Sorry Leek, I know a little bit about the law. It all came from the same pot, and anything they call it is just playing with words.
I'll pay you $12 dollars to wash and dry my car, or I will pay you $10 to wash and $2 to dry my car.
I promise you, as someone who has been involved in settlement negotiations, nobody would have agreed to anything without knowing the bottom line figures. To think anything else is naive. The attorneys' fees were agreed upon before the settlement was reached. An attorney would be hesitant to advise a client to settle without knowing total costs. This is especially true in a bankrupcty case, where there is not unlimited money and parties are fighting for whatever they can get.
"The judgment was decided for the state." I think it was a compromise settlement, not a judgment, tremendous difference. The judge had to approve the settlement since it was bankruptcy.
I'm glad you claim to know a little bit about the law. If you do, then you'll understand the following -
1) "I promise you, as someone who has been involved in settlement negotiations, nobody would have agreed to anything without knowing the bottom line figures."
You are correct in this statement, but you fail to recognize the bottom line figures in the MCI case. Here they are with full explanation -
From 1998 until mid-2002, WCOM subsidiaries paid the WCOM parent company approximately $20 B in "royalties" in exchange for the intangible asset of "management foresight." Problem is, "management foresight" is not an intangible asset. Thus, the question for Mississippi is how to properly characterize the payments - service fees or dividends. The State filed its $1 B proof of claim before it had an expert opinion or access to discovery. $1 B was the most the State could ever recover under the most generous characterization. The State had to file a claim for this amount because figures within a proof of claim are construed by the courts as a judicial admission.
As the case progressed, the State learned that no services were performed, which made the payments nothing more than the uphill passign of profits - or dividends.
Beginning in 1999, dividends paid by subsidiaries to a corporate parent became exempted from gross income. Thus, the payments subject to tax were those in 1998, which were approximately $1.9 B.
The State corporate income tax rate is 5%. Do the math - 5% of $1.9 B is $95 M.
The State recovered well in excess of $95 M, which covered interest on the money as well.
2) "The attorneys' fees were agreed upon before the settlement was reached. "
As much as you belive otherwise, this is untrue. The attorneys had a valid contingency fee contract which would have paid them fees and expenses which totaled approximately $17 M; yet, they accepted $14 M directly from MCI in exchange for MCI's paying $4.2 M to the Justice Center.
This brings up an important point: The irony of Bryant's effort to recover the MCI attorneys fees is that it would lead to the attorneys enforcing their contingency fee contract and being paid $3 M more than they were by MCI. Perhaps this reality, and Bryant total lack of legal support, underscore the attorneys confidence in their action against Bryant.
3) You are correct that this was a settlement approved by the Bankruptcy Court. This brings up an important point: The Bankruptcy Court judge commented in open court that the settlement was an outstanding recovery by the State and he commended the attorneys on their work. No state official - not Bryant, not Barbour, no one - objected to the settlement despite actual notice of the hearing and being provided a full and fair opportunity to do so. Instead, Bryant waits over two years and while he is engaged in a campaign for Lt. Governor to issue any objection to the attorney fee payment.
I challenge you, reasonably prudent person, and anyone else to refute anything I have written with well-reasoned legal argument or any different factual support than I have stated.
If you can't, then man-up and admit you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
The proof of claim is a non-issue, what was done was done. I agree the State had to ask for or was limited to the amount in the proof of claim filing.
Hood should have objected to the settlement structure and gotten legislative approval. He is our chief legal officer.
The attorneys couldn't enforce their contingency contract without legislative approval. Hence the reason they side-stepped the matter by negotiating on the side with MCI. They knew they were in for a fight for 17 Million so they took 14 Million instead. A bird in the hand. The Justice center has already repaid the money to the State.
I wasn't in the courtroom and cannot comment on what the judge said. Either you were, have read the transcript (I doubt this, Bankruptcy courts are getting stingy on court reporters), or are going on hearsay. I doubt the New York judge considered the appropriation of money in Mississippi when he signed the order. Why should he, our attorney general was in the room and surely the AG of Mississippi knows Mississippi law. So be it. The dec action will sort it all out.
You are asking me to believe that the legal team didn't know what they were going to get when the settlement was agreed upon first. If this is so, somebody could have said ok, 100 million. Next order of business, attorneys, go &^$% yourself.
If that would have been the case, I believe the settlement would have been off. I have more respect for Langston's intelligence than to take this kind of gamble.
I can't take time to respond to all your online memorandums, I haven't received any big checks from the State and nobody is paying me to respond. I have to get back work. Good luck in the dec action.
uh wait a minute, did hood win millions or did he pay langston to do it ?
ReplyDeleteWait! If Jim Hood won that money, why was Joey Langston paid 14 million dollars?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Because it looks good when Hood says he won it. He's almost as bad as his big brother and brain trust, Flashbulb Moore.
"or did he pay langston to do it?"
ReplyDeleteI know the Republicans keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.
