Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:96cv01285(TFH) ) KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ PETITION FOR INCENTIVE AWARDS AND EXPENSES INTRODUCTION In addition to class counsel’s request for $223 million in attorney fees and $1.2 million in expenses from class members’ settlement funds, the class representatives seek personal awards totaling $13,056,274.50. The four class representatives, Elouise Cobell, James Louis LaRose, Thomas Maulson, and Penny Cleghorn, have garnered praise for their efforts on trust reform for Individual Indian Money (IIM) Accounts. But the millions of dollars that they ask to be paid in incentives and expenses (which they did not personally incur) is grossly excessive and threatens their fiduciary obligation to the classes. Together they seek $2.5 million as an incentive award, as a bonus for their efforts, which by itself is many times higher than the most generous awards bestowed in any reported case in this Circuit. Incentive awards are supposed to be modest remuneration that do not markedly diminish the moneys available to class members. Their $2.5 million incentive request is neither modest nor fair to the classes. Rather, the four class representatives should not receive more than $1,000,000 total, in addition to their class member Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 36 settlement payments, to cover both incentives and personal expenses, to be allocated among the representatives as the Court deems appropriate. No basis at all exists for awarding any of the $10.5 million in additional “expenses” claimed by the class representatives. The separate expense request is inconsistent with promises made in the settlement: plaintiffs agreed they would not claim entitlement to more than $99.9 million for all “attorney fees, expenses, and costs” incurred in the litigation.1 Plaintiffs further promised that their request for an incentive award would “includ[e] expenses and costs that were not paid for by attorneys,”2 such as personal travel expenses and the like, but here they petition for an incentive award plus an expense award. They do not even attempt to justify the huge sums sought. Instead, the petition presents a bill for millions of dollars in unsupported litigation expenses paid by others, such as expert witness fees, process servers, and transcript costs, all of which ought to be covered by the attorney fee award, if recoverable at all. Moreover, the Court has already reviewed and rejected nearly $2 million of these expenses in prior fee petitions by class counsel. Even where the expenses are substantiated, they reflect spending that is never recoverable in litigation: charges for political and lobbying activities; millions paid to public relations firms and media consultants; overhead charges for rent, electricity, insurance, internet, telephone, and administrative salaries. Even sundry items like bottled water and cleaning supplies creep into their unwieldy and unjustified tally of expenses. 1 Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs ¶4.a (Dec. 7, 2009) (Fee Agreement) (Exhibit (Ex.) 1). 2 Settlement Agreement § K.2. (Dec. 7, 2009) (SA) (Ex. 2). -2­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 36 These are not personal, out-of-pocket costs of any individual class representative and thus cannot be “reimbursed” out of funds intended for class members. Defendants did not agree to an award of incentives or other payments to the class representatives beyond the settlement distributions they will receive along with all other class members as part of the settlement. Defendants fully reserved their rights to object to such additional payments in the Settlement Agreement where it states, “Defendants do not consent in any manner to an award of costs, expenses or incentives, except to the extent supported by and consistent with controlling law.” SA § K.3. We also reserved the right to respond to any request. Id. Here, neither the Settlement Agreement nor controlling law supports the extra $10.5 million that the class representatives seek to charge their fellow class members. Defendants do not dispute that Ms. Cobell has labored extensively on behalf of other class members. But the amounts sought here cannot be justified under the law, both because they are excessive and because these expenses simply are not a proper basis for recovery through an incentive payment. The Court should, therefore, limit its consideration to how much of the requested $2.5 million incentive award is sufficient to provide a modest incentive to future class representatives in other cases and still be fair and reasonable to the class members who will be assessed the cost. -3­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 4 of 36 ARGUMENT I. When Class Representatives Seek a Large Award from the Class Recovery, an Inherent Conflict of Interest Arises and the Court Must Closely Scrutinize the Request This Court has recognized that granting an incentive award is about “[t]he propriety of allowing modest compensation to class representatives . . . .” In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., No. MDL 1290 (TFH), 2003 WL 22037741, at *10 (D.D.C. June 16, 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27, 32 (E.D. Pa.1985)). But nothing about plaintiffs’ petition is modest. Incentive awards are intended “to compensate named plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they incurred during the course of the class action litigation,” In re Lorazepam, 205 F.R.D. 369, 400 (D.D.C. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), but they are neither universal nor always appropriate. A study published in 2006 found that “awards were granted in about 28 percent of settled class actions.” Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey Miller, Incentive Awards to Class Action Plaintiffs: An Empirical Study, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 1303 (2006). Incentive awards are not to be conferred reflexively, but are considered on the merits and circumstances in each case. Even when the parties are able to agree on incentive awards (which is not true here), “it is within the Court's discretion [whether] to grant the incentive awards.” Radosti v. Envision EMI, LLC, 717 F. Supp. 2d 37, 52 (D.D.C. 2010). Defendants do not object to a reasonable and modest incentive award for the class representatives, but the $2.5 million sought by this petition is neither. A court’s scrutiny is heightened when the incentive payments are more than nominal and other class members will be made to pay them. Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 207, 257 (D.N.J. 2005). As approved representatives for two certified classes, Ms. -4­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 5 of 36 Cobell and her named co-plaintiffs must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class[es].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). They “represent not only themselves, but all members of the class, in a fiduciary capacity, and are obligated to do so fairly and adequately, and with due regard for the rights of those class members not present to negotiate for themselves.” Women’s Committee for Equal Employment Opportunity v. National Broadcasting Co., 76 F.R.D. 173, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); accord In re Fine Paper Litigation, 632 F.2d 1081, 1086 (3d Cir.1980). The fiduciary obligation raises “concerns about whether the payment of any ‘awards’ can be reconciled with the punctilio of fairness the fiduciary owes to the beneficiary.” In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litigation, 155 F.R.D. 116, 120 (E.D. Pa. 1994). When “representative plaintiffs obtain more for themselves by settlement than they do for the class for whom they are obligated to act as fiduciaries, serious questions are raised as to the fairness of the settlement to the class.” Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1148 (11th Cir.1983) (quoting Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 91 F.R.D. 434, 441-42 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 668 F.2d 654 (2d Cir.1982)); see also Warren v. Xerox Corp, No. 01-CV-2909 (JG), 2008 WL 4371367, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2008). In light of the size of the amount sought here, the Court must carefully “evaluate the award individually.” Hopson v. Hanesbrands Inc., No. CV-08-0844 EDL, 2009 WL 928133, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2009). The relative merits of these particular class representatives’ award request must also be weighed in light of Congress’ exhortation that the incentive award be determined in a manner “giving due consideration to the special status of Class Members . . . as beneficiaries of a federally created and administered trust.” Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-291, § 101(g)(1), 124 Stat. 3064 (2010) (2010 Act). The Court must, therefore, temper its -5­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 6 of 36 consideration in recognition of the fact that class members are trust beneficiaries of the federal government. This important obligation renders evaluation of the incentive award here, and its class impact, markedly different from any precedent that plaintiffs cite from the commercial and antitrust fields. II. The $2,500,000 Requested for Incentive Awards Is Excessive Whether Valued in Absolute or Relative Terms A. In Absolute Terms, $2.5 Million Far Exceeds Awards In Other Cases The primary purpose of the incentive payment is to encourage the public good that is attained when individuals agree to litigate a meritorious claim not just in their own interest but on behalf of others who may have suffered the same wrong. See, e.g., Sauby v. City of Fargo, No. 3:07-cv-10, 2009 WL 2168942, at *2 (D.N.D. July 16, 2009). In the vast majority of cases, the incentive payment tends to fall far short of six figures. The 2006 UCLA study found that in 28 percent of the cases conferring an incentive award, the average award per class representative was about $16,000, with the median payment per class representative being closer to $4,000. 53 UCLA L. Rev. at 1308. Other studies have yielded similar results. See Sherrie R. Savett, et al., Consumer Class Actions: Class Certification Issues, Including Ethical Considerations and Counsel Fees and Incentive Award Payments to Named Plaintiffs, 936 PLI/Corp. 321, 340 (1996) (listing 52 cases involving incentive award payments where the plaintiffs were awarded between $1,000 and $200,000, with over half of the awards falling between $5,000 and $10,000) (Ex. 3). A study conducted for the Federal Judicial Center in 1996 looked at four federal districts and found: The median amounts of all awards to class representatives in the four districts [studied] were $7,500 in two districts, $12,000 in the third, and $17,000 in the -6­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 7 of 36 fourth. In many cases, there was more than one representative. The median award per representative in three courts was under $3,000 and in the fourth was $7,560. The median percentage of the total settlement that was awarded to class representatives was less than or equal to eleven thousandths of one percent (0.011%) in all four districts. Thomas E. Willging, Laural L. Hooper & Robert J. Niemic, Empirical Study of Class Actions in Four Federal District Courts: Final Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules at 