICS codes. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is denied and the award in favor of the claimant is affirmed.

408 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

409 CLAIM ID This is a Business Economic Loss claim that was denied on the grounds that Claimant is a Zone B claimant that does not satisfy the requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. Claimant s only viable ground is the alleged existence of a Spill-Related Cancellation. A claimant may establish eligibility for losses pursuant to a specific contract, if claimant provides contemporaneous written evidence of the cancellation of a contract as the direct result of the spill that claimant was not able to replace. Settlement Agreement, Ex. 4B at 5. Here, in conjunction with this appeal, Claimant submits two letters from its customer, for whom Claimant had provided contract labor on past projects. That entity describes Spill-related cancellations, and notes that Claimant is their choice labor provider in the Gulf region, thus implying that, but for the Spill, they would have hired Claimant to continue providing contract labor. Claimant enjoyed a well-founded expectation, but apparently had no contract with or its customer. This is not sufficient to establish a Spill-Related Cancellation. The letters do not state that had a contract with Claimant for this work, and that the contract was canceled as a direct result of the spill, as required by Exhibit 4B. The decision of the Claims Administrator was correct, and the denial is hereby upheld.

410 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $32, $63, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award in favor of a real estate broker located in New Orleans. BP faults the Settlement Program in its application of Policy 495. Allegedly, in order to properly apply Policy 495, the Claims Administrator should have first addressedd a mismatch of revenues and expenses and then applied the seven criteria to determine whether a matching problem remained. BP also contends the Settlement Program incorrectly used the Annual Variable Margin Methodology (AVM) instead of the Professional Services

411 Methodology (PSM). BP's first argument is based on a mis-reading of 495. The first prong of the policy states that corrections are to be made for accounting errors which are inappropriately recorded items such as duplicate entries, debit entries recorded as credits, etc. Since no such errors were identified, it was appropriate to move to the second element of 495 applying the seven criteria. Additionally, it was not errorr for the Claims Administrator to utilize the AVM methodology instead of the PSM. If real estate brokers were to be included under the Professional methodology, they would have been one of the included NAICS codes. It is likely that the payment cycle for real estatee brokers is not as long as the cycless for some of the professionals covered by the PSM. Accordingly, there was no error in the Settlement Program's application of Policy 495. The award in favor of claimant is affirmed.

412 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $23, $40, III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): ( a real estate broker, received this BEL award and BP appeals. It is argued the because of the nature of claimant's business thee timing of revenue as recorded is incorrect and should have been adjusted under the 1st step of 495 because it does not correspond to when claimant earned the revenue. BP also argues for the use of the Professional Services Methodology instead of the Annual Variablee

413 Margin Methodology. BP's reliance of the first prong of 495 to adjust revenues is mis-placed. This sub-part is utilized to correct accounting errors, not to otherwisee adjust revenues. Additionally, it was appropriate to apply the Annual Variable Margin Methodology y. Real estatee brokers aree not among those professionals delineated for inclusion under the Professional Services Methodology. It is not because, as claimant's counsel asserts, revenuee for a broker is earned when paid. It is due to the fact that brokers were a large demographic that could have been included under the Professional Services Methodology but they were not. Accordingly, the award in favorr of claimant is affirmed.

414 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $79,874 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $86, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons forward to Appeals Coordinator.

415 Reasons For Decision Appeal October 28, 2014 Claimant filed a BEL claim and received an award. BP appeals the award on three grounds, which will be discussed below. First, BP argues that the Settlement Program erroneously included Miscellaneous Income in revenue. The record shows that the Settlement Program conducted an inquiry into this line item. Some of the income items were rejected. Others were accepted. This Panelist is satisfied with the inquiry and inclusion of some of the miscellaneous income as revenue. Second, BP argues that the Settlement Program treated all of the Bank Charges as a fixed expense, even though some of the charges may include credit card fees, which are considered variable costs in Exhibit 4D of the Settlement Agreement. This Panelist agrees that the record may not be clear as to whether any of these charges are credit card fees. Third, BP argues that Claimant s Trash and Dump Pickup expenses should be classified as variable rather than fixed. BP believes that this expense should be classified as Contract Labor, which is a variable expense under Exhibit 4D of the Settlement Agreement. This Panelist believes that this expense is more appropriately classified as Contract Services, which is a fixed expense under Exhibit 4D. Claimant s Final Proposal is $86, pre-rtp. BP s Final Proposal is $79,874 pre- RPT. According to BP s calculations, treating all of the Bank Charges as variable would reduce Claimant s pre-rpt by $2,077, which would result in a revised award of $84, Under the baseball process, Claimant s Final Proposal is closer to this revised award than BP s Final Proposal. Thus, Claimant s Final Proposal is adopted.

416 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,a convenience store owner in New Iberia,Louisiana, appeals his thrice-denied BEL claim for failure to satisfy the causation requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant contends he passes the requirements of the Decline-Only Revenue Test because a highway drainage project impaired his 2011 revenue flow which was a circumstance beyond his control.this test is comprised of three prongs:a showing of an aggregate decline of revenues of 8.5% in 2010 compared to the same period in the benchmark period;a showing of factors outside of claimant's control that prevented recovery of revenues in 2011;and proof of decline of 10% in the share of total revenues generated by non-local customers over the same period used under the first prong.a review of the record discloses that claimant did not satisfy the third prong,commonly referred to as the customer mix test.the Claims Administrator properly applied the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and reached a correct conclusion.there is no error.the decision is affirmed and the appeal of claimant is denied.

