Big Bankruptcies Result in Big Legal Fees for Debtor/Committee Counsel.
As reported by Sheri Qualters in a February 21, 2011 post on The National Law Journal (on-line version), counsel representing debtors/trustee and unsecured creditor committees in big bankruptcy cases must be doing quite well financially. She reports that the fees for attorneys and firms in the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy have now surpassed the $1 billion threshold several months ago. (Yep, $1 billion.) Here are how the fees have stacked up in other large bankruptcies: General Motors–$32 million not including a 10% holdback for debtors’ counsel; $5.6 million for committee’s counsel; Washington Mutual–$34 million for debtor’s counsel; $16.1 million for one counsel to the committee; $2.4 million for another counsel to the committee; Thornburg Mortgage–$2.6 million for trustee’s counsel; $2.1 million for creditors committee’s lawyers; Capmark Financial Group, Inc.–$27 million after 20% in holdbacks for debtor’s counsel; $4.1 million in legal fees for creditors’ counsel.
Third-Party Funding Companies for Plaintiff Cases May Not Be Able to Protect Plaintiff Communications As Privileged in Nature.
In an interesting post by Nate Raymond also in the February 21, 2011 The National Law Journal, he reports that two third-party companies funding plaintiff cases were unable to protect information gained from plaintiffs under the attorney-client privilege or common interest doctrine of the privilege. He describes those cases in detail, although we have done some searching and provide you the case reference information: Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5054695 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 17, 2008) [magistrate judge ruling, not on the merits, but based on blanket assertions lacking specificity of involved privilege and failing to lay proper foundation for privilege assertion]; Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-862-JJF (D.Del. June 24, 2010) [affirming Magistrate Judge Stark’s March 12, 2010 order finding that the common interest doctrine did not shield funding company-plaintiff discussions as privileged]. For a good article on issues relating to third-party funding of plaintiff cases, including a discussion of the privilege concerns, see J. Lyon, Revolution In Progress: Third-Party Funding of American Litigation, 58 UCLA L.REV. 571 (2010).
Cats v. Dogs: Animal Rescue Group and Former Board Member Disputes Finally End, But Not Without Lots of Fee Expeditures.
Finally, Brittany Levine in an article in the February 23, 2011 edition of The Orange County Register reports that 5 years of litigation infighting between Capistrano Animal Rescue Effort (CARE) and former board member Kathy Hammersly ended when the Santa Ana appellate court recently ruled in favor of CARE. Some said the controversy was sparked by the “age-old issue” of dogs vs. cats, with some criticizing CARE for favoring cats over dogs (an argument denied by CARE). Ms. Hammersly and CARE had a lot of allegations going back and forth. Even though the disputes apparently are ended on the merits, the legal fee carnage from this infighting is not insubstantial: Ms. Hammersly and her husband Jeff Parkhurst have spent more than $30,000 in legal fees, while CARE’s costs top $65,000. Co-contributor Mike’s Labrador Riffle goes, “Woof, that’s a lot of milkbones!”
“Stray cats and dogs at the pound were given a Christmas party today by the poundmaster, Frank B. Marks.” December 23, 1936. Library of Congress.