Opinion
Case No. 1:01-CV-9000, (MDL Docket No. 1401)
July 21, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
George Thiesen, who has power of attorney for class-member plaintiff Dorothy Crowley, has filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement (docket no. 601). Thiesen asserts that Crowley is entitled to certain attorney fee benefits pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in this case, but that the Claims Administrator has refused to provide them.
Essentially, Thiesen seeks to avoid the claims administration procedure set out in the Settlement Agreement between the parties. Thiesen's position is similar to the one rejected by the Court earlier, in its Order dated Dec. 23, 2002 (docket no. 588). For the reasons stated below, Thiesen's motion is DENIED. However, the Court further HOLDS that Crowley has 45 calendar days from the date of this Order to contest the Claims Administrator's Preliminary Determination of Benefits, pursuant to § 4.6(d) of the Settlement Agreement.
* * * * *
On August 22, 2002, plaintiff Crowley submitted an "Orange" claim form and related documents. The claim form indicated that Crowley's daughter, Linda Thiesen, was Crowley's Representative Claimant, and that Thiesen and Crowley were represented by attorney Bruce Frankel. The Claims Administrator reviewed the claim form and concluded Crowley's claim was valid. On October 8, 2002, the Claims Administrator issued Crowley a $40,000 check as a Guaranteed Payment Option ("GPO") benefit, pursuant to Article 8 of the Settlement Agreement. On November 6, 2002, the Claims Administrator issued a Preliminary Determination, pursuant to § 4.6(c) of the Settlement Agreement, stating Crowley was entitled to an APRS benefit of $160,000, and also a contingent attorney fee benefit of $46,000, so that, given the $40,000 she had already received, she was entitled to an additional $166,000. The Preliminary Determination also stated: "If you are in agreement with this Preliminary Determination, you may waive your right to file supplemental information and to appeal so that you may expedite payment of your Settlement benefits." On December 4, 2002, Crowley signed a waiver stating that she agreed with the Preliminary Determination and "expressly waive[d] any right I may have pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to appeal the Claim Administrator's determination of my Settlement benefits."
Linda Thiesen is apparently movant George Thiesen's wife, making George the son-in-law of Crowley. Crowley has issued powers of attorney to both Linda and George, but only Linda signed the claim forms as Representative Claimant.
Meanwhile, however, the Claims Administrator engaged in a routine audit of the claims he had received and the determinations he had made. This audit revealed that the contingent attorney fee contract between attorney Frankel, on the one hand, and Thiesen and Crowley, on the other, was completed on April 8, 2002 — which is after February 2, 2002. This fact was meaningful because the Settlement Agreement states that, for contingent fee contracts entered into on or before February 2, 2002, a plaintiff who undergoes APRS is entitled to receive an attorney fee benefit of 23% x 1.5 x $160,000, or $46,000. Settlement Agreement at §§ 3.4(a) 5.1. For contracts entered into after February 2, 2002, however, Claims Administrator Procedure ("CAP") No. 9 explains that the plaintiff is entitled to receive an attorney fee benefit of no more than $10,000, based on the hours the attorney worked and the attorney's hourly rate. CAP No. 9 further states that, to obtain the attorney fee benefit in the latter circumstance, the attorney must submit a billing statement and certain other documents.
The Claims Administrator, having determined that the November 6, 2002 Preliminary Notice he had sent to Crowley was incorrect (because she was not entitled to a contingent attorney fee benefit of $46,000), sent Crowley a Revised Preliminary Determination on December 18, 2002. This Revised Preliminary Determination stated that: (1) Crowley was entitled to an APRS benefit of $160,000; (2) she was also entitled to an attorney fee benefit, but her attorney had to submit a statement of services rendered to determine the amount; and (3) given the $40,000 she had already received, she was entitled to an additional $120,000, with the attorney fee question remaining.
On December 19, 2002, the Claims Administrator sent Crowley a check for $90,000, in care of attorney Frankel; this check represented a $130,000 "first installment," paid pursuant to § 3.4 of the Settlement Agreement, minus the $40,000 GPO benefit she had already received. The check was made payable jointly to Representative Claimant Linda Thiesen and attorney Frankel's law firm. On January 2, 2003, Frankel returned the $90,000 check to the Claims Administrator. Frankel stated he was returning the check because: (1) his client was entitled to the $46,000 attorney fee benefit; and (2) he wanted the check made payable to George Thiesen, not Linda. The Claims Administrator disagreed with Frankel's assertions.
