Ask the Experts

General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: TGJB on April 12, 2010, 03:10:01 PM

Title: Rachel Case, Round One
Post by: TGJB on April 12, 2010, 03:10:01 PM
The judge found that Lauffer owes us, but decided to base the amount on what is \"typical\" in the industry, rather than what I charge (which was testified to by four people), which means flat 5% of purchase price rather than our performance based fees.

Appeal to follow.
Title: Re: Rachel Case, Round One
Post by: mjellish on April 12, 2010, 04:01:22 PM
Well, at least he owes you.  Congrats on that part.
Title: Re: Rachel Case, Round One
Post by: P-Dub on April 13, 2010, 01:45:59 AM
JB,

Sounds like quite a bit of money not coming your way...at least for now. Good luck with the appeal.

Why would he award what is \"typical\", when your proprietary information and knowledge is what allows you to make shrewd investments for your clients?? Not to mention, this guy sounds like a real piece of work.