| Dorsey & Whitneys' 1st Compensation Application - Updated 2Xs |
 |
|
Saturday, December 01 2007 @ 01:05 AM EST
|
Dorsey & Whitney has filed its first application for compensation. It's well worth looking at the details, because we see some hints as to what has been going on. And when. Here are today's filings:237 -
Filed & Entered: 11/30/2007
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection Regarding Debtors' Motion for Entry of Order Authorizing the Expansion of the Scope of Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC's Retention and Employment to Include Sale and Valuation Services Nunc Pro Tunc as of October 8, 2007 (related document(s)[189] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - Proposed Order# (2) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)
238-
Filed & Entered: 11/30/2007
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: First Application for Compensation FIRST INTERIM APPLICATION OF DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP FOR PERIOD SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 TO OCTOBER 31, 2007 (related document(s)[95] ) Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Objections due by 12/20/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A # (2) Exhibit B # (3) Exhibit C# (4) Exhibit D# (5) Exhibit E) (Schnabel, Eric) Let me show you what I see in the exhibits attached to the compensation application.
According to the breakdown on Exhibit A, 21 different people, 11 of them partners, worked on this case in the six weeks from September 14 to the end of October. It would be true to say that this surprises me. It seems like a lot of lawyers.
It adds up to a total of 181.60 hours or $57,585.75.
According to Exhibit B, 38.10 of those hours were for Corporate Transactions and Financing, 61.45 for Business Operations, 55.70 for Securities, and 19.40 for Commercial Transactions. Darl McBride said that Nolan Taylor of Dorsey & Whitney does their corporate bookkeeping, and he's listed at around 51 hours, so that would be part of the explanation, but not all. The expenses on top of the hourly, on Exhibit C, shows that the firm spent $4,623.53 on computer research. Holy moly. That is a lot, particularly when Berger Silverman did their own as well. I have this vision of 11 Dorsey & Whitney partners feverishly looking high and low for some legal escape hatch for the SCOfolk. But no, when you look at Exhibit D, you find the breakdown. It's mostly about the Cattleback and the York deals. And a lot is about the bankruptcy. I see an APA mentioned, for example, and none has yet surfaced on the Cattleback thing, so I'm assuming that is for the withdrawn York deal. I see a notation for October 25, where Nolan Taylor did a conference call regarding "schedules to section 363 sale" and unless the Cattleback deal is also a 363, as the 363 Group has suggested, I'm thinking this notation means York. On September 11, I see them billing $436.01 for online research at Westlaw that one day, so obviously that's a lot of research in one day, most likely more than one person, so my mental picture wasn't too far off. On page 8, you see a lot of LiveEdgar searching going on. This is interesting. On page 7, above the computerized research section, I see a notation regarding a conference on "document retention policy". Uh oh. I also see they paid Auto Pat for "obtaining the four assignment records 010702/259, 019055/0538, 012318/0071, 019672/0835" on September 11th. That's the Cattleback patent, one presumes. So I went to the USPTO's patent assignment database and looked them up. In the order above listed, it is the following: - Reel/frame 010702/0259: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MONITORING COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND ALERTING USERS OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SYSTEM ERRORS, Patent #6529784, with the five inventors (Allan Cantos, Neil Mager, Keith Erskine, Mike Vilot, and Alison Whittier) assigning to Acrylis in 2003 (Issue Dt: 03/04/2003; Application #:09514488; Filing Dt: 02/29/2000)
- Reel/Frame: 019055/0538 is the assignment on March 23, 2007 from Caldera International to SCO Group -- same patent, just a name change conveyance form
- Reel/Frame: 012318/0071 is the same patent, conveying from Acrylis to Caldera Systems, Inc., Recorded: 01/17/2002
-
Reel/Frame: 019672/0835 - on this you get this page: Assignment Data Not Available -
If you have any comments or questions concerning the data displayed, contact PRD / Assignments at 571-272-3350.
[ UPDATE: There is now info on 0835 showing the final hop to Cattleback Holdings, as of July 18, 2007. I don't know how long that link will work, but if you go to the Patent Assignment database and plug in the patent number, you'll find it. I don't see any hop from Caldera Systems to Caldera International.]