417 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $35,464 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $55, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

418 The Claims Administrator awarded this Zone D dental service $55,443.28, pre-rtp. BP appeals. The main thrust of BP s appeal is that the Claims Administrator erred in its Step 2 analysis by utilizing a Claimant Specific Factor. BP argues that the Claimant commenced operations in July of 2008 which was within the Benchmark Period. Thus, BP urges that the Claims Administrator failed to follow Policy 343 which resulted in an improper inflation of the award. Policy 343 addresses situations in which a BEL Claimant begins business operations during the Benchmark Period: The Claims Administrator interprets the Settlement Agreement as a whole such that the framework is most reasonably applied in the following manner: For the purposes of Step Two Compensation, for those Claimants who commenced operations during the optimal Benchmark Period, the Claimant will be limited to a General Adjustment Factor of 2%. No additional Claimant-Specific Factor will be applied to such claims. As stated, BP contends that Policy 343 applies because the Claimant commenced its dental practice during the Optimal Benchmark Period. Claimant, on the other hand, argues that there was no calculation error and that the Settlement Program was correct in not applying Policy 343. Claimant points out that it was formed and began dental practice in 2006 and has operated continuously through the present date. BP counters that prior to July of 2008, Claimant was an employer/contractor of the dental practice which it then purchased from the previous owner. Thus, BP s actual argument is that the Claimant commenced operations as owner of the practice during the Benchmark Period.

419 A de novo review of the record clearly shows that provided dental services as far back as There is no evidence in the record that Claimant began operations in July of 2008 or at any other time during the optimal Benchmark Period. Although BP relies on Policy 343, there is nothing in this policy that differentiates between a Claimant s status, i.e., contractor versus owner. Stated another way, Policy 343 makes no provision for changes in a Claimant s business status during the Benchmark Period. Because BP s argument would require the interpretation of Policy 343 beyond the scope of its plain language, the appeal is denied.

420 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $127,915 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $207, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals this BEL award to It is argued that the award is driven by insurance payments recorded on cash-basis P and Ls. BP suggests these payments by insurance companies may not be received until months after services are rendered. Appellant further argues this alleged mis-match of revenues may have permitted claimant to pass the applicable revenue pattern test under the Settlement

421 Agreement whereas a correct match may have resulted in claimant failing the applicable test. This argument is based on conjecture. Claimant submitted a self-authored document asserting that adequate billing practice dictates that payment within 30 days is appropriate. Admittedly, this self-serving document is not compelling. Nevertheless, BP's contention that insurance payments may be tendered several months after services and correcting this issue may have caused the claimant to fail the causation test under then Settlement Agreement is simply not sufficient grounds to overturn the decision of the Claims Administrator. Accordingly, this appeal is denied and the award in favor of claimant is affirmed.

422 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $ BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 2.00 $1, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons submitted to Appeals Coordinator.

423 Reasons for Decision Appeal # October 28, 2014 Claimant filed an IEL claim and was awarded $ Claimant appeals pro se arguing that the Settlement Program did not properly calculate her claim. At the outset, this Panelist acknowledges Claimant s frustration with the claim process. The record shows that Claimant was diligent in responding to numerous requests from the Claims Administrator. Navigating the document requirement of the claim process is difficult even with counsel, much less without. Unfortunately for Claimant, notwithstanding her diligence, the documentation does not support a higher award. Claimant s financial records show that she made approximately $12,000 in 2008, $13,000 in 2009, and $16,000 in Because Claimant made more in the Compensation Period than the Benchmark Period, it would be unlikely that Claimant could support a loss of earnings absent special circumstances. Claimant did not qualify as a New Entrant to Employment or a Career Changer. The Claims Administrator did apply a Claimant Specific Growth Factor (which BP argues was an error) which provided some benefit for the Claimant. But in the end, Claimant s financials simply do not support a higher award. For the reasons set forth above, this Panelist agrees with the Claims Administrator s award and adopts BP s Final Proposal.

424 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Remand to Claims Administrator Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $91, $91, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons submitted to Appeals Coordinator.

425 Reasons for Decision Appeal # October 28, 2014 Claimant is a caterer. The Settlement Program classified Claimant as a Tourism business. BP appeals that designation. BP also appealed the classification of certain expenses. For the reasons set forth below, BP s arguments regarding the expenses are rejected. However, regarding the Tourism designation, this matter is remanded for further consideration. Tourism Designation Although not binding on this Appeal Panelist, Policy 289 v.2 provides a reasonable guideline for analyzing whether or not a Claimant falls within the definition of Tourism under Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement. Subsection (b) of Policy 289 v.2 points out that Exhibit 2 provides a list of NAICS codes which qualify a claimant for inclusion in the Tourism category. Claimant classifies itself under NAICS code which does not appear on Exhibit 2. Subsection (d) of Policy 289 v.2 states that if a claimant s NAICS code is not listed on Exhibit 2, the claimant may still be considered to fall within the Tourism definition if the Claims Administrator determines in his discretion that the claimant s business meets the definition outlined in Subsection (a) above. Subsection (a) of Policy 289 v.2, quoting Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement, defines Tourism as attracting, transporting, accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. This Panelist requested a Summary of Review asking the Claims Administrator to explain its rationale for classifying Claimant as Tourism. In response, the Claims Administrator stated that Claimant submitted documentation showing that it provided services that met the Tourism definition set forth in Exhibit 2 and repeated in Policy 289 v.2, subsection (a). It is not clear to this Panelist what documentation the Claims Administrator is referencing. For purposes of this Panelist s analysis, reference is made to Exhibit 1 of Claimant s Memorandum in Support of Final Proposal. Claimant contends that this exhibit shows that a significant portion of... the business s income is derived from accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. See Claimant s Response to Summary of Review. Claimant s Exhibit 1 begins with the following preamble: is a catering company based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We provide food, beverage, rental and staff services for large and small events all over Louisiana and the South. Many of our clients host destination events, whether it be a wedding or a conference, and we entertain countless guests 1