Even if the Claims Administrator agreed with Frankel that Crowley was entitled to the $46,000 attorney fee benefit, Crowley has not submitted a signed, valid claim form identifying George Thiesen as her Representative Claimant. Further, George Thiesen has not signed a claim form seeking benefits as a Representative Claimant, and he has not executed a release in favor of the Released Parties or a perjury declaration, as required by the Orange Form.
In the pending motion, George Thiesen argues that, because Crowley signed the waiver after receiving her initial Preliminary Determination, the Claims Administrator is now bound to pay her benefits in accordance with that Preliminary Determination. That is, Thiesen insists the Claims Administrator is somehow "contractually obligated" to pay Crowley a total of $206,000, including $46,000 as an attorney fee benefit: "the claims administrator extended a written settlement offer to Dorothy M. Crowley, with both favorable and unfavorable terms and conditions and a specific period of time in which to agree. Ms. Crowley accepted those terms. That creates a binding settlement agreement which is entitled to enforcement by the court." Memo at 2. Thiesen makes this assertion even though he does not dispute that the initial Preliminary Determination was incorrect.
Thiesen's motion is fundamentally flawed because the relevant contract in this case is the one Crowley entered in June of 2002 — the final Settlement Agreement, which is a contract between participating class members, including Crowley, and the defendants. By choosing not to opt out of this Settlement Agreement, Crowley agreed to be bound by the terms it contains; thus, she agreed to: (1) participate in the Claims Administration process, as set out in Article 4; (2) receive defined compensation amounts for certain injuries, as set out in Article 3; and (3) receive defined compensation amounts for attorney fees, as set out in Article 5. With regard to participation in the Claims Administration process, Crowley agreed that she would only receive payment if, among other things, she submitted the proper claim forms and documentation. With regard to the amount of payment she would receive, Crowley agreed to settle her claims against the defendants in exchange for certain amounts of compensation, which the Claims Administrator would determine based on the information contained in her claim forms. The Claims Administrator's determination, however, is not an "offer" which the class member "accepts," thereby creating a new contract. Rather, the Claims Administrator's determination is a part of the mechanism designed to give effect to the existing contract between the parties — the Settlement Agreement — and to ensure prompt delivery of the proper compensation to each plaintiff class member. Crowley agreed to this claims administration mechanism, which includes a defined appeals process if she believes the Claims Administrator erred in his determination of the amounts to which she is entitled.
The Claims Administrator, in his opposition to Crowley's motion, asserts that Crowley is using the wrong mechanism to challenge her attorney fee benefit determination — rather than file a motion with the Court, she should have availed herself of the claims appeals process. The Claims Administrator is exactly right, with a minor caveat. As provided in § 4.6(d) of the Settlement Agreement, a claimant may contest the Claims Administrator's Preliminary Determination by filing supplemental information and documents. The Claims Administrator then makes a Final Determination; if the claimant still disagrees, she may appeal to a Special Master. Settlement Agreement at § 4.(e, f). To the extent Crowley, or any other claimant, disagrees with the Claims Administrator's determination, the Settlement Agreement sets out the proper procedure. That procedure does not provide for any appeal to the undersigned.
The minor caveat in this particular case is that, after Crowley received her November 6, 2002 Preliminary Determination, she signed a waiver of her rights to file supplemental information or to appeal to the special master. The Claims Administrator then revised his Preliminary Determination after she signed her waiver. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to reinstate Crowley's claims appeals process rights, so that, if she chooses, she may challenge the revised Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, Crowley has 45 calendar days from the date of this Order to contest the Claims Administrator's Preliminary Determination of Benefits, pursuant to § 4.6(d) of the Settlement Agreement. Crowley may also appeal any Final Determination to the Special Master, under § 4.6(f) of the Settlement Agreement.
As of the date of this Order, the Claims Administrator has not issued any Final Determination; this is partly because Crowley's different powers of attorney have caused confusion over the identity of her Representative Claimant.
