Opinion ID: 2799728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deepwater Horizon I

Text: In In re Deepwater Horizon (Deepwater Horizon I), 732 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2013), BP appealed a district court order affirming the Claims Administrator’s interpretation of the terms “revenue” and “expenses” in the Agreement. Id. at 3Also before the Court are BP’s motion to supplement the record and file the supplemental record under seal, the Grant Claimant’s motion to dismiss, and Class Counsel’s motion to dismiss. The motion to supplement the record and file the supplemental record under seal is GRANTED, and both motions to dismiss are DENIED. 4 Case: 13-31296 Document: 00513036479 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 13-31296 c/w Nos. 13-31299, 13-31302 331. This case centered on a dispute about accounting standards. In a Policy Announcement, the Claims Administrator stated that these terms encompassed only cash payments and disbursements, consistent with the cashaccounting method. Id. at 334. BP disagreed and argued that the Agreement was to be governed instead by the accrual-accounting method, which requires matching of revenues and expenditures, and therefore the order allowed claimants to recover for inflated or nonexistent losses. Id. at 331–34. We remanded to the district court for further proceedings on this contractinterpretation question. Id. at 339.