IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-31086

Summary Calendar

CLAIMANT ID 100051301, 

 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-13931

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this appeal, we address a claim stemming from the Deepwater

Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement (Settlement 

Agreement) between Appellees BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America 

Production Co., and BP, P.L.C. (collectively, BP) and the settlement class. The 

 

* 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

June 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 16-31086

2

claimant in this case, Appellant Laxmi Southaven Enterprises, Inc. (Laxmi),

appeals from the district court’s denial of discretionary review.

Laxmi operates a motel in Southaven, Mississippi. In February 2013, 

Laxmi submitted a Business Economic Loss (BEL) claim to the Court 

Supervised Settlement Program (CSSP). The Settlement Agreement uses 

geographic zones to sort BEL claimants depending on their locations. Laxmi’s 

location places it in Zone D, which requires a BEL claimant to establish 

causation in order to recover on a claim. To establish causation, Laxmi was 

required to satisfy one of the six tests included in Exhibit 4B to the Settlement 

Agreement. Notably, most of the causation tests potentially applicable to 

Laxmi’s claim required certain changes in a claimant’s revenue following the 

oil spill. 

In January 2016, the Claims Administrator determined that Laxmi was 

eligible to receive more than $500,000 in compensation. At the center of this 

appeal is an accounting entry for $34,823.61. Specifically, for December 2010

(which is post-oil spill), Laxmi had a revenue variance of $34,823.61 between 

its profit and loss statement and its tax return. Laxmi explained that the 

difference was due to a year-end adjustment to decrease annual revenue by

$34,823.61 for revenue that was not paid and written off. The Claims 

Administrator treated the $34,823.61 as a contra revenue adjustment (i.e., 

decreasing Laxmi’s revenue) rather than as a bad debt expense (i.e., increasing 

Laxmi’s expenses and leaving revenue unchanged). This decision was 

important because whether the revenue-based causation tests in the 

Settlement Agreement were met depended, in part, on how much Laxmi’s 

revenue decreased following the oil spill. 

BP appealed the Claims Administrator’s determination to the CSSP’s 

Appeal Panel, arguing that the Claims Administrator made two errors. First, 

BP argued that the Claims Administrator improperly classified the $34,823.61 
No. 16-31086

3

as a contra revenue adjustment rather than a bad debt expense. According to 

BP, if the Claims Administrator had properly classified the $34,823.61 as a 

bad debt expense, Laxmi would have failed to establish causation because its 

post-oil spill revenue would have been too high. Second, BP contended that 

Laxmi inconsistently classified its expenses related to supplies, which resulted 

in an overstated compensation award. In response, Laxmi argued that, 

because it is a cash-basis taxpayer, the $34,823.61 was properly classified as a 

contra revenue adjustment rather than a bad debt expense. Laxmi also argued 

that its supplies were properly sorted between fixed and variable expenses. 

Prior to issuing its ruling, the Appeal Panel requested a summary of 

review from the Claims Administrator. Under Rule 13(f) of the Rules 

Governing the Appeals Process, a “Summary of Review is intended to provide 

the Appeal Panel with an understanding of what occurred in the underlying 

processing of the claim, including the basis for the determination(s) made by 

the Claims Administrator.” Rule 13(f) further provides, inter alia, that the 

“Appeal Panel may grant the Claimant, Class Counsel and BP the right to file 

a response to the Claims Administrator’s Summary of Review, but such 

response shall be limited to a correction of facts recited in the Summary of 

Review and shall not include any argument.”1 In this case, the Appeal Panel 

 

1 In full, Rule 13(f) provides the following:

The record on appeal shall consist of: . . . (f) The Claims Administrator’s 

Summary of Review, as requested by the Appeal Panel. The Summary of 

Review is intended to provide the Appeal Panel with an understanding of what 

occurred in the underlying processing of the claim, including the basis for the 

determination(s) made by the Claims Administrator. It shall include reference 

to and a factual explanation of any formal policies or procedures adopted by

the Claims Administrator that are applicable to the issue(s) raised by the 

appeal, referring the Appeal Panelist to the formal policies that are part of the 

