- 106 -
more mailings, but petitioner could not use another fundraiser no
matter how unhappy it was with how the Contract was working out.
This suggests that the uncertainties normally attendant on a no-
risk contingent fee arrangement warranted less of a premium to
W&H under the circumstances of the Contract than might be
appropriate in the usual run of no-risk contingent fee cases.
The dollar amounts in some of the tables set forth supra in
our Findings of Fact in many instances do not properly match the
dollar amounts in other tables. This results from the
inconsistent and usually unreconciled exhibits that the parties
introduced in the extensive record in the instant case.
Nevertheless, the following conclusions may fairly be drawn from
the information we have:
1. W&H’s services under the Contract netted petitioner
about $2� million for its own uses unrelated to the
Contract. Tables 1, 2, and 10.
2. This net is less than 10 percent of what donors
contributed to petitioner in the fundraising campaign.
Tables 1 and 10.
3. Petitioner directly paid more than $4 million to W&H
as fundraising fees. Tables 3 and 7.
4. In addition, petitioner paid almost $4 million to
Washington Lists, a division of W&H, for list rental fees
and commissions. Tables 4 and 7.
5. More than 10 percent of petitioner’s payments to
Page: Previous 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011