WHY are the ZERO SUMS PAYING THE MOST LEGAL FEES AND TAXES!

Peep I have faith in the vets that will will be speaking for us in halifax tommorrow, Hopefully some of our concerns get addressed, and this deal gets sorted. I am trying to stay positive too! But its hard lol.

If the deal is done than I am ashamed at the GOC, Supreme Court and our Law Firm for misleading us, that we could and should write the Supreme Court with our stories and hopes and dreams.

We wasted out time!

If the deal is done, then we have been belittled into thinking we could make a difference. If it went to court and was not done behind closed doors like it was, I will be pissed at the fact we had no input.

This is a class action; while I admire our lead plaintiffs efforts, if its a done deal, then its not a class action and subject to appeal.

Enough said. I will keep my thoughts positive and await the results.

I dont really know how to explain this, but this is how I see it, for example.

Vet A gets 3 years retro $45,000.00 pays 17.83% legal fees $ 8,023.50
Now possibly gets future payments to age 65 or 67. No legal fees owing.
Cost to Vet A with MC saying 7.5% of 17.83% is for future payments. Math!
7.5% +hst =$ 3,375.00 + HST to get future years No legal fees.

Vet B gets 20 years retro, $ 400,000.00 pays 17.83% Legal fees. $71,320.00
Cost to vet B with MC saying 7.5% +HST of 17.83% is for future Payments,
$30,000.00 + HST is VET Bs cost to recieve futures payments, without legal fees.
Both recieving 15,000.00 per year added (Interest for Vet B)
thats how I'm seeing it, and if I'm wrong please correct me. Of couse Vet A would like the deal over Vet B

going forward both vets get 15,000.00 per year. and most likely a older vet with 20 years retro is closer to the age 65 with less years to collect. Just a scenerio that may be somewhat close to factual. add your opinions, if you like, trying to understand this too!

bigrex agreed fully you have allways been well informed.as for the way i understand it.it really doesnt matter if the lead plaintiff,the two leagal teams ore even us the class all like ore dislike the deal.if he thinks accepting this deal is best for the class as a whole he will accept it.if he doesnt he will not accept it.i cant really read his mind so im guessing 50-50 lol.i guess we may know what he is thinking by the weekend.

propat

The deal is not done. There is a reason that it is called a proposal. It can be changed at the courts discretion. Sure, the judge cannot make the changes directly, but he can order the lawyers to negotiate a deal that is more in line with what he considers fair compensation. This is why we have the right to address the court on our opinions of the proposal, if not, the lawyers would have stated that all who are addressing the judge can only speak to the legal fees, but they didn't. But if all you do is just sat there smiling while getting shafted by the Government , and now our own lawyers, you deserve to get screwed over. And you'll likely be the first people praising anyone who did speak out, if we force the Government to pay our legal fees, pay tax free damages or waive all tax penalties. Anything to increase the money that the class members will see and able to keep in their pockets.

Roger I concur !!!

So payments forward being 7.5 % is fair .??? To you not me . The way is set up is fair maybe not the percentage or why are we paying for it not the govt ..? Who stands to lose more money. Example if I am not zeroed out which means I make less then someone who is .. Now you say it is fair to take more away from them families who make less......THINK ABOUT IT !!!!! The is a reason for being zeroed out and people who are not .. I am I wrong??? I thought we were fighting for those who need it not ourselves!!!

Legal fees will be lowered and maybe even a surprise! Deal is already approved this is just window dressing.

I am saying , possibly, that if certain class members had to pay the 7.5% legal fee, on, ongoing SISIP payments, there may well be more resistance to the proposal, But , this was unfairly dumped on others, and especially the long retroactive members. like I say this is confusing, and just how I see it from posts here, and what i percieve from MC proposal.

one thing COD, there are no possibilities of any 24 month class members getting future payments, unless they were zero sum clients. So unless your SISIP payment was completely reduced to zero at any point, you do not even have the opportunity of getting reinstated.

yes exactly i agree 65 000 000 for lawyers is an insult especialy how they tongue twist double talk tell media and judge one % and tell class a different % exactly insult.... they worked so hard on twisting things they deserve 887 mil .... if the class actualy got 65 million each member would probably get more in bank because of taxes

Sorry, COD... didn't see the ! instead of ?... though you were actually questioning it, not making a declaration.

Mfors that is a huge insult to all the class

i think class should only get 65mil and lawyers have 887 million. i am sure they can send back and make necessary amendments

Maggie, My point on legal fees is that a 2 year will pay 17.83% legal fee for 2 years, and may receive go forward payments, with no legal fee deduction till age 65, however, the further your retro goes back, the more of that, go forward legal fees is paid . is absorbed by your retro, so in essense we pay the lions share ,of the go forward legal fees. just how i see it but this is confusing.