| Philippines Fee Dispute Was
Ruled On As Tuy 7% & Murphy 3% As Cy Vance
Wants His Cut
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Dec 20 – In 2014 a dispute
about Philippines assets from
the Marcos era was placed
before U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York Judge Katherine Polk
Failla.
On June 16,
2020 Judge Failla held a
proceeding concerning two
lawyers still seeking
attorneys fees and payments
from the Philippines
government, now of Duterte.
Inner City Press covered it.
Judge Failla
asked former Philippines'
counsel Ken Murphy and
Salvador Tuy about fees they
are requesting. She asked
Murphy if it's the case, to
use her football analogy, he
didn't get the ball over the
goal line.
Murphy
replied, Only because I wasn't
being paid... I worked a lot.
I am asking for
$580,000.
Tuy for
his part said, They are
claiming there is no issue
about my fee. Back on May 9 I
said, my retained with 7% was
cleared all the way to
Executive Secretary.
Judge Failla: Is
this the retainer
agreement?
Tuy: Yes. I feel
I am owed $280,000.
Judge
Failla: I may ask for that in
writing. Please mute your
phone. Mr Amatorio, your
client the Philippines, what
is their position?
Amatoria: Under
President Aquino, Mr Murphy
got paid. But the current
administration, no more.
The current administration,
they are very stringent about
hiring foreign counsel.
On November 30,
the case was again on for a
proceeding, this time by video
with a public call in number.
Inner City Press called in;
the parties were told the
press was on the line.
They balked. One
said he had expected to be
able to "approach the bench"
and speak privately with the
judge. To her credit, Judge
Failla's deputy said this is
not how it works. Still, it
appears that a separate, non
public telephone conference
took place. Another public
call was set, for December 2.
Inner City Press again covered
it.
In this
proceeding, Judge Failla ruled
on who gets what, in terms of
attorney's fees, citing
quantum meruit. Tuy got 7%,
and Murphy 3%.
Now later in
December, this: "This office
represents the District
Attorney of New York County
(the “District Attorney”),
formerly the plaintiff and
stakeholder in the
above-captioned interpleader
action. I write regarding the
Court’s Order of June 5, 2015
providing for the deposit of
the interpleaded property (the
“Deposit Order”). Pursuant to
Paragraphs 3(a) and 5 of the
Deposit Order, the amount of
$30,000 was designated as
payable to the District
Attorney from the deposited
funds, to reimburse the
District Attorney for storage
fees he incurred for certain
of the interpleaded property
for the period from the
initiation of the action to
the date of the Deposit Order.
The District Attorney requests
that this sum be remitted to
him at the Court’s earliest
convenience."
The case is
District Attorney of New York
County v. The Republic of the
Philippines et al., 14-cv-890
(Failla).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