SCO has another patent, it turns out, 6,931,544, Method and apparatus for executing multiple JAVA(.TM.) applications on a single JAVA(.TM.) virtual machine. It issued August 16, 2005, application number 09/464,352, filed in 1999. Are they selling that one too? If so, is the price offered realistic for two patents? It's a 1999 Santa Cruz patent. And there is a patent application, 20070067381, dated March 22, 2007, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING DISTRIBUTED APPLICATIONS AND SERVICES FOR INTELLIGENT MOBILE DEVICES. The inventors are Bruce K. Grant, Jr. and Scott A. Hawker, and they assign to the SCO Group. So who gets those two patents? Are either part of the Cattleback sale? If you reread that SCO filing, it mentions only one patent, #6529784. So was York going to quietly swallow the other two, without specifically listing them? I also see research on implied licenses. I've always wondered about the patents Canopy had. Might there be some implications? If you check the York proposal, it does list patents and patent applications as part of what would be sold. That might explain York's interest.
Dorsey & Whitney are using timekeeping software, and each matter is separately billed, so don't let that confuse you. What the code number for each matter means is for them to know, but at least we can figure out by the notations what each matter probably is. For example, on page 11, you see the breakdown on the corporate minutes and meeting notes. I see C. Peters did "updates to numerous board meeting minutes". Hunh. Like ... they had a lot of meetings that day, the 24th of September? Or Peters went back in time and added things all over the place? And what would this be? On October 1, there is a notation about Peters drafting an email to Michael Olson and forwarding consents "to appoint officer and director for four entities". Is Jean Acheson flying up again in addition to the appointment to SCO Germany? If not, then who?
And if this doesn't raise the hair on the back of your neck, nothing will: 10/02/07 - C. Peters - 3.00 - 510.00 - Update files for Cattleback Intellectual Property Holdings; research minutes regarding proposed vesting of options for non-terminated employees; research status of March 6, 2007 compensation committee meeting minutes and inquire as to B. Young's portion of the minutes; prepare black lines for numerous meeting minutes that were recently updated and send to Mike for review; research meeting minutes concerning approval of stock option grants for third quarter
Page 13 of Exhibit D mentions SCO Global, Inc. What is that? Is that SCO Group? On that same page, on October 19, there is a notation for "research for board meeting minutes related to appointment of M. Olson". Since he allegedly just quit the firm, prior to that date, would this be talking about adjusting minutes on his earlier appointment or what? Is he still with Germany? Very mysterious. The bills, running through October 31, are sent to him as VP still. On October 23, according to page 24, they were preparing a press release with York and an 8K, so they must have imagined it was going to fly. And on page 27, we see them working with the buyer of the patent to do a license agreement and discussing the "implications of license with respect to patent". It seems they wanted a "license back and assignment agreement". On the next page there was more work done, we see, on a patent assignment agreement and a confidentiality agreement. So why wasn't any of this filed with SCO's motion?
I love the notation on Exhibit E, page 6: "Research public filings regarding bankruptcy disclosures." The same question was researched in a notation on page 12, and what is interesting is the date: September 6. That is the very day that SCO CEO Darl McBride gave an interview to Todd Weiss, which appeared in ComputerWorld, "McBride says SCO isn't dead yet, despite legal loss. Here's a chronological list of all the media coverage after the devastating SCO loss in Utah on August 10 up until September 12, just before SCO filed for bankruptcy on the 14th. I was pretty sure this list would come in handy at some point.
How much do they have to tell? That was the question. You'll note some redactions on Exhibit E. For example, on page 7, you'll see two of them, both about a potential [redacted] distribution transaction. Is that the York Me Inc thing? That's on the 13th and 14th of September. I see the same lawyer working on York and Cattleback on the same day, which raises questions in my mind. One question would be, is this really one deal, but divided up so as to trigger stock or bonus deals with the insiders twice? I couldn't help but remember the Canopy complaint about such triggering events paying off allegedly to insiders such as Ralph Yarro. The litigation ended in a settlement, but the allegations were memorable. I guess you'd have to review all the bonus and incentive plans, to see what triggers what and then look carefully at any proposed sales agreements to see if they sync up. Maybe that is why the US Trustee asked at the 341 meeting to see those very documents.
