BP Exploration & Prodn, Inc. v. ID, 18-30375

Background

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers sought $19.5 million from the Deepwater Horizon economic settlement, invoking the V‑Shaped Revenue Pattern test for Zone D claimants (downturn in 2010 May–Dec followed by a 10% upturn in same months in 2011).
The Buccaneers’ reported NFL Ventures revenue was recorded in-season (roughly Aug–Jan) in 2009–2010 but was reallocated to include May–June 2011, producing a large 2011 upturn that satisfied the V‑Shaped test.
Program accountants treated the 2011 off‑season entries as an "error" and reallocated the May–June 2011 NFL Ventures amounts to August, causing the claim to fail the V‑Shaped test and be denied.
An internal Appeal Panel upheld the Buccaneers’ lockout justification for early recognition; the district court granted BP’s discretionary review and reversed, concluding the 2011 allocation was an unjustified departure from the team’s established accounting practice.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying ordinary standards of review for legal and factual questions and holding that an unjustified departure from an established accounting practice qualifies as an "error" under Program Policy 495 and that the Buccaneers did not prove the lockout justified the deviation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unjustified departure from an established accounting practice constitutes an "error" under Policy 495	Buccaneers: Policy 495 does not cover this reallocation; accountants must identify a concrete "error" beyond reclassification	BP/Claims Admin.: Policy 495 defines "error" to include misapplication of accounting principles; departure is a mistake correctable by reallocation	Held: Departure from established practice is an "error" under Policy 495 and may be corrected by reallocation
Whether the Buccaneers had an established practice of recognizing NFL Ventures revenue only in-season	Buccaneers: Their 2011 accrual was justified by NFL guidance during a threatened lockout; thus no departure	BP/Claims Admin.: Historical 2009–2010 records show revenue was recorded in-season; 2011 entries were inconsistent	Held: District court did not clearly err; limited pre-2011 records show in‑season practice and team effectively conceded that off‑season booking was atypical
Whether the threatened 2011 NFL lockout justified deviating from the prior accounting practice	Buccaneers: NFL provided a revenue forecast and guidance during lockout threat, warranting earlier recognition	BP/Claims Admin.: Forecast does not establish entitlement or require earlier recognition; no contemporaneous documentation of a binding directive	Held: The lockout explanation was unsupported; a revenue forecast does not justify recognizing revenue earlier, so deviation was unjustified

Key Cases Cited

In re Deepwater Horizon, 744 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2014) (settlement treats post‑spill downturn as circumstantial causation evidence and established claims framework)
In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court aspects of settlement implementation)
In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", 910 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. La. 2012) (detailing settlement zones and claimant treatment based on proximity)
Ergon‑West Virginia, Inc. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 706 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2013) (standards on deference to factual findings and review)
Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 848 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2017) (review standards for settlement program decisions)
Claimant ID 100081155 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 920 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard of review when district court reviews claims decisions)
BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. Claimant ID 100246928, 920 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2019) (procedural note on sealing and related evidentiary practices)