26 (1996) (figure citations omitted) (emphasis added).3 Based on these multiple empirical studies, the $2,500,000 sought here is 100 or more times higher than the empirical norm. Even when split among the four class representatives, their requested award is an aberration. This large anomaly is significant because courts often determine reasonableness and fairness of an incentive payment by comparing them with awards in other cases. See, e.g., Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1330 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (justifying awards of $7,500 each based on amounts awarded in other cases); Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 230 F.R.D. 317, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“$10,000 is comparable to incentive awards granted in other cases. An award of $10,000 is also proportionate to the amount absent class members will recover under the settlement”), aff'd in part, vacated in part, remanded on other grounds, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006). Notably, not one of the incentive award cases from this District that the class representatives cite comes close to the huge sum sought here. See Pet. at 4. This Court previously recognized the importance of keeping the incentive award to a modest number, when it observed that the “propriety of allowing modest compensation to class representatives seems obvious.” In re Lorazepam, at *10. In Lorazepam, which was an antitrust 3 This study is available on-line at the Federal Judicial Center’s web site (http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/rule23.pdf/$File/rule23.pdf). -7­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 8 of 36 settlement, this Court approved incentive payments to four plaintiffs totaling $80,000, a number that pales in comparison to the $2.5 million sought here. Id. at *11. In Wells v. Allstate Ins. Co., 557 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2008), the court similarly awarded two class representatives a relatively modest $20,000. Likewise, in Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Warner Holdings Co. III, Ltd., 246 F.R.D. 349, 365 (D.D.C. 2007), the Court approved awards of $12,500 each to the two class plaintiffs. The $2,500,000 incentive requested here would, if granted, be 20 times higher than that awarded in the three mentioned cases combined. The amount sought is anything but modest. The enormous size of the requested award serves no valid “incentive” purpose and poses a risk that potential plaintiffs in other cases will assert class claims because of the huge profit incentive rather than primarily a desire to do good. Plaintiffs proffer no support for the implicit contention that such a large sum is necessary in order to encourage plaintiffs in other cases to come forward as class representatives. None exists. B. Even In Relative Terms, $2.5 Million Is Far Too Much If one overriding consideration comes from the Court’s prior decisions in this area, it is that the incentive award should be modest. In re Lorazepam , at *10. The Court should balance “the number of named plaintiffs receiving incentive payments, the proportion of the payments relative to the settlement amount, and the size of each payment.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (questioning fairness of settlement where named plaintiffs would receive 16 times more money than unnamed class members). In Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 669 (E.D. Cal. 2008), for example, the court rejected settlement terms where the named plaintiff would receive “more than $5,000,” while ordinary class members would get only $24.17 with -8­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 9 of 36 full class participation. In Alberto, the rejected incentive award was 207 times the average class member recovery ($5,000 ÷ 24.17 = 206.8). The proposed $2.5 million award threatens a substantially larger imbalance. Under the terms of the settlement, each member of the Historical Accounting Class will receive $1,000. SA § E.3.a. The settlement money dedicated to this class reflects the “common fund” relating to the litigation efforts of the class representatives. See Defendants’ Response and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Class Counsel Fees, Expenses and Costs Through Settlement at 7-10 (Feb. 24, 2011) [Dkt. 3694] (Defs. Resp. to Fee Pet.). Using this figure for comparison, the incentive payments to the four class representatives would be 2,500 times greater than the payment to each member of the Historical Accounting Class.4 Even if the Court were to consider the Trust Administration Class payments, the imbalance persists. A majority of participants in both classes are expected to receive about $1,800 each, depending on the final number of class members. See generally Ex. 4 at 8 (Long Form Class Notice) (indicating that the smallest distribution for both classes is expected to be around $1,800). A $2.5 million award would be 1,389 times greater than the most common expected award to any single class member ($2.5 million ÷ $1,800). Even though the Trust Administration Fund should not even figure into this award analysis, an incentive payment of $2.5 million would be about 880 times the expected average individual distribution for the two classes combined ($2.5 million ÷ $2840).5 In short, 4 Even when the group award of $2.5 million is compared to the settlement distributions to the same number of class members (four), the imbalance is plain ($2.5 million ÷ $4,000 = 625). 