426 from across the United States and other countries. The Exhibit goes on to list notable past events from 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 that have attracted, accommodated, and catered to the needs of persons travelling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. This Panelist finds the documentation incomplete in a number of respects. For example, this Panelist is unable to confirm from this Exhibit that a significant portion of Claimant s revenues are derived from catering to tourists. On remand, this Panelist suggests that the Claims Administrator request additional documentation from the Claimant which addresses the following: 1. For the Benchmark Period and the Class Period, what % of Claimant s catered events (regardless of the revenue from each event) were paid for by persons/entities residing at or near the location of the event (i.e. locals) and what % were paid for by others? 2. For the Benchmark Period and the Class Period, what % of Claimant s revenue was derived from payments made by persons/entities residing at or near the location of the event (i.e. locals) and what % from payments made by others? 3. Regardless of the percentages set forth in Nos. 1 and 2, please estimate what % of the attendees at Claimant s catered events during the Benchmark Period and the Class Period resided more than 100 miles from the event (i.e. tourists). This additional information is necessary in order to perform the inquiry set forth in subsection (f) of Policy 289 v.2 which states that the [c]haracterization of a claimant s business [whose NAICS code does not appear on Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement] as Tourism vs. Non-Tourism shall be based on the totality of circumstances. [The Claims Administrator acknowledged in the Summary of Review that this inquiry was not made.] Expenses Classification BP s Notice of Appeal asserts that the Settlement Program erred in its classification of certain expense items, including without limitation Linens & Laundry. However, this assertion was not briefed by BP. That said, this Panelist reviewed the record and is satisfied that the expenses were properly classified. 2

427 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $143, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional):

428 In this case, a Zone D temporary staffing company was awarded $143,901.99, pre- RTP on its BEL claim. BP appeals and raises two assignments of error. First, BP asserts that the Claims Administrator failed to properly reconcile unmatched revenue and expenses in violation of Policy 495. Additionally, BP complains of the Administrator s asserted failure to identify and exclude revenue from related party transfers. On the matching issue, BP reprises an argument that has been repeatedly made and rejected in other cases. BP again argues that a Claimant s P&Ls should be restated where there is a mismatch of revenue and expenses as the first step of Policy 495. BP points out that the Claimant often deposited cash in the months after services were performed and that the P&Ls and bank statements show no recorded revenue in October 2007, April 2010, July 2010 and April BP sees these as red flags indicative of mismatched revenue and expenses. Thus, BP argues that the accounting vendor should have recognized this matching issue and reallocated the revenue as an initial First Step. Accordingly, BP submits a Final Proposal of. The Claimant responds that BP s arguments are speculative and its characterization that no revenue was recorded in the above months untrue. Review de novo demonstrates that BP s dissatisfaction with the Claims Administrator is not borne out by the record. The Accountant Compensation Calculation Schedules clearly demonstrate that the accounting vendor appropriately addressed the revenue attribution issue. In the Calculation Notes, the vendor recorded:

429 The Claimant s account provided general ledgers that support the revenues and expenses in January 2010 and June, July, September, November and December of The Claimant also provided bank statements and the transaction detail to support the monthly revenues for The bank statements do not match the monthly profit and loss statements, however the Claimant labeled which deposits belong in the appropriate months and it does support the monthly profit and loss statements. The record reflects that the vendor subjected the financials to the seven criteria of Policy 495 and four of them were triggered. The record further reflects that the Annual Variable Margin methodology was utilized to restate the financials to achieve sufficient matching. Nothing untoward is found in the application of Policy 495. This appeal panelist pauses here to emphasize a point already made. BP s repeated insistence that there is an initial First Step in which mismatched revenue and expenses are restated is an incorrect interpretation of the clear language of Policy 495. To the contrary, filtering the financials through the seven criteria is the procedure for identifying mismatches. Here, the provisions of Policy 495 were correctly applied and the AVM utilized to achieve the required matching. BP s final argument is that Claimant s financials include related - party transactions that likely should have been excluded. BP finds fault with the Administrator for what it sees as the failure to inquire about these transactions. However, the record reflects that the accounting vendor did inquire into these transactions and concluded that the transactions represented a legitimate portion of corporate overhead that was distributed once a year (Doc ID Accordingly, remand is not justified.

430 For the foregoing reasons, the Claims Administrator s handling and determination of this claim were correct under the Settlement Agreement and Policy 495. The award is therefore affirmed in all respects.

431 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Failed Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $(378,754.96) BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 0 $3,432,737 0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,an oyster shucking business in Houma,Louisiana,appeals its thrice-denied Failed Start-up Economic Loss claim.the eligibility notice issued granted claimant a negative compensation amount after applying substantial offsets for prior BP and GCCF payments but awarded to it $29,567.81,which is the applicable 40% transition offer.claimant began its operations in June 2009 and ceased operations in May 2010.Claimant asserts

432 the Claims Administrator failed to calculate correctly its losses by not including loss of future revenues and income and not using financial documents of its predecessor to classify claimant as a continuing standard business.exhibit 6,Section V.2. of the Settlement Agreement prescribes six elements under the Failed Start-up framework to be used to calculate a claimant's award.a review of the record discloses the Claims Administrator properly applied these criteria to derive the award of compensation to which claimant was entitled.the other components claimant argues should be inserted into the award calculation are not permitted or authorized by the Settlement Agreement and were correctly excluded. The Claims Administrator did not abuse his discretion in his interpretation of Policy 354 in concluding claimant was not a continuing standard business to which the Failed Start-up framework did not apply.there is no error.the award is affirmed and the appeal of claimant is denied.

