LETTER TO MR MULCAIR ROUGH DRAFT

There is a lot of talk of what fees were asked for:
This is from the Court approved Preliminary Notice we were all sent 9 Jan from MC:
"Class counsel will be asking the Court to approve a legal fee of 15.7% applied only to the Gross Refund."
The paper then uses "If we look at it this way" or the "spoonful of sugar" tactics to make it easier to swallow.
If I understand correctly this was the original agreement and it was always up to the Judge to decide the final fees when the case went to court.

Please keep-up the input, we get 1 shot at this. The weight fell on propat and for this I would like to say Thanks' bro, we do have a bit more time as not only requested but suggested, there are some really, really good people in our corner.

If you would like and I have pondered this we can ALL collaborate one ONE main “.DOC”, via Libreoffice, it is open source so it reads all the global, “*. docs, word, pdf's” etc.... LET ME know please, thank You

http://www.libreoffice.org/ is open source, so that means it is free full office App, that smokes office IMHO, if you need any help with that I am always willing help
.

But I can cut and paste to, what ever works, it's a common goal, together.

As well when we get our ideas and the message that WE want to send, it will then be vetted by a professional and that as well is in place, they WILL not change nor intent, just make sure that is highly polished.

Thoughts, comments and constructive criticism, always welcome and needed, bounce those ideas PLEASE people.

The final will be posted here and we will get a consensus, my intent is NOT to speak for you rather to speak WITH you.

I just hope the numbers don't get mixed up, the media, thinks the law firm was only asking 7.5 percent

The judge did point out that the lawyers had no way of enforcing payments of legal fees on the future money, since it is coming directly from SISIP. In fact, I wish they had kept possible future money out of the proposal because the amount is just a guess and open to too many variables, such as death or failure to meet SISIP's requirements. It should have just stipulated that all retro money is to be paid and that ALL class members are to be given the opportunity to be reinstated if they meet the criteria. This would have been more inclusive than restricting future payment to mainly those who happened to be zeroed out.

They stop taking fees as of May 31st 2012.

;-)

It's 17.83 on the 444 million, none will be charged going forward, once you pay the 17.83 that's it, it's done , no more law firm

I know that , 15% plus 2.83%. So are you saying 17.83% on 444 million or 7.5% on 444 million and the Judge is deciding the %?

Propat - good letter, also change "righting" to "writing". I usually have my spouse vet my letters just to make sure I do not do the same thing!

Still, good letter!

It's 17.8 on the retro, taken off , before you get your cheque

so are you saying the lawfirm is now asking 15% legal fees on retro and not 7.5% on retro and 7.5% on going forward for a total of 15% and the Judge said 15% legal fees on retro is to high? I think 5% on retro is two high.

Honestly , For those that know the legal system and were in the court, MC wants 17.8 legal fees, How much can JB lower them? Does he have the power to slice them in half or lower or are we talking a few percent?

very good point firebird but that is a question for the judge not the GOC i did concider the issue and outside asking about them paying leagal fees and their lack of providing a counter for the 66 mil MC was asking for i think this is all we can ask in this venue.

propat

Firebird: That is not happening. The idea of paying legal fees on going forward payments is a misnomer. The law firm is saying they want fees on the whole amount of the suit...BACKPAY AND GOING FORWARD MONIES...this was just a way of asking for more money in fees. The Judge made it clear in Halifax that fees could only be charged on recovered monies as the future amounts were not set in stone. The judge will set fees at a lower rate and they will be paid from what ever you get in retro money, as I was told by those that were there.

thanks a lot guys for the ideas and reserch as moast of it is your.and thank you in advance to better days for providing us this opertunity.

oh and thank god for spellcheck lol as im not done with it yet.

propat

How about people who only get two years retro but are paying legal fees for going forward payments to age 65 that they will never get.