I recieved an update as to why there is a delay in the acceptance of the final agreement

belea i fully agree.

propat

As I've written many times previously, I have complete and full confidence in JB! I will continue to do so up to and including Monday, April 15th, 2013! That's when we go from weeks, to months! On that date, if there's no decision by then, I will become very disappointed in JB!! That being said, I give my unconditional, unsolicited and unwavering respect, confidence and support to JB! My faith in him even goes beyond that. If there is no decision by then, but he issues a brief and clear media statement to the Class, explaining the delay or/and his intentions, regarding the issue, I would be respectful of his future actions! JB is combing through this proposed agreement with a fine tooth comb and he has our best interest at heart! In my opinion, MC is in for a huge disappointment regarding their submitted fees and JB is finalizing his final directions based upon precedent, fairness to the class and law! Hang tight team, two more weeks at the max!

Well at least your alive! Lest we forget! < that motives me!-Sapper you arent alone!

I believe this as well. A well thought out decision will benefit the other troops in their class action lawsuit. And nothing will be left to question. I can't help but be impatient though. But good things come to those who wait. Unfortunately for me its been 2.5 decades in the making.

Pigeons, if Justice Barnes ever putted a hold on his decision because of the GOC wanting a change, McInnis Cooper would be aware and they said nothing is going on. I'm really thinking that JB did some research to have a decision that will be as precise and complete as possible. This takes time. So considering this factor, we are still in the time frame. Long time is good news, short time would have been fatal.
Happy Easter.

Cheers,

Pat.

Rag, any amendment maid on the setlement even in Court would mean a change, positive or negative, it would have to go back to the Class for a month to look at it, then letters and..... Same we did in January and Feb.

That is why they didn't change a thing.

The error memo is dared Feb, 19 from MC, I am curious to know if it was indeed MC who picked up on this error, or someone Else.

I confused "notice of resolution" which was sent out on Jan 9th and included what legal fees were being sought, 15.7%, with "negotiated settlement agreement proposal". Legal fees are a separate issue and not part of the "negotiated settlement agreement", so the letter from MP Cheryl Gallant makes more sense when I get the legal jargon straight.
Sorry for the mix-up.

Correct, if the proposal is amended in respect to the mathematical error brought forward by MC, before the Judge approves or rejects the proposal, or before he rules on the fees, would in my view suggest that any part of the proposal can be amended at any time, as long as the two parties agree.

More important is they are amending the negotiated settlement....did anyone catch that? If they can amend then we can! You just need goc to agree. A I said in court lets just do it right now on the floor at court. We could have as these things are never in stone if both sidies agree. One more example of proof we could have still amended negotiations.

bigrex thats kinda what i got out of it but havent we been through this before when this first came up.i could be wrong but i dont see a problem with correcting the language in the agreement when it comes to this issue as im sure both parties would agree it is correct as to intent.

propat

I just figured out where this amount came from.
One of the work sheets (schedule A) on leavenovetbehind breaks it down

the legal fees on retro is 15.7% of total, taxes (hst) was an average of 2% and disbursements was 1.3%, bringing to the 17.83 percent we have all heard about. This memo only slightly changes that. The amount owing isn't reduced, just the percentage compared to the total amount. ex: a lawyer spent $200 for costs and you we expecting to get back $10000, the costs would be 2% of the award, but you actually got back 10500$. Since he cannot increase the money already spent, his actual costs would be 1.9% of the award. He would still get his $200 back, just the percentage changed. That is all that happened here. They still get their $343000 back, on top of the 66 million in fees.

Actually if you read this sheet, we are paying the lawyers a heck of a lot more than 66 million. That is just the 15.7% legal fees portion. Between the HST they are charging, plus costs and disbursements, the law firm is actually taking around 75 million off the retro amounts. That is without the 20-30% also to be held back for income tax.

I'm just trying to reconcile what the government is saying and what the court records show peep. Just thought i'd dump my info on everyone and see if someone can make sense of it all.

Are you saying they asked for 0.13% but meant to ask for only 0.079%?

And this is of what...... their fees, their claim of the two years back pay and the going forward?....or just part of it.....and on what amount? The forecasted amount including new cases and the possibility of getting us on LTD that are not currently on it?

What a can of worms

"The application of this announcement in court on February 14th, 2013.
It's acceptance is currently being delayed but to a dispute over legal
fee repayment, which was not part of the original agreement made on
January 9th."

-Cheryl Gallant, M.P.
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke


I'm wondering if this was a sloppily worded reply from Peter Mackay's
office explaining an amended proposed settlement variation on the
19th of Feb.


Occam's razor

"The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly;
the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred"

collate

parse

read para 30.b. in the proposed order which was not part of the original
agreement made on January 9th.



decide....