1. The judgment was decided for the state.
2. Then Hood asked the judge to ALSO award the attorneys who did most of the work payment for their efforts.
That money did not come from the settlement and was only addressed after the amount for Mississippi had been decided.
- Each ad, press release and statement that says Hood paid anybody is untrue, but that's politics. Think people. -
Sorry Leek, I know a little bit about the law. It all came from the same pot, and anything they call it is just playing with words.
ReplyDeleteI'll pay you $12 dollars to wash and dry my car, or I will pay you $10 to wash and $2 to dry my car.
I promise you, as someone who has been involved in settlement negotiations, nobody would have agreed to anything without knowing the bottom line figures. To think anything else is naive. The attorneys' fees were agreed upon before the settlement was reached. An attorney would be hesitant to advise a client to settle without knowing total costs. This is especially true in a bankrupcty case, where there is not unlimited money and parties are fighting for whatever they can get.
"The judgment was decided for the state." I think it was a compromise settlement, not a judgment, tremendous difference. The judge had to approve the settlement since it was bankruptcy.
Responsive to Reasonably Prudent Person:
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you claim to know a little bit about the law. If you do, then you'll understand the following -
1) "I promise you, as someone who has been involved in settlement negotiations, nobody would have agreed to anything without knowing the bottom line figures."
You are correct in this statement, but you fail to recognize the bottom line figures in the MCI case. Here they are with full explanation -
From 1998 until mid-2002, WCOM subsidiaries paid the WCOM parent company approximately $20 B in "royalties" in exchange for the intangible asset of "management foresight." Problem is, "management foresight" is not an intangible asset. Thus, the question for Mississippi is how to properly characterize the payments - service fees or dividends. The State filed its $1 B proof of claim before it had an expert opinion or access to discovery. $1 B was the most the State could ever recover under the most generous characterization. The State had to file a claim for this amount because figures within a proof of claim are construed by the courts as a judicial admission.
As the case progressed, the State learned that no services were performed, which made the payments nothing more than the uphill passign of profits - or dividends.
Beginning in 1999, dividends paid by subsidiaries to a corporate parent became exempted from gross income. Thus, the payments subject to tax were those in 1998, which were approximately $1.9 B.
The State corporate income tax rate is 5%. Do the math - 5% of $1.9 B is $95 M.
The State recovered well in excess of $95 M, which covered interest on the money as well.
2) "The attorneys' fees were agreed upon before the settlement was reached. "
As much as you belive otherwise, this is untrue. The attorneys had a valid contingency fee contract which would have paid them fees and expenses which totaled approximately $17 M; yet, they accepted $14 M directly from MCI in exchange for MCI's paying $4.2 M to the Justice Center.
This brings up an important point: The irony of Bryant's effort to recover the MCI attorneys fees is that it would lead to the attorneys enforcing their contingency fee contract and being paid $3 M more than they were by MCI. Perhaps this reality, and Bryant total lack of legal support, underscore the attorneys confidence in their action against Bryant.
3) You are correct that this was a settlement approved by the Bankruptcy Court. This brings up an important point: The Bankruptcy Court judge commented in open court that the settlement was an outstanding recovery by the State and he commended the attorneys on their work. No state official - not Bryant, not Barbour, no one - objected to the settlement despite actual notice of the hearing and being provided a full and fair opportunity to do so. Instead, Bryant waits over two years and while he is engaged in a campaign for Lt. Governor to issue any objection to the attorney fee payment.
I challenge you, reasonably prudent person, and anyone else to refute anything I have written with well-reasoned legal argument or any different factual support than I have stated.
If you can't, then man-up and admit you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Well written and argued T. Frank.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
The proof of claim is a non-issue, what was done was done. I agree the State had to ask for or was limited to the amount in the proof of claim filing.
ReplyDeleteHood should have objected to the settlement structure and gotten legislative approval. He is our chief legal officer.
The attorneys couldn't enforce their contingency contract without legislative approval. Hence the reason they side-stepped the matter by negotiating on the side with MCI. They knew they were in for a fight for 17 Million so they took 14 Million instead. A bird in the hand. The Justice center has already repaid the money to the State.
I wasn't in the courtroom and cannot comment on what the judge said. Either you were, have read the transcript (I doubt this, Bankruptcy courts are getting stingy on court reporters), or are going on hearsay. I doubt the New York judge considered the appropriation of money in Mississippi when he signed the order. Why should he, our attorney general was in the room and surely the AG of Mississippi knows Mississippi law. So be it. The dec action will sort it all out.
You are asking me to believe that the legal team didn't know what they were going to get when the settlement was agreed upon first. If this is so, somebody could have said ok, 100 million. Next order of business, attorneys, go &^$% yourself.
If that would have been the case, I believe the settlement would have been off. I have more respect for Langston's intelligence than to take this kind of gamble.
I can't take time to respond to all your online memorandums, I haven't received any big checks from the State and nobody is paying me to respond. I have to get back work. Good luck in the dec action.