Legal Costs must be substantially shifted; No Brainer!

z

Dennis, You are missing the point of that post.

1. you said there are no payments on go forward basis.

2. That was a cut and past from Peter and he says that instead of taking 7.5 from retro and then 7.5 from future cheques they want to take 15 from retro.

So without agruing about percentages ... my point is simply this ... YES THEY ARE TAKING FROM GO FORWARD PAYMENTS!!!

If they did not chose to take from the GO FORWARD then they would only be taking a percentage from the 424M vice 887M.

Again ... not looking to argue about percentages ... just the black and white!

That is very Nice - Taught my exchange with the judge could provide me some kind of legitimate privacy.

Vall2012 or else in this forum - Why is it so important to put this out of your hat. Please remove your entry. I am asking kindly. Erase it.

Vall2012

I am not even there

Dont Sir me please Denis

- 04-FEB-13 Ottawa Letter from Retired dated 04-FEB-2013 to Mr. Justice Barnes regarding the settlement and fees provided by McInnis Cooper. received on 04-FEB-2013

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-463-07

my name's public
my comments are public

You have seen it ?

NOT WHEN YOUR NAME IS IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT ON THE FEDERAL COURT SITE

I am asking you as my right to be like everyone here - a simple visitor with an handle. which is Vall2012 -Please Correct it.

There is no spin, it works out to an estimated 7.5% of the estimated, at this point, entire settlement when they could have asked for thirty %

They are taking just over 17% off retro only.....so what if someone injured today does not have to pay legal fees, this is one of the very reasons we started on this path....

I cannot accept the selfishness laid out before me in posts like this, especially coming from former "educated" officers.

This reEks of ME ME ME ME ME AND IT IS BOTH AN EMBARRASSMENT AND AN INSULT.

Denis I loved my own privacy, - can you erase you post please and leave me with VALL2012.

Now I am getting the clearer picture

No need to explain anymore as I am reading you 5x5

Wow is all i can say to the selfish nature in front of me, but hey I'm just a corporal vehicle tech who decided to do something.

Out

Dennis,

Take a close look at what Peter Driscoll said(para 2 and 4) and then tell everyone that there are no legal fees on go forward payments! (i would love to know what all is included in this $887M since only $424M is retro)

A Note From McInnes Cooper January 10, 2013
6608:

I am sorry you think the 7.5% is spin, but here is my reasoning:

1. Contract provides for 30% on all amounts recovered;

2. We recovered $887M;

3. We believe 7.5% to be appropriate rather than 30%;

4. We can be paid 7.5% on the refund and 7.5% on current and future cheques; or we can seek a one time payment of 15% on the refund. Memebrs prefer one time.

5. Our HST/GST/PST represents 2% and disbursments .5% (expressed as a percentage so members share pro rata). So either 17.5% on refund or 8.75% on refund and 8.75% going forward.

5. 93% of members have received the majority of their money refund will be larger than cost going forward.

6. For this reason the manner in which we seek to be paid in once on the refund.