Legal Fees (Assorted Topics)

I just want this known. I do think that 8% plus disbursements is fair, but I cannot say that I think the fees are equal across the board if you include future money some will earn. That is all I have say on the matter, so there is no need for any negative comments if you don't agree, because I will not respond to them. Thank you

Lol

i really dont think fedex can hit thoes mailboxes nav no matter how big they are.maybe if they were droped with an old lawndart with a civi chute lol.

propat

What I am saying, is that when you factor in the future money that some will receive as a result of the lawsuit, their actual legal fees, even though a higher amount due to more retro money, is actually a much less percentage wise than a 24 month paying the 8% if the retro is all they get.

Example Vet 1 receives $50000 retro for 24 months and pays 8% or $4000.
Vet 2 receives $200000 plus another $300000 in the future, totaling $500000. His legal fees are based on the retro only, so $16000.
Now compare the $16000 to the overall financial gain and the fees represent 3.2% of the the total amount.

This is where the inequality of the legal fees becomes apparent, when using future money as a part of the settlement, because most class members will not have access to any of it. If they didn't give a dollar amount to the future money, and simply stated that members of the class may be reinstated based on individual circumstances, then there wouldn't be an issue, because getting reinstated on SISIP would have been a separate issue from the compensation from the lawsuit, but this did not occur.

Agreed Navrat.

I believe anyone getting over 200000 should have their legal fees paid by the ones below that, only fair, Also all HST should be paid by members living in NS because they are used to it, only fair. Peter should buy Trooper and Propat mailboxes because airdrops are a bitch! Lol!

bigrex, the members that are reinstated are not paying fees going forward. So I do not see where the equality of legal fees has any impact in regards to members being reinstated. As far as the retro in general is concerned , members with higher amounts of retro will pay more in fees, than members of lower amounts, even though both members are at the same 8% fee charge. This is simply that one is higher than the other. This is why I think that 8% is fair and equal across the board. To lower the fee from one unique situation to another will make it unfair.

Let's see $100.000 x 8%= $8000

40% Tax Bracket

$8000 x 40%=$3200 Returned to me by way of tax write off.

$8000 - $3200 =$4200.

I can be contented to pay our Lawyers this amount, considering I will recieve all retro, plus income going forward until i'm 65 years old.

I've been through a divorce, $4200 in Lawyers fees and cost is chicken feed, considering the amount we could gain because of the lawsuit.

.

To each his and her own.

Cheers
John.

Part of the problem is the distinction between past and future money. Only a select few of the 7500 get to have any claim on the future money, so I think the $450 Million is grossly overestimated. This is most likely a ploy by the GoC to say "look how much we're giving to the Veterans!", when in all actuality, 1/4th or half of that amount will actually make it into a Veterans pocket over the next 25 years. In order to spend that much money in the future, over 1000 veterans would have to get an average of $1500 per month for 25 years, and I just don't see that happening, since many of class members will reach the age of 65 within 10-15 years or sooner. Especially when considering that somebody said, that as of recently, there have been less than 250 class members reinstated.

Plus I've said it before, the lawsuit was not initiated with the intention of getting people reinstated, or being given money in the future. The lawsuit was all about getting money that had already been stolen from us returned. Therefore, reinstating people who had previously approved for continued benefits from SISIP if the clawback had not existed, should have been automatic, and not part of the negotiations. If someone had an argument about getting reinstated, then that could have been accomplished through a judicial review.. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad everyone is getting the money they deserve, but at the same time, not everyone will benefit from the class action equally, so why should our legal bills be equal?

Holy shit, still smoke and mirrors about 8%/4%?

It's NOT 4%, because the judge said they can't take money from future SISIP payments that doesn't exist, so drop the whole $887M thing already, folks.

It's 8% of the retro, that's it. Those that are getting retro only are STILL getting hosed by the legal fees!

Those that are getting money going forward are amortizing their uncertain payments now, and only getting slightly less hosed.

Thieves, thieves, everywhere.

Rags, the Judge only said that it "worked out to about 4%" of the overall 887M. But his decision was that we be charged 8% on our retro (424M).

Having regard to all of the considerations outlined above, I will approve legal fees in an amount equal to 8% of the retroactive refunds payable to class beneficiaries (including the cancellation of debts owing by class members to Manulife Financial). This figure is approximately 4% of the total value of the settlement.

I did. The fee is still 8% the people paying it are still the same people-us. Continuing to focus on 4% of the whole settlement does not mean that anyone is paying 4%. The comment, though true is just the spoonful of sugar to make it easier to swallow. I like to be realistic.

Read the Judges decision its in there. 4%.

I beg to differ. The fee MC is being paid is 8% from our retro, that is how MC is being paid.
Muddying the waters by saying 4% IF you take into consideration the entire lawsuit is just to make it more "appear" palatable. All smoke and mirrors.
8% is the real and only number that is what "We" pay and as I stated, I am fine with that.

Its actually 4% not 8% when you calculate the whole deal which is close to what most Class Actions in this situation and range of payout get. I suggested back in late Jan it would be between 3.5 and 5% based on historical payouts. The problem is the way the payout is scaled that we in the retro group get to pay 8% others pay none.

They asked for 15% which was 7.5%. so we did ok they were never going to get 30% once class was certified and was over 500k mark so that number 30% is a false argument and never was going to occur.