On page 8, we see Peters updating the minute book again on the 14th. This triggers questions too. I used to do corporate kits/minute books. You don't normally do them all in one chunk after the fact. It's done as you go along, without revisions later. I'm not saying this is what happened here, but it just strikes me as odd. On page 10, there is another redaction, this time of the patent number. Now why would they redact that? That is weird. Is this not the patent we thought it was? There are things not being told, and naturally now we'll all be looking for them in particular. The other filing is a certification that no one objected to Mesirow's expanded role.
Update 2: I just flashed on the phrase "implied license" which the firm says it researched. I think this is true North on what that might be about: "Potential Defenses of Implied Patent License Under the GPL" [PDF], which includes this sentence, "In general, patent rights may be substantially limited due to an implied license when the target infringing activity is covered by the GPL." More here. So, I conclude that the York deal, or any other like it, is still about folks who want to sue Linux users and are trying to figure out how to do it when the GPL stands in the way. Let me think. Can I think of anybody who really, really hates the GPL? Here's 238 as text:
**********************
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
The SCO GROUP, INC. et al.,1
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Case No. 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered)
FIRST INTERIM APPLICATION OF DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP,
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE DEBTORS AND DEBTORS-IN-POSSESSION,
FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2007
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, (“Dorsey” or the “Firm”), special counsel to the above-captioned Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, hereby submits this First Interim Application of
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession (the
“Application”) for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period September 14,
2007 through October 31, 2007 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 330 and 331 for legal services
performed and expenses incurred during the period commencing September 14, 2007 through
October 31, 2007 (the “Application Period”) as counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession in this proceeding. In support hereof, Dorsey respectfully represents as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. On September 14, 2007 (the “Petition Date”), the above-captioned Debtors
(collectively, the “Debtors”) commenced these bankruptcy cases by filing voluntary petitions
for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. (as
________
1
The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number for The SCO Group, Inc. is 2823. The last four
digits of the taxpayer identification number for SCO Operations, Inc. is 7393. The address for both Debtors is 355
South 520 West, Lindon, Utah 84042.
amended, the “Bankruptcy Code”), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware (the “Court”).
2. The Debtors are continuing in possession of their properties and are
operating and managing their businesses as debtors-in-possession pursuant to sections 1107 and
1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.
BACKGROUND
3. On October 4, 2007, the Court entered the Administrative Order Establishing
Procedures for Interim Monthly Compensation of Professionals [Docket ID #95] (the
“Administrative Order”) authorizing estate professionals (the “Professionals”) to submit
monthly applications for interim compensation and reimbursement for expenses, pursuant to the
procedures specified therein.
4. By order of the Court entered on November 19, 2007, the Debtors retained
Dorsey nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date as Special Counsel (the “Retention Order”) [Docket
ID #220].
5. The Retention Order authorized the Debtors to compensate Dorsey on an
hourly basis and to reimburse Dorsey for actual and necessary out-of-pocket expenses.
APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES
6. Subject to Court approval, Dorsey seeks payment for compensation on an
hourly basis, plus reimbursement of actual, necessary expenses incurred by Dorsey during the
Application Period. The rates charged by Dorsey in this case do not differ from the rates charged
to Dorsey’s non-bankruptcy clients.
7. A summary of the hours spent, the names of each professional and
paraprofessional rendering services to the Debtors during the Application Period, the regular
2
customary billing rates and the total value of time incurred by each of the Dorsey attorneys
rendering services to the Debtors is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A summary of the computer
generated time entries reflecting the time recorded for these services, organized in project billing
categories in accordance with the United States Trustee’s Guidelines For Reviewing
Applications For Compensation And Reimbursement of Expenses Filed Under 11 U.S.C. § 330
(the “Guidelines”), is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A summary statement of expenses incurred
by Dorsey during the Application Period is attached hereto as Exhibit C. All time entries and
requested expenses are in compliance with Local Rule 2016-2.1
8. Pursuant to the Administrative Order, Dorsey and other professionals retained
in this case are authorized to file and to serve upon the Notice Parties identified in the
Administrative Order monthly fee applications (a “Monthly Fee Application”), pursuant to
section 331 of the Bankruptcy Code, for interim approval and allowance of compensation for
services rendered and reimbursement of expenses incurred during the immediately preceding
month (the “Compensation Period”). Pursuant to the Administrative Order, each Notice Party
will have twenty (20) days after service of a Monthly Fee Application to object thereto (the
“Objection Deadline”). Upon expiration of the Objection Deadline, the Professional may file a
certificate of no objection with the Court after which the Debtors are authorized to pay each
professional an amount (the “Actual Interim Payment”) equal to the lesser of (i) 80 percent
(80%) of the fees and 100 percent (100%) of the expenses requested in the Monthly Fee
Application (the “Maximum Payment”) and (ii) 80 percent (80%) of the fees and 100 percent
(100%) of the expenses not subject to an objection, unless an objection has been lodged against
specific fees and/or expenses or the Court orders otherwise.