433 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $193,919 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $318, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

434 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: In this appeal of a Business Economic Loss award to a Sherman, Mississippi manufacturer of polyfoam, BP argues that the Claims Administrator misapplied Policy 495 by failing to align Claimant s bad debt expenses and inventory adjustments with revenue previously recorded by it. BP asserts that the bad debt is likely attributable to unpaid invoices that spanned the course of many months and that the failure to align that expense with previously recorded revenue makes it impossible to comply with the court mandated matching requirement. Similarly, BP asserts that Claimant recorded inventory adjustment expenses exclusively at the end of its fiscal year when, in fact, they should have been applied to the months in which such errors were recorded. Claimant, in response, contends that the Claims Administrator correctly dealt with both expenses. Insofar as the bad debt expense is concerned, the Settlement Program Accountant requested and received documentation including a written explanation from Claimant s attorney accompanied by a demand letter to the debtor, Notice to Creditors from the Bankruptcy Court and an Order of Discharge from that same court. Citing Policy 495, Claimant argues that it simply is not feasible to match specific expenses to specific revenues on an individual transaction by transaction basis. The same is true, it says, with regard to the inventory adjustment. Such adjustments are normally performed at the end of an accounting period; in this case, it made its inventory adjustments at the end of its fiscal year. It contends that neither the Settlement Agreement nor any policy issued by the Claims Administrator contains a requirement that a Claimant provide monthly, quarterly or annual inventory adjustments. If they are adjusted annually, then the value of the adjustment should be recorded in the final month of the year, as was done in this case. The record reflects that this Claimant records its revenue and expenses on the accrual basis; that the CAO s analyst sought and received additional financial information and data where appropriate and concluded that none of the Policy 495 criteria were triggered. For that reason, the claim was processed under the general BEL methodology. After thorough review, this panelist has concluded that the Claims Administrator committed no error and that his determination must be upheld. Accordingly, this BP appeal cannot be sustained and decision must be entered herein in favor of Claimant s Final Proposal. Decision: October 29, 2014

435 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

436 Claimant appeals the denial notice of the Claims Administrator. BP asserts that Claimant is gaming entity excluded from the Class pursuant to Section of the Settlement Agreement, pointing out that this provision excludes entities engaged in various gaming and gambling industries. See Settlement Agreement, , Ex. 18 at 2. Exhibit 18 of the Settlement Agreement lists NAICS Codes subject to this exclusion, including NAICS Code , Other Gambling Industries. Slot Machine Parlors are a type of business covered by this NAICS Code, which was originally provided by Claimant s counsel. The determination of whether an entity is subject to this exclusion is based on the substantive nature of the business. Settlement Agreement, Claimant s asserts in its brief that it is a bar offering video gaming. However, Claimant s P&Ls only have a single revenue stream identified as Sales, and does not identify any revenue derived from the sale of food or beverages, like a bar. There is evidence that Claimant advertised free drinks and food to customers, consistent with the typical practice of a gaming entity. At best, it was a gaming establishment that had a bar; not the reverse. As Claimant is an excluded gaming entity that derived virtually all of its revenue from gambling activity, the denial of this claim by the Claims Administrator was correct, and the financial issues raised by claimant are rendered moot. The denial is upheld.

437 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a gas station/convenience store located in Baldwin County, Alabama, appeals the denial of its BEL claim, said denial based upon the Administrator's finding that it is excluded from the Program under Section of the Agreement, which excludes any Entity selling or marketing BP-branded fuel... The Entity herein, has at least three facilities that filed claims. The instant appeal pertains to a facility that sold only branded fuel. Claimant further declares that this facility had no inter-company transactions with any other facility of this Entity, with each facility standing on its own and keeping its own financial records. A prior panel decision # reversed the Administrator's finding of the BP-fuel exclusion, reasoning that as a Multi-facility business, each facility filing a claim must be analyzed separately based upon its own records. Although that decision partly based its holding upon Administrator policies 6 and 368, respectively, which have now been retracted (though not necessarily reversed), this panelist agrees with the overall rationale therein, especially as it is in conformance with the terms Exhibit 5 of the Agreement, which provides that businesses may file separate claims for each individual facility and that the relevant Causation standard and RTP for each claiming facility based on its location and industry shall apply...bp's argument that Section 's exclusion applies regardless of whether an individual facility sells or markets BP-branded fuel is, in this panelist's

438 opinion, overbroad and in derogation of the overall wording of the Agreement, including Exhibit 5 and Section 4.3.7, requiring a Claimant-friendly application of the Agreement. As such, the finding of the Administrator must be overturned.

439 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $59, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal;

440 In this appeal, BP asserts the Settlement Program erroneously included a significant amount of Other Income in calculating this award without explanation or inquiry into its nature or source. However, upon examination of Claimant s P&L, it appears that these items all related directly to revenue derived or lost on charges for service. Nothing is raised by BP that would justify rejecting the assessment of the Claims Administrator with respect to this issue, or support the assertion that this matter was not properly investigated and assessed. Further, BP contends that there is insufficient proof or indicia that Claimant s business was conducted in an eligible zone location. However, evidence indicates Claimant s Tampa, Florida office was its sole business location. The presence of agents or sales personnel throughout the Caribbean region does not affect Claimant s status as an exporter conducting its business from the Tampa location. Claimant meets the qualifying criteria for this award, i.e., it s an eligible industry, it s located within an eligible zone, and it has demonstrated causation. BP s appeal is denied, the award is affirmed, and Claimant s Final Proposal is hereby selected.

