Summary
In Fahnestock v. United States, 95 F. Supp. 232, 119 Ct.Cl. 41, and J.P. Morgan Co. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 927, 136 Ct.Cl. 748, we considered substantially the same problem, and decided that the taxpayers were entitled to interest.
Summary of this case from Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. U.S.Opinion
January 31, 1951.
Goldwater Flynn, New York City, for petitioners Boudin, Cohn Glickstein, attorneys for plaintiffs in this action, by Monroe Goldwater, New York City.
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz Mendelsohn, New York City, for Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Cecil J. North and E.J. Nicholas, by Eugene Eisenmann, New York City.
Robert B. Seidman and I. Philip Sipser, New York City, for intervenors Sally Cartwright and English Strunsky, by Robert B. Seidman, New York City.
Neuburger, Shapiro, Rabinowitz Boudin, New York City, for Distributive, Processing Office Workers of America and U.O.P.W.A., by Leonard B. Boudin, New York City.
Herman E. Cooper, New York City, for Harry Dechtenberg, Michael Wagner and William Aisenberg, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
The basic determination of my opinion of November 27, 1950, S.D.N.Y., 94 F. Supp. 356, and the order of December 13, 1950, entered thereon, was the allowance of an additional counsel fee of $225,000 to the firm of Boudin, Cohn and Glickstein. It was recognized therein that the firm agreed to reduce that fee by the amount assigned by certain employees "in order to obviate any double burden upon those employees." Consequently, the order provided that if the assignments were not effective — if, in fact, there was no double burden — the firm would receive its full fee.
In form the motion here seeks to set aside the assignments. In substance, however, it is an attempt to reduce the counsel fee allowed. The movants — three assigning employees — can benefit from an invalidation of the assignments only if the funds involved are not then paid over to Boudin, Cohn and Glickstein. Hence, they desire a reduction of the fee. They have brought nothing to my attention which would warrant such reduction and I reaffirm my determination that the fee as fixed is reasonable and proper. Consequently, they can derive no benefit from a determination that the assignments are invalid or inoperative and there is therefore no need for me to decide that issue.
Motion denied. Settle order.