________________________
1
Dorsey has also attempted to ensure that this Application complies with the Guidelines. To the extent the
Guidelines conflict with local rules, in particular, Local Rule 2016-2, Dorsey has chosen to comply with such local
rule. Dorsey will supplement this Application with additional detail or information upon request.
3
9. In accordance with the Administrative Order, Dorsey has filed and served the
Notice Parties identified in the Administrative Order this Application with respect to fees and
expenses incurred during the Application Period; to wit, fees in the amount of $57,585.75, and
expenses in the amount of $6,129.29 for the period commencing September 14, 2007 and ending
October 31, 2007.
10. All services and costs for which compensation is requested by Dorsey in this
Application were reasonable and necessary and were performed for and on behalf of the Debtors
during the Application Period.
CASE STATUS
11. Dorsey believes that there is sufficient cash on hand or on deposit in the
Debtors’ estates to satisfy accrued unpaid administrative expenses including the amounts
requested herein.
SUMMARY OF SERVICES RENDERED
12. All of the professional services that Dorsey rendered to the Debtors during the
Application Period are set forth in detail in Exhibit D, segregated according to project billing
categories. A brief summary of professional services in Exhibit D is set forth below:
| Category |
Total Hours |
Total Fees |
| Corporate Transactions & Financing |
38.10 |
$12,278.75 |
| Business Operations |
61.45 |
$23,184.00 |
|
Employee Benefits/Pensions | 1.45 | $605.50 |
|
General Employment | 2.35 | $694.00 |
|
Securities | 55.70 | $13,252.00 |
|
Litigation | 0.0 | $0.00 |
|
DIP Financing | 0.0 | $0.00 |
|
Commercial Transactions | 19.40 | $6,362.00 |
|
Fee/Employment Applications | 3.15 | $1,209.50 | |
Total | 181.60 | $57,585.75 |
|
4
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
13. During the Application Period, Dorsey incurred certain necessary expenses in
rendering legal services to the Debtors as set forth in Exhibit D. In order to more efficiently
handle the voluminous copying of pleadings served and filed in this case, Dorsey on occasion
retained third-party duplication and messenger service providers. Dorsey seeks reimbursement
only for the actual expenses charged by and owed to such third-party services.
14. Dorsey seeks reimbursement for its reasonable, necessary and actual expenses
incurred during the Application Period in the total amount of $6,139.29.
COMPENSATION REQUESTED
15. Dorsey expended 181.60 hours during the Application Period in furtherance
of its efforts on behalf of the Debtors. Dorsey requests allowance of compensation in the amount
of $57,585.75, for legal services rendered during the Application Period at a blended hourly rate
of $317.10.
16. None of the requested fees and expenses detailed herein have been paid.
SETOFF AGAINST PRE-PETITION RETAINER
17. Prior to the Petition Date, Dorsey received a retainer of $100,000 (the
“Retainer”) to secure its pre-petition services and expenses. Due to the speed of events that
occurred in the days prior to the Petition Date, Dorsey was unable to issue an invoice to the
Debtors for certain unbilled pre-petition fees and expenses totaling $53,128.46 (the “Unbilled
Claim”). The invoices associated with the Unbilled Claim are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
18. As set forth in the Declaration of Nolan S. Taylor, on behalf of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, as Proposed Special Counsel for the Debtors,Nunc Pro Tunc to the Petition Date,
and pursuant to the Order Granting Application, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(e), 328 and 330,
for Approval of Employment of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, as Special Counsel to the Debtors Nunc
5
Pro Tunc to the Petition Date, Dorsey hereby seeks to apply the Retainer to the Unbilled Claim,
and apply the remainder of the Retainer, $46,871.54, to the first fees and expenses approved in
connection with this Application.