441 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $26,807 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $37, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Decision comment uploaded to portal

442 Claimant is a real estate sales company located in Albertville, Alabama (Zone D). BP appeals this award, stating the Settlement Program failed to use financial data that properly matches revenues with their corresponding expenses, resulting in significantly overstating Claimant s pre-spill economic performance. Employing assertions that have become familiar from a number of earlier cases, BP complains that the Settlement Program has not applied the Professional Services Methodology ( PSM ) to real estate agents and brokers, and has instead applied the Annual Variable Margin ( AVM ) methodology in these cases, including this one. The Settlement Program correctly determined that this claim was not sufficiently matched in the initial examination, which required a determination of the applicable methodology to achieve sufficient matching, The program selected the AVM methodology; thus the controversy. Determination of the applicable methodology is controlled by Attachment A to Policy 495, entitled NAICS CODES ASSIGNED TO MATCHING FRAMEWORK. Id. at A1. The attachment lists the NAICS codes that fall into each of the special categories enumerated therein, including Professional Services. Further, the attachment explains, In identifying those NAICS codes that would most likely fall into each methodology there is a particular focus on the specialty methodologies Construction, Professional Services, Agriculture, and Educational Institutions with all other NAICS codes defaulting to the Annual Variable Margin (Short Revenue Cycle) methodology. Policy 495 at A1. Attachment A does not list any NAICS codes for real estate brokers and agents. It was certainly known to all parties that there were a significant number of claims filed by members of the real estate industry during the Policy developmental process. Had the Claims Administrator and CSSP Vendors felt this industry should be analyzed under the PSM methodology, they would have included the appropriate NAICS codes in Attachment A. They did not. A review of the CAO s record regarding this claim reveals the Settlement Program s satisfaction that the Claimant s financials were sufficiently matched after implementation of the AVM method. The Settlement Program found no reason to deviate from CAO Policy 495 s default provision at A1 in applying the AVM methodology. The AVM methodology was appropriate for this claim and the Settlement Program s analysis was correct. The Award is upheld, and Claimant s Final Proposal is hereby selected.

443 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $11,151 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.25 $26, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a Zone B non-tourism related Realtor in Gretna, La. BP appeals the award based solely on its complaint that the Administrator did not take steps to match revenues and expenses to the months within which the earning activities occurred. BP suggests the Administrator and Appeal Panel should assume any property listed by a realtor has remained on the market for at least four months and any revenue then received by the realtor be allocated across those four months leading up to the month in which the revenues were recorded.

444 Had this been used as the methodology in this case, the award would have been reduced by approximately $15,000. However, BP and the parties did not negotiate such a methodology and this Panelist is not authorized to do so now. The Administrator's accountants flagged five indicia of a lack of matching and proceeded to process the claim pursuant to Policy495. They reviewed the claim using the AVM methodology because no NAICS code applicable to realtors is listed in Attachment A of the Policy. BP cannot dictate the use of the Professional Services methodology. The award is affirmed.

445 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a real estate agency in Houma, Louisiana, appeals the denial of its claim. The Settlement Program denied the claim on the basis that it failed to satisfy the requirements of the V-Shaped Revenue Pattern Test relying on Policy 328 v.2 to exclude certain items from revenue. Policy 328 v.2 provides that certain items shall not typically be treated as revenue, and among the items listed is reimbursed expenses which is central to this appeal. Claimant makes a full frontal assault on Policy 328 v.2 arguing that the Settlement Agreement has no language that gives the Claims Administrator authority to remove income from claimant's total revenue, and accordingly, none of Claimant's income accounts should have been excluded. This would mean that items such as insurance proceeds, interest income and the rest of the items listed in this policy in addition to reimbursed expenses be treated as revenue.this panelist is not willing to go that far afield. However, Policy 328v. 2 further states: In arriving at this conclusion, the Claims Administrator has in part relied upon the fact that these items are not TYPICALLY earned as revenue under the NORMAL course of operations in an arm's link transaction. (Emphasis supplied). It appears from affidavits in file that a portion of the revenues shown under expense reimbursement may be revenue earned by Claimant in its normal operations, and if so, should be included in revenue. This matter is remanded to determine whether any portion of the expense reimbursements should be

446 treated as revenue because that portion was earned as part of its normal operations, and if so, does Claimant then meet the requirements of the V-Shaped Revenue Pattern Test, and if so, what amount of compensation, if any, should be awarded.

447 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Start-Up Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See reasons uploaded

448 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: This is a BEL Claim asserted by Robertsdale, Alabama business. The Claims Administrator twice ruled the claim was excluded under Section of the Settlement Agreement. Claimant appeals. Section of the Settlement Agreement provides: Financial Institutions as identified in the NAICS codes listed on Exhibit 18, which include, by way of example, commercial banks; savings institutions; credit card issuers; credit insurers; factors or other sales finance entities; financial or investment advisers or portfolio managers; fund managers; investment banking entities; lending institutions; real estate mortgage or lending entities; brokers or dealers of securities; commodities; commodity contracts or loans; securities or commodities exchanges; entitles serving as custodians; fiduciaries or trustees of securities or other financial assets; or entities engaged in other financial transaction intermediation, processing, reserve or clearinghouse activities, provided, that the following shall not be excluded solely pursuant to this Section unless they are subject to a different exclusion: stand-alone ATMs, credit unions, pawn shops, businesses engaged predominantly in making payday loans or paycheck advances and businesses that sell goods and services and offer financing on these purchases to their customers. Claimant s tax returns and its claim form list the NAICS Code as That code is for Consumer Lending described as follows: This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in making unsecured cash loans to consumers. Consumer finance companies (i.e., unsecured cash loans) Consumer lending Finance companies (i.e., unsecured cash loans) Loan companies (i.e., consumer, personal, small, student) Personal credit institutions (i.e., unsecured cash loans) Personal finance companies (i.e., unsecured cash loans) Small loan companies (i.e., unsecured cash loans) Student load companies. Claimant, through counsel, describes itself as a licensed pawn shop which derives its revenue primarily from title pawns and payday loans/check cashing. The NAICS Code for pawn shops is Further, the Settlement Agreement does not exclude pawn shops or payday loans companies. The Claims Administrator ruled that Claimant does not meet the requirements for any of the exceptions to the financial institution exclusion listed in Section or Exhibit 18. The great majority of Claimant s monthly revenue comes from title pawns. Beginning in 2009, the Bureau of Loans of the Alabama State Banking Department annually issued a Pawnshop License to Claimant.

