Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 110

                                       - 73 -                                         

          turned out, the overall reduction of approximately 62 percent in            
          the Thompson deficiencies provided by the new settlement was more           
          than enough to produce the approximately $60,000 of refunds                 
          McWade and DeCastro thought would be needed to pay DeCastro’s               
          original estimate of what his fees would be.  As it further                 
          turned out, the additional interest on the Thompsons’ payments              
          under the original settlement was sufficient to provide DeCastro            
          with an additional fee that he (and perhaps Mr. Thompson)                   
          probably felt was justified by his success in keeping the new               
          settlement in effect, as well as leave a surplus to be retained             
          by the Thompsons.35                                                         
               Test case and nontest case petitioners in the main fall into           
          two groups, both of which are now in different situations from              
          the situation of the Thompsons 15-20 years ago.  It is the                  
          Court’s impression that a substantial majority of nontest case              
          petitioners are in the unhappy situation of having followed                 
          Kersting’s advice to stand pat.  They neither settled their cases           
          nor made any remittances in respect of the deficiencies                     
          determined against them.  With the passage of years and the                 
          operation against them of the force of compound interest, they              
          claim that they have been facing financial ruin, with all its               


          35The lack of legal rationale and the opportunistic                         
          character of the new settlement are emphasized by the fact that             
          it was entered into after the litigation risk that supported the            
          original 20-percent reduction settlement had evaporated with the            
          publication of this Court’s opinion in Dixon I.                             




Page:  Previous  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011