IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30786

CLAIMANT ID 100247288, 

 Requesting Party - Appellant

v.

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA 

PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., 

 Objecting Parties - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:16-CV-4028

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

I

Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. (“Felder’s”) is a merchant in the 

aftermarket for auto parts in the Baton Rouge area, selling used parts to 

collision and repair centers. It filed a Decline-Only Business Economic Loss 

(“BEL”) claim with the Court-Supervised Settlement Program (“CSSP”). As a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 27, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30786 Document: 00513971788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2017
No. 16-30786

2

Zone D Decline-Only BEL claimant, Felder’s needed to satisfy the three prongs 

described in Part III.C of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. Only the 

second prong is at issue in this appeal. The second prong requires a Zone D 

Decline-Only BEL claimant to provide:

Specific documentation identifying factors outside the control of 

the claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011:

• 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

• Produce/Source replacement by Customer,

• Loss of financing and/or reasonable terms of renewal

Felder’s’ initial claim was denied by the CSSP because Felder’s failed to 

provide any documentation purporting to satisfy the second prong. It sought 

re-review of the denial, submitting a one-paragraph letter from Whitney Bank 

indicating that it had been denied a commercial line of credit in “late 2011.” 

The CSSP concluded that the Whitney Bank letter did not sufficiently identify 

a factor outside Felder’s’ control that prevented it from recovering revenues in 

2011 and again denied the claim. Felder’s sought reconsideration of the second 

denial based on the same documentation and was denied a third time. It then 

appealed to the CSSP Appeal Panel.

In support of its appeal, Felder’s provided (1) an additional letter from 

Whitney Bank clarifying that the line of credit Felder’s had sought from the 

bank was for an immediate cash infusion in late 2011, and (2) documents 

describing a program by General Motors (“GM”). The program, called “Bump 

the Competition,” provided collision centers with new parts at or below cost so 

as to destroy aftermarket competition. 

The Appeal Panel denied Felder’s’ appeal, holding that: (1) the Whitney 

Bank letters did not show with sufficient specificity how the denial of the line 

 Case: 16-30786 Document: 00513971788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2017
No. 16-30786

3

of credit affected Felder’s revenues in 2011; and (2) because the documentation 

provided by Felder’s regarding the Bump the Competition program showed 

that it had been in place since 2009, those documents also did not show with 

sufficient specificity how the program prevented Felder’s’ revenues from 

recovering in 2011. After failing to convince the Appeal Panel, Felder’s sought 

discretionary review by the district court, which was denied. It now appeals to 

this court, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying 

review. We AFFIRM.

II

Felder’s argues that the Whitney Bank letters and/or the documentation 

it provided describing the Bump the Competition program are sufficient to 

satisfy the second prong. We address each in turn.1

A. The Whitney Bank Letters

In its submission to the Appeal Panel, Felder’s provided two letters from 

Whitney Bank. The first, addressed to “Mr. & Mrs. Felder,” stated only that 

“Whitney Bank received a request for a commercial line of credit in late 2011. 

Based on the financial information provided at that time, Whitney Bank was 

not able to approve the request.” The second follow-up letter added that “the 

purpose of this loan request was for an immediate cash injection to sustain 

business operations of Felder[’s] Collision Parts, Inc. in 2011.” The letters do 

not indicate the amount of the requested line of credit or how the loan might 

have been used to recover revenues in 2011. Indeed, to the extent it indicates 

anything at all, the second letter tends to show that the loan was intended 

 

1 The parties argue extensively regarding the proper way to interpret the second 

prong’s text as it is articulated in Exhibit 4B. They dispute at length, for example, over 

whether the bulleted list of factors described is illustrative or exclusive. We need not reach 

this or any other question of textual interpretation, however, because Felder’s’ contentions 

fail even if we accept its interpretation of the provision. 

 Case: 16-30786 Document: 00513971788 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2017
No. 16-30786

4

merely to sustain Felder’s’ status quo in 2011, and not to expand operations or 

recover lost revenues. We therefore agree with the Appeal Panel that the 

Whitney Bank letters are “insufficient to show a factor outside Claimant’s

control that prevented a recovery of revenue in 2011.”2

B. The Bump the Competition Program

The documentation provided by Felder’s regarding GM’s Bump the 

Competition program is insufficient on a number of fronts. Felder’s provided 

the Appeal Panel with: (1) a document, evidently given to the owner of Felder’s

by an employee of a competitor and dated January 1, 2009, which described 

the Bump the Competition program and included spreadsheets listing prices 

for specific parts within the program; and (2) a sworn affidavit from the owner, 

stating that he was personally aware of at least one competitor who 

participated in the Bump the Competition program. Felder’s argues that these 

documents are sufficient to establish that its competitors used the Bump the 

Competition program in 2011, and that said participation prevented recovery 

of Felder’s’ revenues. 

We disagree. First, the documentation provided does not establish that 

any of its competitors participated in the Bump the Competition program in 

2011. The documents from 2009 are obviously insufficient on this front. And 

the owner’s affidavit is also insufficient, in light of the Claim Administrator’s 

Policy 474, which provides that “[a] document prepared by the claimant . . . or 

the claimant’s attorney is not sufficient on its own to satisfy” the second prong 

of the Decline-Only BEL test. Furthermore, the owner did not testify that any 

 

2 The Appeal Panel noted that, because the loan was denied in “late 2011,” it was more 

likely that “any effect a granted credit line would have had would more likely have occurred 

in 2012.” Because we hold that the letters are too vague to show that the cash infusion might 

have impacted 2011 business operations, we need not evaluate the reasonableness of the 

Appeal Panel’s determination on this front. 

 Case: 16-30786 Document: 00513971788 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/27/2017
No. 16-30786

5

competitor was, in fact, participating in the Bump the Competition program in 

2011.3

In short, these documents are woefully inadequate to establish that the 

Bump the Competition program prevented Felder’s’ revenue from recovering 

in 2011.4

III

The documents Felder’s provided to the CSSP and Appeal Panel were 

inadequate to satisfy the second prong of the Zone D Decline-Only BEL test as 

described in Exhibit 4B to the Settlement Agreement. The district court’s 

denial of discretionary review is therefore AFFIRMED. 

 

3 The owner did testify that “[t]he effects of the Bump the Competition program – lost 

sales to [a named competitor] – were felt by Felder’s in 2011 and prevented any recovery in

revenue by Felder’s in 2011.” But this statement is (1) too conclusory to be worth crediting, 

and (2) does not actually claim that any competitor was participating in the Bump the 

Competition program in 2011. 

4 The parties argue at length as to whether the “in 2011” language in Exhibit 4B 

requires that the factor preventing recovery of revenues must have been unique to 2011, or 

only that it existed in 2011. The Appeal Panel concluded that the former interpretation was 

correct. We do not reach the issue because, even accepting the latter interpretation, the 

documentation provided by Felder’s was insufficient. 

 Case: 16-30786 Document: 00513971788 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/27/2017