449 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: Page 2 In Floyd v. Title Exchange and Pawn of Anniston, Inc., 620 So. 2d 576, the Alabama Supreme Court described a title pawn business as follows: Title Exchange s business operation can be typically described as follows: The customer goes to Title Exchange, and if the parties can agree, the customer endorses his or her automobile certificate of title in blank and delivers it and the keys to the automobile to Title Exchange for an amount of money not exceeding &750,00, the customer agreeing to repay the amount within a period not exceeding 12 weeks. The customer is permitted to keep actual possession of the automobile during the period, and most customers do keep the automobile. The customer incurs no extra charge for being allowed to keep the automobile. No fees are charged other than those allowed by law to be charged for a pawn transaction, and Title Exchange has no right of action against the customer for any money lent other than its right to sell the automobile, as permitted by a repossession agreement and a pawn ticket that the customer signs. If a customer defaults on the agreement and Title Exchange is unable to collect the amount due, Title Exchange repossesses the automobile and sells it. In the Floyd case, the head of the bureau of Loans of the Alabama State Banking Department notified Title Exchange that title pawns violated the Alabama Pawnshop Act because an automobile certificate of title was not tangible personal property as defined by the Act. He determined that a title pawn business should be regulated under the terms of the Alabama Small Loan Act and not the Pawnshop Act. In Floyd, the Alabama Supreme Court held that title pawn businesses are covered under the Pawnshop Act and not the Small Loan Act. Hence, the Claimant is required to acquire a Pawnshop License. In a subsequent title pawn case, Blackmon v. Downey, 624 So. 2d 1374, the Alabama Supreme Court referenced Title Exchange stating: [1] In Title Exchange, we held that an automobile certificate of title is tangible personal property within the meaning of the Alabama Pawnshop Act. FN2 The effect of the decision was to hold that money-lending transactions involving the transfer of automobile certificates of title for the purpose of giving security are pawn transactions and not small loan transactions governed by the provisions of Alabama s Small Loan Act, Id. at 578. We set out the relevant difference in the regulation of the two types of transactions, as follows: The Small Loan Act permits an interest rate of either two or three percent per month, depending on the amount of the unpaid balance, (a), whereas the Pawnshop Act permits a charge of 25% of the principal amount per month. 5-19A-7(a). Id. a 578, n. 4.

450 CLAIMANT: CLAIM ID: Page 3 BP asserts that title pawns are not actually pawns but are actually title loans and a title loan business would be excluded under the Settlement Agreement. To summarize, BP s argument is basically if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck and flies like a duck, it s a duck! Under usual circumstances, this Panelist would readily agree with BP s analogy. However, The Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled it is not a duck - it s a pawnshop. Per the terms of the Settlement Agreement this claim should not have been excluded.

451 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $19,487. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $57, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals a BEL award to a Jackson, Miss. radio equipment seller/installer. It asserts that the Administrator violated Policy 495 by, in the first step of its review, failing to address a mismatch of revenues and expenses in Claimant's financials. Specifically, BP points to a pattern of monthly matching of spikes in revenues with expenses except for in December, 2009, when expenses were recorded as minimal, but showed a spike in January, It requests either a remand to look further into this alleged mismatch or alternatively a reduction

452 in the award produced by recomputing 2009 financials to include January, 2010 recorded expenses. Initially, as has been oft-stated in prior panel rulings, clearly the first step of Policy 495 requires only the correction of errors such as duplicate entries and miscalculations. The rematching requirement advanced by BP is inherent to the second step of 495, involving the seven criteria explained therein. This record reflects that just such a process was followed concerning Claimant's financials, and it was subjected to the AVM methodology authorized by Policy 495. Indeed, as pointed out by Claimant, the large expense item recorded in January 2010 involves an initial quarterly payment for Air Time expenses. Four quarterly payments were already made for the year To accede to BP's presumptive reallocation request would allocate five quarterly expenses to Claimant's final proposal, seeking affirmation of the Administrator's award, is the correct one and must be chosen by this panelist.

453 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $89, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $121, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Reasons uploaded

454 CLAIMANT: : The Claims Administrator awarded this Lafayette, Louisiana dental practice, on a BEL claim, the sum of $121, (pre-.25 RTP). BP appeals asserting: 1) The Settlement Program did not correct mismatches of Revenue and Expenses as required by Policy 495; and, 2) The Settlement Program should have applied the Professional Services Methodology to this claim. These are the same assertions made by BP on numerous appeals involving doctors, dentists and real estate agents. As to assertion No. 1, a fellow Appeal Panelist wrote in a similar appeal of an award to a surgery center: BP asserts that the Claims Administrator committed a threshold mistake in the analysis of Claimant s P&L s because Claimant performs services in certain months but may not be paid for those services (ostensibly by a health insurer or other thirdparty payer) until several months later. According to BP, this has the potential to skew the matching of revenue with expenses. Policy 495 has been approved by the U.S. District Court and is binding on BP, the Claimants, the Claims Administrator and the Appeal Panelists. Under the Underlying Issues/Principles of Policy 495 it states: 5. If a claimant s contemporaneous P&L s submitted to the CAO are deemed to be sufficiently matched based on an assessment by the CSSP Accounting Vendors, such P&L s will be utilized in calculating compensation under the Settlement Agreement. In utilizing such contemporaneous P&L s corrections will be made for any accounting errors identified in the ordinary course, by the CSSP Accounting Vendors.