Finally, because the attorney fee issue raised by Crowley is regrettably common, the Court adds one last observation. Ultimately, Thiesen is arguing not for enforcement of a contract, but for breach. The contract Crowley entered into — the Settlement Agreement — provides she will receive a certain attorney fee benefit. In particular, given that she entered into a contingent attorney fee arrangement with attorney Frankel after February 2, 2002, the Settlement Agreement provides her with an attorney fee benefit of up to $10,000, based on documented, reasonable hourly rates; it does not provide her with an attorney fee benefit of $46,000. Were the Court to grant Thiesen's motion, it would be giving Crowley money to which she is not entitled under any operative contract, and would also be taking from other class members money to which they are entitled under the Settlement Agreement. Thus, even if Crowley's motion was procedurally appropriate, the Court would have to deny it.
The reason the parties agreed that the amount and calculation of the attorney fee benefit should change as of February 2, 2002 is their recognition that, after that date, there was no longer any realcontingency — the parties had reached their Final Settlement Agreement, so the questions of liability and damages for class members who did not opt out were no longer open. Thus, § 5.1 of the Settlement Agreement reflects the parties' acknowledgment that any "contingent" fee contract entered into between an attorney and a participating class member after that date was essentially based on a false premise. An attorney who assists a plaintiff with filling out claim forms after February 2, 2002, is still entitled to compensation for his or her time, but only based on a reasonable hourly rate.
A different, but closely-related, issue is the amount of attorney feesFrankel is entitled to receive from Crowley, While the Settlement Agreement provides that Crowley can receive the benefit of payment of certain amounts she may owe as attorney fees, the amount of fees she owes Frankel is not governed by the Settlement Agreement; rather, it is governed by her agreement with her attorney, which is itself governed by certain ethical rules and case law and remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. See, e.g., Ohio D.R. 2-106 (discussing the amount of fees an attorney may charge); In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 86 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 993 (1996) (affirming a district court's sua sponte order limiting contingent fees in a mass tort case); In the Matter of Lawler, 807 F.2d 1207, 1213 (5th Cir. 1987) ("the contingency factor should not be applied to the entire period of representation by counsel when a substantial portion of the legal services were provided on a noncontingent basis"); Reid. Johnson. Downes. Andrachik Webster v. Lansberry, 629 N.E.2d 431, 435(Ohio 1994) ("Once discharged, the attorney must withdraw from the case, and can no longer recover on the contingent-fee-representation agreement. The discharged attorney may then pursue a recovery on the basis of quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered up to the time of discharge."); Christian v. Gordon, 2001 WL 883551 at *2 (Terr. V.I. June 20, 2001) (an attorney who enters a contingent fee contract with his client after the contingency no longer exists commits fraud): Kalyawongsa v. Moffett, 105 F.3d 283, 287-88 (6th Cir. 1997) ("although attorneys' fee arrangements are contracts under state law, the federal court's interest in fully and fairly resolving the controversies before it requires courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over fee disputes that are related to the main action").
Frankel has filed a notice of attorney's charging lien for $46,000 in fees, plus $1,303 in costs, which he "incurred prior to being discharged on or about June 4, 2003." Docket no. 760. The above-cited authority suggests the amounts stated in Frankel's notice may not be appropriate. As noted above, the Court intends to address this issue in more detail in a future opinion.
Every dollar that is paid out to a claimant or her counsel to which, in fact, they are not entitled, is a dollar that becomes unavailable for payment to bona fide class members otherwise entitled to it. See, e.g., Settlement Agreement at § 5.2 ("In the event there are any amounts remaining in the Plaintiffs' Counsel Sub-Fund after all applicable amounts have been paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel, such remaining amount shall be distributed pro rata among all Class Members who received benefits pursuant to Sections 3.4(a), 3.5(b), 3.5(c) and 3.7(a)"); id. at 8.8 ("In the event that there are amounts remaining after payments have been made to all Class Members that validly elect the GPO, any such amount shall be distributed pro rata among the Class Members that elected the GPO up to the maximum amount of benefits such Class Member may be eligible to receive under Section 3.4(a) and 3.5(b) hereof").