LEGAL STANDARD
19. Section 330(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Bankruptcy Code allows the payment of:
(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services
rendered by the trustee, examiner, professional person, or
attorney and by any paraprofessional person employed by
any such person; and
(B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.
11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1)(A) and (B). Reasonableness of compensation is determined by the
“market-driven approach” which considers the nature, extent and value of the services provided
by the professional and the cost of comparable services in nonbankruptcy contexts. See Zolfo
Cooper & Co., v. Sunbeam-Oster Co., 50 F.3d 253, 258 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Busy Beaver
Building Ctr., Inc., 19 F.3d 833, 849 (3d Cir. 1994). Thus, “the baseline rule is for firms to
receive their customary rates.” Zolfo Cooper, 50 F.3d at 259.
20. In accordance with its practice in nonbankruptcy matters, Dorsey has
calculated its compensation requested in this Application by applying its standard hourly rates.
Dorsey’s calculation is based upon hourly rates that are well within the range of rates that are
charged by comparable firms in other large bankruptcy cases. Accordingly, Dorsey’s rates
should be determined to be reasonable under section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code.
21. Dorsey’s fees during the Application Period are also reasonable under the
prevailing legal standard and should be allowed. The amount of Dorsey’s fees is not unusual
given the complexity and size of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases and Dorsey’s fees are
commensurate with fees that other attorneys of comparable experience and expertise have
6
charged and been awarded in similar Chapter 11 cases. Accordingly, Dorsey’s fees are
reasonable pursuant to section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code.
22. Section 330(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code permits reimbursement for
actual, necessary expenses. Dorsey’s legal services and expenses incurred during the
Application Period are set forth in this Application and constitute only those necessary expenses
that were incurred for the benefit of the Debtors’ estates. Dorsey has properly requested
reimbursement only of actual, necessary and appropriate legal expenses.
23. No agreement or understanding exists between Dorsey and any third person
for the sharing or division of compensation. All of the services for which compensation is
requested in this Application were rendered at the request of and solely on behalf of the Debtors.
24. Pursuant to the standards set forth in sections 330 and 331 of the Bankruptcy
Code, Dorsey submits that the compensation requested is for actual and necessary services and
expenses, and is reasonable, based upon the nature, extent and value of such services, the time
spent thereon, and the costs of comparable services in a case under the Bankruptcy Code. The
time records annexed to this Application constitute only a general statement of the services
rendered and time expended without description of the pressure and constraints under which
Dorsey actually rendered these services. The considerable challenge of these cases were
attended to and managed by Dorsey at all levels, promptly, expertly, and often to the exclusion
of other matters in Dorsey’s office. Dorsey submits, therefore, that its fees and expenses were
actual, necessary, reasonable, and justified, and should be allowed in full.
NOTICE
25. No trustee or examiner has been appointed in these Chapter 11 cases. Notice
of this Application has been given to: (a) the Debtors, The SCO Group, Inc. and SCO
Operations, Inc. 355 South 520 West, Suite 1000, Lindon, UT 84041 (Attn: Ryan Tibbitts,
7
General Counsel; (b) co-counsel to the Debtors, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, 919 North
Market Street, 17th Floor, P.O. Box 8705, Wilmington, DE 19899-8705 (Courier 19801) (Attn:
Laura Davis Jones, Esq.), and Berger Singerman, P.A., 350 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1000, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33301 (Attn: Arthur J. Spector, Esq.); and (c) the Office of the United States
Trustee, 844 King Street, Suite 2207, Lockbox 35, Wilmington, DE 19801. In light of the nature
of the relief requested herein, the Debtors submit that no other or further notice is required.
NO PRIOR REQUEST
26. No prior request for the relief sought in this Application has been made to this
or any other court.
WHEREFORE, Dorsey respectfully requests that the Court: (i) grant the
Application; and (ii) grant such further relief as may be appropriate.