Record of Appeal, as described in Rule 13 (c). The Summary of Review is not 

to be a document that advocates one position or the other but rather is to be a 

narrative that simply explains how the Claims Administrator processed the 

claim. The Summary of Review is for informational purposes only and is to be 

made available to the Appeal Panel, the Claimant, Class Counsel and BP. The 
No. 16-31086

4

asked the Claims Administrator why it had treated the $34,823.61 as a contra 

revenue adjustment rather than a bad debt expense. In the summary of 

review, the Claims Administer explained that the CSSP accountant had 

“inadvertently classified [Laxmi’s] December 2010 revenue adjustment as a 

Contra Revenue account rather than Bad Debt Expense. If the 2010 contra 

revenue was treated as Bad Debt Expense, the claimant does not pass 

causation under Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement.” 

In June 2016, the Appeal Panel held that Laxmi was not entitled to 

compensation under the Settlement Agreement. The Appeal Panel explained 

that, after a summary of review was requested, the Claims Administrator had 

“conceded that the . . . accountant inadvertently classified [Laxmi’s] December 

2010 revenue adjustment as a contra revenue account rather than a bad debt 

expense,” and once this mistake is corrected, Laxmi “would not pass 

causation.” The Appeal Panel then found that, “[a]fter a full consideration of 

the record,” “the December 2010 revenue adjustment should have [been] 

considered a bad debt expense.” Thus, the Appeal Panel held that Laxmi failed 

to establish causation and could not recover.2 

Following the Appeal Panel’s decision, Laxmi requested discretionary 

review from the district court. In its brief, Laxmi urged the district court to 

grant discretionary review because the Appeal Panel had relied on the Claims 

Administrator’s flawed summary of review. Laxmi claimed that the Appeal 

Panel (based on the summary of review) had improperly concluded that Laxmi 

 

Appeal Panel may grant the Claimant, Class Counsel and BP the right to file 

a response to the Claims Administrator’s Summary of Review, but such 

response shall be limited to a correction of facts recited in the Summary of 

Review and shall not include any argument.

2 Because the Appeal Panel held that Laxmi failed to establish causation, the Appeal 

Panel did not reach whether Laxmi’s purported inconsistent treatment of its supply expenses 

resulted in an artificially inflated award.
No. 16-31086

5

used the accrual basis of accounting. Laxmi also highlighted the fact that the 

Claims Administrator did not present any calculations in its summary of 

review showing that Laxmi failed to establish causation, nor did it appear to 

consider other benchmark periods and whether Laxmi could pass other 

causation tests. The district court, however, declined to exercise its discretion 

to review the claim. Laxmi timely appealed to this court. 

Our review of the district court’s denial of discretionary review is for 

abuse of discretion. Claimant ID 100250022 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 847 F.3d 

167, 169 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). In determining whether the district 

court abused its discretion, we generally look to “whether the decision not 

reviewed by the district court actually contradicted or misapplied the 

Settlement Agreement, or had the clear potential to contradict or misapply the 

Settlement Agreement.” Id. (quoting Holmes Motors, Inc. v. BP Expl. & Prod., 

Inc., 829 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 2016)). “However, we have been careful to 

note that it is ‘wrong to suggest that the district court must grant review of all 

claims that raise a question about the proper interpretation of the Settlement 

Agreement.’” Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 848 F.3d 407, 

410 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting Holmes Motors, 829 F.3d at 316); see 

also Claimant ID 100217021 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., -- F. App’x --, 2017 WL 

2210505, at *1 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Not all contradictions or 

misapplications, however, warrant review.”). 

