I will loss over 55% of my retro!!!!! How much will you loss please post here!

I agree completely with you K9, that seems the smartest thing to do in the GOC's case, there is no clawback from public, there is no clawback from vets, and there is no clawback from lawyers.

It all works out in the wash!!

I wrote this in another post, sorry for those who saw it, for others,
Here are my toughs about the upcoming proosition:

Asking the GOC to pay the lawyers fees can't be orderd, the same that our law firm knew they wouldn't have to pay some in case they lost. This is why I think the risk that our law firm with this case was close to none. Ombudsman report, etc........ Just the time it would take was a gamble. The GOC decided to pay earlier then later, for us, going to Court was a shame!

Because of that and the amount of the settlement, I don't think that Judge Barnes will render a fair fee pourcentage.

For the damages, they are not an option, it should be statuary!

Yes, the GOC has payed lawyer's fees in class action history, even recently!

If the deal is good, damages or whatever they want to call it should bring us back to the same as if we would'nt have to pay our lawyers fees.

Then we would be the same as if we didn't go to Court, and they did what they had to do in first place including tax adjustments and penalitys.

This way, the GOC doesn't create another precedent paying lawyers fees that the Court's Rules permit them not to pay.

Mr Driscoll said at the beginning, no lawyers fees and no damages, then he said that damages were still on the table, and lately he passed by others that we would be happy about the deal, so this is what would be the outcom that would be, not fair, but the fairest minimum possible.

not in this kind of settlement he can only set the fee.

propat

long version

Clarification on Counsel Fees: Our fees do not form part of the negotiations. We are focused on getting the best resolution on the core issues we can, as quickly as we can, to benefit the members. Once we are done we will review the position on fees. Again fees are not part of the resolution discussions, as only the Court will set the fees. The fee process is completely transparent. We will give notice to the Court and to the members on the amount of the fee we are seeking. The fee request will be based on a number of factors, only one of which is the contractual percentage. Other considerations are legal precedent (what has been paid in previous cases), the risk and cost of the firm to the date of the application, the work completed (appearance in the SCC, and successful trial of the contract issue), the number of people benefiting from the class action, and the amount involved. All of the foregoing is set out in an extensive brief and affidavits which will be available for review by all members and will be reviewed by the Court before the Court ultimately sets a fee that the Court decides is reasonable for the work we have done for you.

propat

Here's an idea,

Each person of the class has a percentage of intrest. So lets say,

$60,000 is equal to 0.01% of $600,000,000
$550,000,000 x .01%

This will give the person $55,000

If a person is owed 600,000 then they would be owed 0.1%

550,000,000 x 0.1% = 550,000

Why should someone get any more of a share than they are entitled to.

If you do the math the way I see above, there just does not seem like any other FAIR solution.

Its all about shares, if you look at Greatfoots idea this is how it works.

200,000 - 10500 = 189500 which is 94.75% of original owed when, the lower end is receiving 10,000 -1,500 = 8,500 which is 85% of original owed. FAIR I think not!!

Wait never mind now I see how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it all makes sense now!!

Np, but can the judge actually assign legal fees to be paid by on side or the other?

ok pigeons take your time buds.here is the short version the judge will not and can not entertain any request for leagal fees from the law firm untill the deal has been compleat.

propat

I need to read more memos propat. This is news to me.

pigions you are correct as the deal is concerned but he does decide seperatly what the leagal fees will be.
propat

AS far as I know Justice Barnes can
A) accept the settlement
B) reject the settlement
That's it, that's all. He has to work within the limitations of his mandate.

wow it kinda looks like the us tax system the more you make the lower the rate you pay verry interesting.

propat

Yes, but where does that 30-50 million come from and how is it broken down.

Could fees payable, assuming the government won't 'rightly' foot the bill, be broken down in a more palatable manner?

And these are just arbitrary numbers for discussion's sake.

Let's say 15% for the first $10,000 or fraction thereof.
Then 10% for the next $40,000 to a total of $50,000.
Then 5% for amounts between $50,000 and $100,000.
Then 2.5% for amounts in excess of $100,000.

So, if you are awarded $10,000, you would pay $1,500.
If you are awarded $50,000, you would pay $5,500.
If you are (un)lucky enough to get $100,000, you pay $8,000.
And if you are a really (un)lucky person and get $200,000, you pay $10,500.

How does this sound? This way, I think, those with lower amounts don't get fee'd-away into nothingness, and those that get higher amounts aren't losing their shirts.

(If you're a math SME mebbe you can come up with some fancy-dancy equation or something)

Judge Barnes seems like a fair dude..... Hey judge give the boys 30-50 million and call it done!

I am uneasy about the prospect of legal fees as well, as I have stated in other posts.

I do not have a solution at this point, but I am not pleased about a percentage of legal fees simply because some will pay more, and in some cases A LOT more than others.

In exemplis: At (arbitrary) 30% someone who receives $10,000 pays $3,000 an someone who receives $100,000 pays $30,000. Does the $100,000 person 'deserve' to pay more? I don't think so.

Nor is a flat rate per capita a solution, because on a dollar for dollar basis, those that receive less in settlement will end up paying more in ratio to dollars received.

In Exemplis: If fees are decided to be $5,000 per person, a person that receives $10,000 is left with $5,000, and a person that receives $100,000 is left with $95,000, is it fair that the $10,000 recipient loses half their money? I don't think so.

Like I said, I don't have a solution, but in either case - flat rate or percentage - people are going to get ass-raped. The only 'fair' way to ensure the lawyers get paid for their hard work is if the government steps up to the plate and pays the fees, considering that they bear the ENTIRE burden of responsibility for our being in this situation in the first place.

As I see, there really is no 'fair' way for the lawyers to get paid if we are the ones that need to shell out the coin.

We should not have negioated until the GOC agreed to cover the legal fees, should have been the first item on the table