455 Policy 495 requires sufficient matching not exact matching. To require the Claims Administrator to match each procedure in a surgical center to when it was paid for by the patient or a third-party payer would be prohibitive in terms of time, effort and expense, as noted in Policy 495. This Panelist agrees with that opinion and adopts it here. On BP s second assertion, the Claims Administrator determined that application of this claim to the AVM Methodology was appropriate as opposed to the Professional Services Methodology. The decision by the Claims Administrator to apply the AVM Methodology was correct. For the foregoing reasons, Claimant s Final Proposal is the correct result.

456 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $24,290 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $41, $30, $41, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): The Claimant is a Zone A non-tourism hair and nail salon located in Clearwater, Florida. The Administrator's accountants applied the BEL framework. No Policy 495 indicia of mismatching were triggered. BP complains of one expense item, the Beauty Supplies Expense, as fluctuating too drastically. BP demands that the P/Ls be restated to reduce the award by $6, A review of the accountants' notes satisfies this Panelist that the claim was properly reviewed and awarded. The award is affirmed.

457 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Failed Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): See attached opinion uploaded in the portal.

458 DWH: : Written Reasons and Opinion: This is a Claimant appeal from the denial of a Failed Business Economic Loss claim. The claim form prepared by the Claimant states that he is a ; that his business address is in the city of Dothan, Alabama, which is located in Economic Loss Zone D. The Claims Administrator issued a Denial Notice on the ground that the Settlement Agreement does not compensate losses suffered by such businesses which are located in Zone D and which do not satisfy the Tourism or Seafood Distribution Chain definitions. Claimant s Reconsideration Request was denied for the same reason. On appeal, Claimant asserts that despite the zone location reported on his claim form, his business should more properly be considered located in Zone C because the stated address is the location of the head office and warehouses from which he received satellite dishes and related equipment for installation. That office and warehouses, he contends, are located on and the majority of his services were rendered along that highway from Dothan in a southerly direction. He believes that a Zone Map which he relies upon, but does not cite, places that address in Zone C. As noted by BP in its reply, the Settlement Program mapping tool places that address squarely in Zone D. According to Settlement Agreement Exhibit 6 which provides the Failed Business Compensation Framework, a failed business or failed start up business located in that zone which does not satisfy the Tourism or Seafood Distribution Chain definition is excluded and is not entitled to compensation. As also noted by BP, Claimant seems to argue that the location of the majority of his customers in Zone C should be determinative. According to CAO Approved Policy 347, dated February 8, 2013, if a BEL Claimant is physically located in one zone but the Claimant s business activity, sales or service activity or revenue source is located in a different zone, the Claims Administrator will assign the Economic Loss Zone where the Claimant is physically located. While not binding on this panelist, that policy is entirely consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It has also been consistently applied by other panelists in similar cases. De novo review of the entire record conclusively demonstrates that this Claimant is located in Economic Loss Zone D and that his claim was properly denied as excluded from the Settlement Agreement. For the foregoing reasons, the determination of the Claims Administrator must be upheld and this Claimant appeal denied. Decision: October 31, 2014

459 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Denial Upheld Individual Economic Loss II. DECISION Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the denial of his IEL claim. The Claims Administrator found that the claim included the same losses as those claimed under a BEL claim previously submitted to GCCF for which Claimant was paid. Payroll costs for owners and officers of businesses are treated as fixed expenses of the business. The Settlement Agreement does not permit an IEL cliam for those same losses that were compensated under a business claim. The Claims Administrator properly denied the claim and Claimant s appeal is denied.

460 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $76,300 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount 1.50 $126, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a Zone A, non-tourism real estate broker. The Administrator found the P/Ls were not sufficiently matched under the criteria as set out in Section 1 of Policy 495. He then proceeded to use the Annual Variable Margin methodology to restate the P/Ls and make an award once they were considered sufficiently matched. BP raises its usual complaints that the Professional Services methodology should have been utilized. This panelist and others have frequently refused to require the Administrator to use that method under the negotiated and

461 court approved Policy 495. However, the problems run deeper in this claim. The Claimant reconstructed its P/Ls due to their destruction by her accountant upon retiring. The Administrator's accountants made numerous inquiries to the Claimant concerning various entries. Clearly, the P/Ls were developed by simply taking the tax return summary figures for expenses and dividing them by 12 to create the expense claimed. BP demands review and consideration of the accuracy of numerous expense items. A review of the accountant notes and spread sheets show documentation deficiencies throughout. This Panelist requested counsel for the Claimant to file a brief addressing the specific expense items questioned by BP. What was filed was much like the responses received by the accountants when questioning items, broad brush statements that fail to answer the inquiry. While the Settlement Agreement does not require GAP, it expects more than a WAG. BP has made a final proposal that reduces the award but under the baseball rules and the circumstances of this claim seems closest to correct.

