Legal Fees (Assorted Topics)

I agree, Peter and buddies have done an amazing job in representing veterans. However if their intentions were to collect nearly 18% off of the backs of injured veterans, they should have just been forth right and up front. I have no problem paying my portion, however perhaps they could have saved their integrity and not misled us about future payments that they intent on collecting all at once. Also if I am able to return to work in a few years, will the firm send me a reimbursement? I do believe they did an amazing job, but the majority of the class will be getting screwed. Also will SISIP pay me NOW until I am 65 so I can cover these legal fees?

I'm a simple minded old fool. If McInnesCooper wants 17.83% (pro rata) on what they manage to recover, no problem. Why come up with a disingenuous 7.5% media figure that doesn't pass the smell test.
>peep< you get one chance at 3rd party adjudication and their word is final. If you win-the law firm wins; more money for you and a bigger pro rata share for the law firm.

Chocolate is good!

Mmmmmm... Chocolate I like chocolate mmmmm

Now I am hungry

mfors, you should be out of chocolate candy bars by now and yet I have not received one
Sparrow

i hope i made sense on my last entrance.... or am i just out to whack ... i have a chocolate candy bar for the one that confirms i am out to whack and dont make sense

i figure from top of my head by them not going the actual route of 7.5 now and 7.5 future they will lose about 40 million because not going to get future payments from 24 month people .... but they say we going route of 17.83 so they make sure they get more money from people not receiving future payments NOT BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO WORRY ABOUT FUTURE PAYMENTS only because their going to be out on alot of the second 7.5% payment

And all of us that are going for adjudication!
Are we paying the money even if we do not get adjucation at a later date?

How are the variables worked in. I an on Peters zero sum list but not sisip's.

7.5% from retro
7.5% from future payments
2.83% taxes


but they decide not to go that route and just take 1 time 17.83% causing all personel only 24 months and not ever going to get future check to pay 10.83% more.............. thats the real reason why they going that route because the know they get more .. if they decided to actually go the route 7.5% from future payments that would be fair for everybody especialy the one with no futur payments... for them to go 17.83 they just uped the total dollar amount 10.83 % mainly taken from 24 month or personel no future payments....... shouldnt personel not getting future payments be awarded in% rather then getting hit harder %wise just because lawfirm doesnt want head ache on who will be on sisip till 65

I must have missed the memo where the court ordered us to stay alive until age 65. There is no way a judge would allow this fee arrangement, it's almost laughable.

Greatfoot you are correct, they are asking for all fee's up front

From Schedule A:

Refund Projection: $330,900,000 <--- This is the actual money we will see soon.
Proposed Fee as a Percentage of Refund Only: 15.70% <--- This is the legal fee we will pay on the retro.
.................................................................................................(So that we don't have to pay in the future)
.................................................................................................(We are being charged on future money)

Increased Reserve for Future Increases: $453,500,000 <--- This is money from the future.
...................................................................$103,000,000 <--- Misc Interest, Top Ups, etc
...................................................................$330,900,000
...................................................................$887,400,000 <--- Give or take a few bucks.
Proposed Fee as a Percentage of Total Value Achieved: 7.5% <--- This is the "public consumption" rate.

Help me out here, am I missing something, because it sure looks to me like we are being charged legal fees on money that doesn't even exist yet. So, please, don't tell me, yet again, that we are not paying legal fees 'going forward', I get that we won't be required to give up 7.5% in every future year, the fact of the matter is that we are being required to pay that 7.5% on every future year RIGHT NOW.

Let me try this another way, if I must pay you $5.00 a year for 10 years, I can either pay you $5.00 each year for 10 years, or pay you $50.00 right now and be done with it. The legal fees want us to pay 7.5% a year until 65, but rather than collecting it every year until 65, they want us to pay it all now.

Final is right any one can speak and this class can have more then one lead plaintif. This 14th court is our turn to take the helm and be represented by ourselves as leads in the class if we choose.
Typically in this type of class action there is more then one lead plantiff. It is typical to have one lead per part or sub class to represent the details and special aspects of each part of the class. Example would be, estates of the dead, the 2 years SISIP LTD everyone got disabled or not, the Long Term Disabled who cannot represent themselves and the long term disabled who fought and won or lost after the 2 year SISIP gift was up.
It would appear the MC and GOC and Judge figured one represented the entire class well enough as i gather in there minds the issues were very similar.....wonder why RCMP did not get group in with us as the class is identical. There is a very good legal argument to have them lumped in with us and they bring along a lead plantif to.

Anyone can that is a class member can speak ...but you have to email McInnes Cooper and request to speak to the judge prior to 7th of FEB ...see no vet left behind .ca -Acadian here excuse my english

WHO  CAN  TO  BE  SWORN  IN  IF  DENNIS  IS  NOT  ALLOWED  TO  SPEAK  ABOUT  THE  CLASS  CONCERNS  ?

maybe we don't have to ask the Judge to lower the fee's requested. They told the media that they only want 7.5%. That amount works for me. What if we simply ask the Judge to draw a line and say "fee's are paid only on amounts prior to 1 May 2012 ... nothing going forward". Wasn't the retro amount somewhere around $445 million? 7.5% of that amount is still good for the lawfirm in my opinion.