Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:08:55 PM
Nathan was hired to sue Lanza et al and put the case together, which he did, and a good job of it I might add. Barnett couldn't pay the bill and negotiated a reduced bill along with a percentage of the recovery. The contract was for a reduction of PAST BILLS NOT PAID in return for a % of the Assets/recovery. There was a carry-forward agreement that future billing would be discounted. The fact that there was no future billing because Barnett hired (and didn't pay) another lawyer, Zimmerman, doesn't extinguish the agreement.
(In my opinion from reading the pleadings - IANAL)
I have no humble opinions, but I do have opinions and those are what I express in my posts. BUT...I have been wrong before and likely will be wrong again so do your own research and don't blame me if you are too lazy to do so.
Glidelogic Corp. Becomes TikTok Shop Partner, Opening a New Chapter in E-commerce Services • GDLG • Jul 5, 2024 7:09 AM
Freedom Holdings Corporate Update; Announces Management Has Signed Letter of Intent • FHLD • Jul 3, 2024 9:00 AM
EWRC's 21 Moves Gaming Studios Moves to SONY Pictures Studios and Green Lights Development of a Third Upcoming Game • EWRC • Jul 2, 2024 8:00 AM
BNCM and DELEX Healthcare Group Announce Strategic Merger to Drive Expansion and Growth • BNCM • Jul 2, 2024 7:19 AM
NUBURU Announces Upcoming TV Interview Featuring CEO Brian Knaley on Fox Business, Bloomberg TV, and Newsmax TV as Sponsored Programming • BURU • Jul 1, 2024 1:57 PM
Mass Megawatts Announces $220,500 Debt Cancellation Agreement to Improve Financing and Sales of a New Product to be Announced on July 11 • MMMW • Jun 28, 2024 7:30 AM