Hang tight on this one...I've got some "power rangers" running the numbers. I think Freeh may have royally fucked up here in an attempt to exploit the Thonn claim. If he did this is a pretty foolish mistake and it would suggest he has little idea of how claims are acquired and processed. Stay Tuned.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - Comment Bump, Jan. 12, 2013 - $3 million a...":
The Freeh claw back amount is wrong. The settlement only allows reimbursement of 2% of the calculated damage( excluding RTP). See sec: 4.4.13.7
To imply Coastal Claims Group actually received $20 K from the settlement compared to invoicing the firm for the work they provided is incorrect. In order to receive(reimbursement)of the accounting fees the settlement requires an invoice that's broken down by the hour listing supervision review or preparation.
The only way the firm could receive 20K in accounting reimbursement is if the calculated loss was One million dollars.
Something doesn't smell right.
See if you can locate the Thonn offer line 3 will confirm the accounting reimbursement amount.
2 comments:
2% would be the correct limit on CPA reimbursement that came out of BP's funds, but that limit doesn't stop CPA firms from billing their client more than that. Perhaps Freeh was talking about making each party give everything they received for working on the claims....regardless of whether the money came from the settlement trust or directly from their client. Of course, that would raise the question of whether the settlement program should be refunded more than it paid on the claim. I doubt any refund, if allowed at all, would work like that.
Ok we agree on the 2% but the accounting firm worked on the claim with information provided by the firm / client. Most likely the two parties have an engagement letter outlining a fee structure hourly charge and payment requirements. Freeh has no right to interfere or request those funds back from CCG his focus is the return of those funds only, if in fact the claim documents are suspicious or made up as reported. In this case it should be the firm that received the funds responsibility to decide how they claw back if any from the accounting firm or other parties not a court order. In the real world now every accounting firm calculating loss is put on notice that for any reason out of their control they can be named and required to return funds received for work performed on these claims. This will for sure discourage proper calculation methods needed to fight BP’s increased filing of appeals leaving the accountants in Dhcc to go unchallenged.
On another note: After reviewing the 3 payments Thonn received it’s possible that Thonn may be entitled to the Seafood Vessel owner claim for $166,652.10 if in fact he owns the boat they haven’t requested the VoO payment returned.
In-Hale
Post a Comment