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Total of Total of Court's Attorney Name No. Award Newly Contingent Fees Contingent Fee Authorized or KEPT by firm Fees OWED Award Increased In This BUT NOT Fee Award Order? COLLECTED by Firm (foregone fees)
Common Benefit Attorney Fee Awards Chart REASONABLE Percent of Number of LODESTAR: Total Firm Total Firm Recalculated Hours that Hours that Lodestar, No. Attorney Name Firm Name Total Firm Lodestar Hours Billed by Court Finds Court Finds Changed Hourly Hours Amount Lead Attorney are are Rates and Hours Claimed Claimed Reasonable Reasonable Billed 01 Archer, Steven Robins, Kaplan 347.45 $118,124.00 39.10(Silberfeld) 100.00% 347.45 $118,124.00 02 Arsenault, Richard Neblett, Beard 418.00 $143,237.50 15.75 (Arsenault) 45.00% 188.10 $64,456.88 03 Barrett, Don Barrett Law Office 1,279.15 $581,975.00 1,135.15 (Barrett) 100.00% 1,279.15 $581,975.00 04 Bart, Morris Morris Bart PLC 245.20 $70,810.00 78.2 (Bart) 75.00% 183.90 $53,107.50 05 Becnel, Daniel Law Offices Daniel Becnel, Jr. 1,600.30 $686,906.25 513.50 (Becnel) 70.00% 1,120.21 $389,954.25 06 Benjamin, Cloyd Piper Associates 197.00 $63,575.00 152.25 (Benjamin) 70.00% 137.90 $44,502.50 07 Blatt, Gayle Herman, Mathis 561.25 $211,602.50 286.75 (Blatt) 80.00% 449.00 $169,282.00 08 Blizzard, Edward Blizzard McCarthy 1,363.35 $681,675.00 782.55 (Blizzard) 100.00% 1,363.35 $681,675.00 09 Bonsignore, Robert Bonsignore Brewer 283.30 $106,237.50 283.3 (Bonsignore) 25.00% 70.83 $26,559.38 10 Bowen, Donna Slack Davis 144.50 $34,937.50 58.0 (Slack) 100.00% 144.50 $34,937.50 11 Branch, Turner Branch Law Firm 579.63 $137,254.85 85.46 (Branch) 25.00% 144.91 $34,313.71 12 Brodhead, Peter Spangenberg, Shibley 173.75 $86,875.00 154.50 (Brodhead) 100.00% 173.75 $86,875.00 13 Chesley, Stanley Waite, Schneider 975.25 $459,275.00 785.00 (Chesley) 70.00% 682.68 $321,492.50 14 Ciano, Phillip Ciano Goldwasser 1,321.55 $412,347.25 839.45 (Ciano) 75.00% 991.16 $252,163.13 15 Climaco, John Climaco, Lefkowitz 3,312.25 $1,108,767.50 950.25 (Climaco) 70.00% 2,318.58 $776,137.25 16 Cochran, Edward Cochran Cochran 304.25 $129,306.25 304.25 (Cochran) 10.00% 30.43 $12,930.63 17 Cutter, C. Brooks The Cutter Law Firm 398.55 $130,331.25 289.55 (Cutter) 90.00% 58.70 $117,298.13 18 Davis, Sam Davis, Saperstein 484.25 $192,687.50 360.75 (Davis) 80.00% 387.40 $154,150.00 19 Dugan, James Gauthier, Downing 1,362.00 $581,575.00 1,002.50 (Dugan) 60.00% 817.20 $151,282.50 20 Ellis, Luke Gillin, Jacobson 1,959.35 $846,300.00 1,101. 95 (Ellis) 75.00% 1,469.51 $634,725.00 21 Fearon, Stephen Squitieri Fearon 41.75 $17,212.50 20.75 (Squiteri) 100.00% 41.75 $17,212.50 22 Fleischman, Keith Milberg, Weiss 1,583.00 $569,021.25 (Fleischman) 85.00% 1,345.55 $483,668.06 23 Foote, Robert Foote, Meyers 525.00 $236,385.00 525.0 (Foote) 70.00% 367.50 $165,469.50 24 Frankel, Richard Hackerman, Frankel Manela 858.00 $343,200.00 858.0 (Frankel) 85.00% 729.30 $291,720.00 25 Gilligan, Lou Keating, Muething Klekamp 14.75 $3,880.00 14.75 (Gilligan) 0.00% 0.00 $0.00 26 Glaser, Daniel McNulty Law Firm 669.00 $279,375.00 228.0 (McNulty) 75.00% 501.75 $209,531.25 27 Heimann, Richard Lieff, Cabraser 4,933.00 $1,970,000.00 1282.0 (Heimann) 100.00% 4,933.00 $1,813,591.50 28 Hill, J. Graham Parker Roberson 3,245.75 $1,581,350.00 1,679.50 (Hill) 66.00% 2,142.20 $895,851.00 29 Hopper, Robert Zimmerman, Reed 892.70 $288,118.25 356.25 (Hopper) 40.00% 357.08 $114,837.80 30 Jacks, Tommy Mithoff Jacks 248.00 $136,400.00 248.0 (Jacks) 100.00% 248.00 $136,400.00 31 Jones, Zona Provost Umphrey 357.00 $75,115.00 74.3 (Jones) 100.00% 357.00 $75,115.00 32 Kennedy, R. Eric Weisman, Goldberg 11,853.05 $3,525,140.50 1,895.5 (Kennedy) 100.00% 11,853.05 $3,461,146.75 33 Klein, Beth Purvis Gray, LLP 197.70 $44,482.50 197.70 (Klein) 100.00% 197.70 $44,482.50 34 Kullman, Laurence Lewis, Kullman 223.00 $63,345.00 163.90 (Kullman) 100.00% 223.00 $63,345.00 35 Lamb, Archie Law Offices of Archie Lamb 94.00 $28,200.00 94.0 (Lamb) 100.00% 94.00 $28,200.00 36 Linton, Robert Linton Hirshman 137.50 $37,755.00 25.20 (Linton) 100.00% 137.50 $37,755.00 37 Longer, Fred Levin, Fishbein 359.75 $159,337.50 126.75 (Levin) 100.00% 359.75 $159,337.50 38 Pirtle, Thomas O'Quinn, Laminack 1,143.75 $341,500.00 285.25 (Pirtle) 100.00% 1,143.75 $341,500.00 39 McNabola, Edward Cogan McNabola 27.00 $9,450.00 27.0 (McNabola) 0.00% 0.00 $0.00 40 Murray, Stephen Murray Law Firm 835.00 $230,900.00 160.75 (Murray) 90.00% 751.50 $207,810.00 41 Murray, John Murray Murray 563.90 $210,370.35 343.90 (Murray) 100.00% 563.90 $210,370.35 42 Nast, Dianne Roda Nast 569.35 $137,203.75 126.50 (Nast) 80.00% 455.48 $109,763.00 43 Pereira, Andres Fleming Assoc 930.00 $234,200.00 500.0 (Pereira) 100.00% 930.00 $234,200.00 44 Plevin, Leon Nurenberg, Plevin 18.25 $4,562.50 18.25 (Plevin) 100.00% 18.25 $4,562.50 45 Roberts, Chad Spohrer, Wilner 1,957.00 $782,800.00 1,957 (Roberts) 17.00% 332.69 $133,076.00 46 Robinson, Mark P. Robinson, Calcagnie 829.15 $314,400.00 283.25 (Robinson) 70.00% 580.41 $212,053.63 47 Roth, Nicholas Eyster, Key 134.20 $60,390.00 134.20 (Roth) 0.00% 0.00 $0.00 48 Ryan, Michael Krupnick, Campbell 1,011.10 $416,792.50 818.60 (Ryan) 100.00% 1,011.10 $416,792.50 49 Saunders, Michael Helm, Pletcher 240.00 $96,000.00 240.0 (Saunders) 100.00% 240.00 $96,000.00 50 Schultz, Thomas Lopez, Modes 4,355.35 $1,810,695.20 686.75 (Lopez) 50.00% 2,177.68 $905,347.60 51 Scofield, John Caddell Chapman 464.75 $228,022.50 197.25 (Caddell) 100.00% 464.75 $178,835.00 52 Tamblyn, Mark Kronick, Moskovitz 776.55 $193,318.75 404.80 (Tamblyn) 62.00% 481.46 $119,857.63 53 Timmis, David Vandeveer, Garzia 126.80 $44,380.00 126.80 (Timmis) 0.00% 0.00 $0.00 54 Wayne, Richard Strauss Troy 2,848.05 $995,990.25 1,418.20 (Wayne) 100.00% 2,848.05 $995,990.25 55 West, Kimberly Wallace, Jordan 1,025.50 $256,025.00 615.25 (West) 0.00% 0.00 $0.00 56 Zoll, David Zoll Kranz 890.00 $335,705.80 590.0 (Zoll) 100.00% 890.00 $335,705.80 57 Zuckerman, Glen Weitz Luxenberg 1,430.15 $710,880.00 84.5 (Weitz) 75.00% 1,072.61 $389,253.75 TOTAL 53,670.90 $23,555,703.95 94.11% 50,508.44 $17,594,723.20 $1,666,650.00 $259,997.40 $115,000.00 Archer, Steven 01 $768,000.