Here, Laxmi has failed to show that the district court abused its 

discretion in declining to review the claim. At base, Laxmi’s argument is that 

the Claims Administrator’s initial determination that the $34,823.61 should 

be treated as contra revenue was correct, and the Appeal Panel erred by 

concluding that this amount was properly treated instead as a bad debt 

expense. However, whether this amount should be a bad debt expense or a 

contra revenue adjustment under these circumstances is the type of factbound 
No. 16-31086

6

and claimant-specific question that the district court does not abuse its 

discretion by declining to review. See Claimant ID 100217021, -- F. App’x --, 

2017 WL 2210505, at *3 (“Whatever the merit of [the claimant’s] 

contention . . . it resembles a factbound attack on a decision about a single 

claimant as opposed to a recurring issue about the meaning of the Settlement 

Agreement that will substantially impact other cases.”). Indeed, Laxmi argues 

that this court must reverse because the Appeal Panel made “a clearly 

erroneous factual finding,” which only serves to highlight why the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in declining to review this claim. Regardless of the 

merits of Laxmi’s arguments, the district court cannot be required to exercise 

its discretion to review such a factbound and claimant-specific appeal “[i]f the 

discretionary nature of the district court’s review is to have any meaning.” See 

Holmes Motors, 829 F.3d at 317 (quoting In re Deepwater Horizon, 641 F. App’x 

405, 410 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)).

Laxmi’s arguments to the contrary and attempts to reframe the issue to 

avoid the appropriate standard of review are unavailing—Laxmi simply does 

not point to any misapplication or contradiction of the Settlement Agreement

that would require review by the district court. For example, Laxmi argues

that the Appeal Panel should have required the production of additional 

calculations showing that Laxmi failed every causation test or remanded the 

claim for further proceedings, but this is the type of discretionary 

administrative decision for a claimant-specific situation that the district court 

need not review. See Claimant ID 100110725 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., -- F. 

App’x --, 2017 WL 1826174, at *2 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“[T]he 

[claimant’s] argument ultimately turns on ‘the correctness of a discretionary 

administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant’s case,’ and does not 

show that the Panel’s determination ‘actually contradicted or misapplied the 

Settlement Agreement.’” (citations omitted)). Laxmi also contends that there 
No. 16-31086

7

are a number of Appeal Panel decisions reaching different conclusions 

regarding whether an adjustment should be treated as contra revenue or bad 

debt, and thus, the district court abused its discretion by declining to review 

the issue. See Claimant ID 100212278, 848 F.3d at 410 (“It may be an abuse 

of discretion to deny a request for review that raises a recurring issue on which 

the Appeal Panels are split if ‘the resolution of the question will substantially 

impact the administration of the [Settlement] Agreement.’” (quoting In re 

Deepwater Horizon, 632 F. App’x 199, 203–04 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam))). 

However, the fact that Appeal Panels have reached different conclusions for 

this issue depending on the circumstances of each case does not represent the 

type of Appeal Panel split that would require the district court’s review. It 

makes sense that sometimes a contra revenue adjustment is appropriate on 

the facts of a given case and other times a bad debt expense is appropriate on 

the facts of another. Whether the facts here dictate that the $34,823.61 is more 

appropriately classified as contra revenue or bad debt will not “substantially 

impact the administration of the [Settlement] Agreement.” See id. (quoting In 

re Deepwater Horizon, 632 F. App’x at 203–04). Finally, Laxmi argues that the 

CSSP accountant’s initial determination that the $34,823.61 was properly 

classified as contra revenue was entitled to deference and the facts here were 

insufficient to justify the Appeal Panel’s reversal. Yet once again, this 

argument is merely a reframing of the merits issue of how the $34,823.61

should have been classified in this specific case. It does not implicate a

misapplication or contradiction of the Settlement Agreement that would 

require review by the district court.3

 

3 Laxmi also advances a somewhat convoluted argument that its due process rights 

were violated by the Appeal Panel’s decision. For example, Laxmi appears to argue that its 

due process rights were violated because it was not able to respond to the summary of review. 

Laxmi, however, did not raise a due process argument before the district court, and thus, this 
No. 16-31086

8

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 

argument is forfeited. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 814 F.3d 748, 752 (5th Cir. 2016) (per 

curiam); Claimant ID 100217021, -- F. App’x --, 2017 WL 2210505, at *3 n.4.