Alright, my AZ power rangers have tabulated the numbers and it's not pretty.
Freeh is claiming that Thonn got $357,002.35 including the accounting reimbursement. So according to Freeh that number was deposited in the Andry Lerner trust account. Here's (what we think) is the breakdown:
Total Award - $357,002.35
Of that Andry Lerner would have taken a 20% fee - $71,400.40
The Coastal Claims Group would have received - $20,182.00
That would put Thonn's net @ - $265,419.95
So the total fee for Andry Lerner (50/50 split with Sutton) would be - $35,700.20
The total referral fee for Lionel Sutton would be - $35,700.20
Ok...now in Freeh's motion here is what he is seeking from each of the four entities:
Thonn: $357,002.35
Coastal Claims Group: $20,182.00
Lionel Sutton: $35,700.20
Andry Lerner: $35,700.20 (not 100% sure about that number)
That would put the total amount Freeh is trying to claw back at: $448,584.75
IF...if...these numbers are correct, Freeh is trying to pull back about $91,000 more than BP actually paid out on the claim.
WTF? That's the first claim he's clawed back and he overshot the amount by $91,000? If this is right you have to ask whether or not the guy even understands the breakdown on individual claims and how the referrals are paid. It actually makes me wonder if these clawbacks aren't being orchestrated under a commission basis...that's just me speculating but if he's overshot the claw back by 91k right out of the gate, this a pretty big deal.
The only thing I can think of is that the claim BP paid was actually $448k and perhaps Andry Lerner took out an extra $91k on the commission which would put their total commission amount at $126,700.20. That's about 35 1/2 % commission if that's what happened. I don't think that's legal and I can't imagine Andry Lerner would be that stupid unless the client agreed to it.
I'm not sure what's going on here but I hope some folks smarter than I can chirp in on the comment section.
Freeh is claiming that Thonn got $357,002.35 including the accounting reimbursement. So according to Freeh that number was deposited in the Andry Lerner trust account. Here's (what we think) is the breakdown:
Total Award - $357,002.35
Of that Andry Lerner would have taken a 20% fee - $71,400.40
The Coastal Claims Group would have received - $20,182.00
That would put Thonn's net @ - $265,419.95
So the total fee for Andry Lerner (50/50 split with Sutton) would be - $35,700.20
The total referral fee for Lionel Sutton would be - $35,700.20
Ok...now in Freeh's motion here is what he is seeking from each of the four entities:
Thonn: $357,002.35
Coastal Claims Group: $20,182.00
Lionel Sutton: $35,700.20
Andry Lerner: $35,700.20 (not 100% sure about that number)
That would put the total amount Freeh is trying to claw back at: $448,584.75
IF...if...these numbers are correct, Freeh is trying to pull back about $91,000 more than BP actually paid out on the claim.
WTF? That's the first claim he's clawed back and he overshot the amount by $91,000? If this is right you have to ask whether or not the guy even understands the breakdown on individual claims and how the referrals are paid. It actually makes me wonder if these clawbacks aren't being orchestrated under a commission basis...that's just me speculating but if he's overshot the claw back by 91k right out of the gate, this a pretty big deal.
The only thing I can think of is that the claim BP paid was actually $448k and perhaps Andry Lerner took out an extra $91k on the commission which would put their total commission amount at $126,700.20. That's about 35 1/2 % commission if that's what happened. I don't think that's legal and I can't imagine Andry Lerner would be that stupid unless the client agreed to it.
I'm not sure what's going on here but I hope some folks smarter than I can chirp in on the comment section.
5 comments:
Bp’s web site outlines Freeh’s duties hopeful he corrects the bigger problem the court vendor B&G’s killing fields. They are responsible for killing thousands of legitimate claims and Freeh backed down from them after his initial report.
On 2 July 2013, the District Court appointed Judge Louis Freeh as Special Master to lead an independent investigation of the DHCSSP in connection with allegations of potential ethical violations or misconduct within the DHCSSP. On 6 September 2013, Judge Freeh submitted a report to the District Court in which he found that the conduct of two attorneys in the office of the claims administrator may have violated federal criminal statutes regarding fraud, money laundering, conspiracy or perjury. In an order issued the same day, the District Court instructed Judge Freeh to promptly recommend, design, and test enhanced internal compliance, anti-corruption, anti-fraud and conflicts of interest policies and procedures to ensure the integrity of the DHCSSP, and to assist the claims administrator in the implementation of such policies and procedures. On 23 September 2013, BP filed a response to Judge Freeh’s report and requested that the District Court enter a preliminary injunction temporarily suspending all payments from the DHCSSP until such time as improved anti-fraud and other efficiency controls are implemented at the DHCSSP to the satisfaction of Judge Freeh, the claims administrator and the District Court. The District Court has not yet ruled on BP’s request for a preliminary injunction.
AKA (In-Hale) “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”
Read Reitano's brief and the Mancuso affidavit. There was only a 20% fee. Andry Lerner wanted to charge Thonn 25%. Reitano agreed to only charge him 20% when she had the case. She didn't want the client to pay more with another attorney so she contacted Andry Lerner and made sure they would only charge Thonn 20%. Of course Lying Louie claimed that Reitano was trying to get a referral fee when she was really trying to help save her former client 5% attorneys fees. This was proven in Reitano's response months ago but Lying Louie is more interested in keeping the gravy train on the track than he is in the truth.
As far as his claw back, either Lying Louie, his henchman Greg Paw and the rest of their merry band of grey suits are the most incompetent group of "independant investigators" we have ever seen or they are completely blinded by the light of their own gravy train. My guess is it is both.
Not only does Lying Louis ignore the most basic Rules of Civil Procedure and Due Process, in his very first attempt at claw back, he files a motion that for anyone else would result in sanctions and disciplinary actions. Yet there is silence from the Court.
Rule 11(b) of the FRCP provides:
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
Lying Louie's motion violates (1), (2) and (3) on its face. How is the public supposed to believe anything he says. If this is an example of how the claims office is now being run, it is clearly time to investigate the investigator.
I pulled up the Freeh claw back motion on pacer and the first thing I notice is that Mr. Freeh cites section 18.1 of the Settlement Agreement as the basis for jurisdiction but then fails comply with section 18.2 which states:
18.2. Before filing any motion or petition in the Court raising a dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement, counsel for the Parties shall consult with each other and
certify to the Court that they have consulted.
I did not see a certification in the motion. Seems to me that the problems you discovered with the claw back could have been resolved if Mr. Freeh consulted with the parties. Is he exempt from this rule, was there a reason that the motion had to be filed before the required consultation or is he just sloppy?
Thonn Payments
After reviewing Freeh’s first report he points out 3 payments being made starting on page 27.
1)VoO $40,640.23 No questions asked a valid claim.
2)Seafood Vessel owner $166,652.10
3)Seafood Captain $190,350.25
Adding line 2 & 3 Thonn received $357,002.35 in total this would included all accounting reimbursements.
AKA (In-Hale) “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”
Anonymous at January 17, 2014 at 10:49:00 AM CST:
Not taking Freeh's side, but is he a "party" to the settlement agreement? Maybe that's how he gets around Section 18.2.
Non-lawyer thought: I don't know if Freeh had to enroll pro hac vice in the Eastern District since he has been appointed by the court to act as the court's special master.
Post a Comment