Dated: November 30, 2007
DORSEY & WHITNEY (DELAWARE) LLP
/s/ Eric Schnabel
Eric Lopez Schnabel (DE Bar No. 3672)
DORSEY & WHITNEY (Delaware) LLP
[address, phone, fax, email]
Special Counsel for the Debtors and
Debtors-in-Possession
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
The SCO GROUP, INC. et al.,1
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Case No. 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered)
CERTIFICATION
1. Eric Lopez Schnabel, an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of
the State of Delaware, certifies that:
2. I am an associate of Dorsey & Whitney (Delaware) LLP (“Dorsey”).
Dorsey was retained by the above-captioned debtors and debtors-in-possession as counsel
pursuant to an order of this Court. This certification is made in support of the First Interim
Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession (the “Application”) for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period
September 14, 2007 through October 31, 2007 and in compliance with Local Rule 2016-2 of this
Court, setting forth the Contents of Application for Compensation and Expenses (the
“Guidelines”).
3. I have read the Application and I certify that the Application complies
with the Guidelines.
___________________
1
The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number for The SCO Group, Inc. is 2823. The last four
digits of the taxpayer identification number for SCO Operations, Inc. is 7393. The address for both Debtors is 355
South 520 West, Lindon, Utah 84042.
Dated: November 30, 2007
DORSEY & WHITNEY (DELAWARE) LLP
/s/ Eric Schnabel
Eric Lopez Schnabel (DE Bar No. 3672)
DORSEY & WHITNEY (Delaware) LLP
[address, phone, fax, email]
Special Counsel for the Debtors and
Debtors-in-Possession 10
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
September 14, 2007 Through and Including October 31, 2007
Name of Professional
Individual |
Position with Dorsey
and Year of
Obtaining License(s)
To Practice |
Hourly
Billing
Rate* |
Total
Billed
Hours |
Total
Compensation |
|
Elizabeth C. Buckingham | Partner; admitted DC 1988, MN 1994 | $445 | 2.70 | $1,201.50 |
| Gregory Durbin | Partner; admitted CO 1999 | $400 | 6.40 | $2,560.00 | |
| - | - | $385 | 4.90 | $1,886.50 |
| Michael Iwan | Partner; admitted MN 1998 | $335 | 1.10 | $368.50 | |
| Michael McCormick | Partner; admitted MN 1990 |
$415 | 13.10 | $5436.50 |
|
Samuel P. Gardiner | Partner; admitted UT 1997 |
$330 | 1.85 | $610.50 |
| - | - | $295 | 2.50 | $737.50 |
|
Devan Padmanabhan | Partner; admitted MN 1993 |
$460 | 0.70 | $322.00 |
|
Melissa Raphan | Partner; admitted MA 1987, MN 1987 | $415 | 0.70 | $290.50 |
| Eric Lopez Schnabel |
Partner; admitted DE 1998, PA 2000, NJ |
$450 | 1.60 | $720.00 |
| Kim A. Severson | Partner; admitted CA 1984, MN 1999 | $445 | 0.50 | $222.50 |
| - | - |
$440 | 26.20 | $11,528.00 |
| Nolan S. Taylor | Partner; admitted UT 1986 |
$410 | 25.00 | $10,250.00 |
|
Michael J. Voves | Partner; admitted MN 1997 | $420 | 0.75 | $315.00 |
| Monica L. Clark | Attorney; admitted MN 1998 | $365 | 0.40 | $146.00 |
| Nathan Brower | Associate; admitted UT 2007 | $195 | 4.00 | $780.00 |
| - | - | $185 | 6.35 | $1,174.75 | |
|
Jeff Cadwell | Associate; admitted CA 2006, MN 2007 | $205 | 2.90 | $594.50 |
| Robert D. Hoge | Associate; admitted CO 2002 |
$285 | 7.70 | $2,194.50 |
| - | - | $255 | 1.30 | $331.50 |
|
Kevin Maler | Associate; admitted MN 2006 | $195 | 3.30 | $643.50 |
| David Marx | Associate; admitted MA 2002, UT 2004 |
$270 | 24.35 | $6,574.50 |
| - | - |
$240 | 22.15 | $5,316.00 |
| Scott P. Sinor | Associate; admitted CO 2000 | $330 | 0.60 | $198.00 | |
Carolyn Peters | Sr. Paralegal |
$170 | 9.20 | $1,564.00 | | - | - | $160 | 7.10 | $1,136.00 | |
Micherie Green | Paralegal | $190 | 0.65 | $123.50 | |
Tanya Sestak | Paralegal | $100 | 3.60 | $360.00 |
| Grand Totals: | - | - | 181.60 | $57,585.75 |
Blended Rate: $317.10 |