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 Arsenault, Richard 02 $0.00 $0.00 $5,700,000.00 Barrett, Don 03 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 Bart, Morris 04 $20,000.00 $0.00 $425,000,00 Becnel, Daniel 05 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 Benjamin, Cloyd 06 $916,070.00 20,666.00 $170,000.00 Blatt, Gayle 07 $3,065,200.00 $0.00 $4,000,000.00 Blizzard, Edward 08 YES $322,000.00 $61,680.00 $30,000.00 Bonsignore, Robert 09 $1,104,000.00 $495,984.00 $100,000.00 Bowen, Donna 10 $739,998.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 Branch, Turner 11 $199,995.00 $0.00 $90,000.00 Brodhead, Peter 12 $0.00 $0.00 $750,000.00 Chesley, Stanley 13 $92,000.00 $46,000.00 $400,000.00 Ciano, Phillip 14 $0.00 $0.00 $1,320,000.00 Climaco, John 15 $23,000.00 $20,666.00 $8,300.00 Cochran, Edward 16 $620,548.00 $56,663.00 $115,000.00 Cutter, C. Brooks 17 $245,713.99 $0.00 $160,000.00 Davis, Sam 18 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 Dugan, James 19 $2,063,050.00 $149,999.00 $950,000.00 Ellis, Luke 20 $2,199,978.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 Fearon, Stephen 21 $0.00 $0.00 $520,000.00 Fleischman, Keith 22 $23,000.00 $20,000.00 $197,000,00 Foote, Robert 23 YES $620,548.00 $56,663.00 $750,000.00 Frankel, Richard 24 YES $106,666.00 $0.00 $0,00 Gilligan, Lou 25 $845,988.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 Glaser, Daniel 26 $9,287,050.00 $1,500,000.00 $3,100,000.00 Heimann, Richard 27 YES $2,907,305.85 $711,848.00 Withheld Hill, J. Graham 28 $92,000.00 $41,332.00 $115,000,00 Hopper, Robert 29 $2,321,041.66 $1,654,969.70 $2,700,000.00 Jacks, Tommy 30 $704,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 Jones, Zona 31 $276,002.00 $186,200.00 $8,500,000,00 Kennedy, R. Eric 32 $490,000.00 $304,000.00 $110,000.00 Klein, Beth 33 $110,577.00 $15,200.00 $68,000.00 Kullman, Laurence 34 $0.00 $0.00 $35,000,00 Lamb, Archie 35 $306,636,00 $137,330.00 $37,000.00 Linton, Robert 36 $344,662.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 Longer, Fred 37 $1,012,000.00 $164,660.00 $1,300,000.00 Pirtle, Thomas 38 $45,000.00 $0.00 $0,00 McNabola, Edward 39 $43,555.00 $0.00 $340,000.00 Murray, Stephen 40 $86,000.00 $30,663.60 $400,000,00 Murray, John 41 $46,000.00 $0.00 $115,000.00 Nast, Dianne 42 $3,317,111.93 $0.00 $300,000.00 Pereira, Andres 43 YES $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 Plevin, Leon 44 $3,265,967.00 $0.00 N/A Roberts, Chad 45 $2,391,333.33 $0.00 $300,000.00 Robinson, Mark P. 46 YES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Roth, Nicholas 47 $357,880.00 $206,953.32 $800,000.00 Ryan, Michael 48 $850,000.00 $0.00 $125,000.00 Saunders, Michael 49 $2,248,530.00 $0.00 $1,300,000.00 Schultz, Thomas 50 YES $66,000.00 $0.00 With held Scofield, John 51 $50,000.00 $0.00 $140,000.00 Tamblyn, Mark 52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Timmis, David 53 $0.00 $0.00 $3,700,000.00 Wayne, Richard 54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 West, Kimberly 55 $230,920.00 $100,400.00 $650,000,00 Zoll, David 56 YES $10,830,966.09 $1,468,003.85 $500,000.00 Zuckerman, Glen 57 YES $57,322,942.85 $7,709,878.87 $41,299,300.00 TOTAL