462 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $15,522 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $28, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the award to this Cape Coral, FL real estate agent in its BEL claim. Consistent with its position in numerous recent appeals, BP maintains that the Claims Administrator failed to apply Policy 495 and erred in using the Annual Variable Margin Methodology (AVM) rather than the Professional Services Methodology.BP misinterprets Policy 495 which clearly sets out a two prong analysis. Initially, the Claims Administrator is to determine whether corrections should be made for accounting errors such as duplicate entries, credits recorded

463 as debits, etc. Once corrected, the analysis shifts to the seven criteria set forth in the policy. Here, there were no accounting errors to trigger the first phase. Five of the seven criteria were flagged in the second phase, which were then adjusted by use of the court approved AVM methodology. After a thorough review of this record, I find the Claims Administrator s use of the AVM methodology to be appropriate. BP s appeal is denied.

464 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $24,000 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $42, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the award of $42, (pre-rtp) to this Bradenton, FL dental practice. BP s main argument is that the Claims Administrator failed to properly apply Policy 495 by failing to attribute Claimant s income to the months in which it was earned. As a specific example, BP cites a spike in Claimant s income in December, 2010 and argues that, because Claimant utilized a cash basis accounting method to record revenue, it necessarily flows that there is a high likelihood that Claimant s income figures are mismatched.claimant did

465 not file a memorandum and is unrepresented. After a thorough review of the record, I note that the Benchmark Period utilized was and the Compensation Period was May November, None of the seven criteria established in Policy 495 were triggered and it is my conclusion that BP s assertion that Claimant s income is mismatched amounts to nothing more than speculation. Moreover, BP s final proposal of $24,000 is merely a guess, which BP even admits is an approximation which BP provides no support therefor.i find no error in the Claims Administrator s analysis of this claim. Although BP urges a remand, I find a remand is not appropriate. The appeal is denied.

466 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $25,748 BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $49, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): BP appeals the BEL award to claimant, a radio station owner in Gulfport, Mississippi. BP asserts the Claims Administrator failed to follow properly the revised accounting protocol of policy 495 because revenues were not attributed to the months they were earned creating a mismatch of revenues and expenses.bp points to one revenue spike of $143,092 in August 2010,a month after claimant's Compensation Period of May-July 2010.BP surmises that claimant's advertising revenues are pre-paid well in advance of airing of advertisements and thus

467 a great portion of this sum should have been allocated to the Compensation Period revenues.bp conjectures without further proof that this error flawed the award to its disfavor.the eligibility notice issued acknowledged the claim was not sufficiently matched and using the Annual Variable Margin Methodology(AVMM) calculated the award after necessary adjustments were made.contrary to BP's argument the correct first step of the 495 protocol was not followed a review of the record discloses the Claims Administrator applied the correct methodology in reviewing the P&Ls.It is noted there was not a solitary spike in revenues in August 2010 but an increase of revenues as well in September and October 2010 from the prior three months.this imbalance in comparable monthly revenues is best adjusted by using AVMM.Exact matching is not required, only sufficient matching.there is no error.remand is not appropriate.the award is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

468 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Law Firm Business Economic Loss II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $73, BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount.25 $73, III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant has retail stores in various locations selling shoes. This appeal relates to a store in in downtown St. Petersburg, Florida. The only issue in this appeal is the Claim Administrator's designation of this store as Tourism for RTP Multiplier purposes. BP argues that shoe stores are not included under the Settlement Agreement's definition of tourism industry; that this type of retail product is not the type of merchandize that attracts or caters to tourist; shoe stores are not listed under the industrial codes of

469 businesses that meet the tourism definition (the assigned NAICS code by the Settlement Program is not listed in Exhibit 2), and that incidental involvement in the tourist trade is insufficient to warrant the designation. Claimant counters that it is its business plan to locate their stores in locations catering to the shopping needs of tourist, seasonal travelers and non-local customers. was marketed as a one-stop shopping area of tourist, seasonal travelers and hosted a variety of special events which were marketed to tourist, seasonal travelers, and people that live outside of St. Petersburg. As an appeals panelist I am duty bound to consider the totality of the circumstances. I find it interesting that while Claimant filed 5 separate claims for 5 separate locations all of which were designated Tourism by the Settlement Program, BP chose to appeal only two. I feel that men's, women's, children's, family clothing stores and clothing accessories, which are categorized as tourism, closely resemble the Claimant. Industrial codes of businesses are only illustrative, not exhaustive. Finally, Claimant undertook an analysis of sales from , which treated all customers with an area code or city listed differently than the store's physical location as tourist or non-locals and the results supported Claimant's position. BP's appeal is denied and the Claimant's Final Proposal is adopted.

470 APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. C LAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Claimant Name Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm. II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP s Final Proposal or the Claimant s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. BP s Final Proposal Claimant s Final Proposal Compensation Amount Compensation Amount $44, $18,0000 $47, $18,0000 III. PRI IMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may alsoo write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentationn review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant is a Zone A, non-tourism Realtor located in Islamorada, Florida. The Administrator made an award based on the BEL framework. BP appeals on a failure of the Administrator to reduce the award by the correct amount for a prior payment from the GCCF and the Real Estate Fund. Claimant conceded the error which reduced the Award by $6, BP further appeals based on its claim thatt a misclassification of the Sales Expense occurred. This expense includedd such items as staging a property, open house expenses, closing gifts

471 to clients, etc. The accountan notes show inquiry was made into this account and it was reduced by 18%. Exhibit 4D, Attachment A of the Settlement Agreement defines expenses and categorizes them as fixed or variable. The Vendors have been given the discretion to apply the classification that best conforms the expenses into the delineations of Exhibit 4D. The Vendors have made the classifications as to these expense items they and this Panelist, deem proper. The final proposal of the Claimant is affirmed.