5 The average payout overall is based on the following estimate. The total number of class members is estimated to be at least 500,000. See Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement at 18 (Dec. 10, 2010) [Dkt. 3660]. Settlement funds of $1.5 billion, less allowances -9­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 10 of 36 no matter how the requested amount is compared, it is vastly disproportionate to what most other class members can expect to receive. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 454 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2006), is similarly misguided. In Allapattah, a much smaller class size meant that each claimant, on average, would receive about $66,170, after attorney fees.6 The settlement in Allapattah, which created a $1.06 billion fund before attorney fees, id. at 1191, was to be distributed among 11,000 claimants, id. at 1189. Each of the nine named plaintiffs in Allapattah was approved to receive an incentive award around 25 times the average class member award. See id. at 1241-42. The petition here, in contrast, is far beyond the proportion found reasonable in Allapattah. The other cases cited by plaintiffs are similarly distinguishable. See also Ingram v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.R.D. 685, 688, 694 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (incentive award of $300,000 to each of four class representatives was only eight times average award to the class) ; Cullen v. Whitman Med. Corp., 197 F.R.D. 136, 145, 148 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (approving awards to six class representatives equal to 100 percent refund of their tuition that was about six times more than expected average value of 17 percent of tuition if all 5,300 class members claimed refund). Allapattah is the only case plaintiffs cite that confers an award of multiple millions, but it is readily distinguishable, even beyond the factors noted above. Allapattah was a commercial lawsuit brought by gas station owners against Exxon for breach of their dealer agreements. The for expenses of class notice, administration, and all attorney fees, would leave about $1.42 billion for distribution to class members, resulting in an expected average payout of about $2,840. 6 This figure is derived by deducting the attorney fee award of 31a percent from the $1.06 billion common fund and dividing the balance by 11,000 (the number of class members). See id. at 1189, 1191. -10­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 11 of 36 class members were business owners, not private individuals, many of whom are elderly or impoverished. Allapattah’s class representatives risked losing their dealerships and going bankrupt, even if they had secured a modest victory.7 454 F. Supp. 2d at 1220-21. Allapattah’s most important distinction from this case is that the result in Allapattah was a complete victory for the plaintiff class: “Class Members will receive their full compensatory damages and nearly all of their prejudgment interest.” Id. at 1189 (emphasis added). In contrast, these class representatives do not claim that they have achieved the maximum or full relief for the class, but have indicated that this resolution is a settlement in which all parties compromised.8 Thus, no precedent exists for the enormous award plaintiffs seek in these circumstances, especially when Congress has directed the Court to be mindful of the class members who will pay for that award. C. Other Measures Of Fairness Counsel Against A $2.5 Million Award Courts striving to derive a fair incentive payment have looked to other computations. Several have considered the time devoted to the case by the plaintiff and sought to base the award on some fair compensation for that time and out-of-pocket expenses. At the lower end, one court analogized to the per diem that district courts pay jurors. After deciding it would be 7 The grave personal risks faced by the Allapattah plaintiffs also do not appear to have been softened by public acclaim or honors, as has occurred at times for these plaintiffs. See, e.g., Cobell Aff. ¶ 11 (listing eight awards honoring Ms. Cobell’s reform efforts) [Dkt. 3679-3]. 8 In their petition, plaintiffs admit suffering a streak of “puzzling reversals.” Pet. at 4. But this Court also rejected plaintiffs’ $47 billion lost funds model and concluded that the government’s liability was at most $455.6 million – not billion – noting that the government’s model indicated that the “stated balance [of IIM accounts] could very well be exactly correct.” Cobell v. Kempthorne, 569 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D.D.C. 2008), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 573 F. 3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2009), cert. dismissed, 130 S. Ct. 3497 (2010). Even this smaller award was subsequently vacated on appeal. See 573 F. 3d 808. -11­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 12 of 36 too difficult to determine an hourly rate of compensation for the named plaintiffs in In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litigation, the court concluded: [T]he plaintiffs did incur expenses, and perhaps lost wages, because of their involvement in this litigation. This loss is similar to what jurors suffer. Inasmuch as we believe that the juror per diem represents an objectively reasonable valuation for lay advancement of justice, we shall take Congress’s appraisal of that service as our standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 1871(b)(1). Since judicial time is better spent on matters other than evaluating vouchers for mileage, parking fees, and other expenses, we shall award round but modest sums calculated to err on the generous side to approximate reimbursement for such costs, in addition to a $40.00 per diem. Those who were deposed doubtless did invest more time and expense than those who merely approved and signed interrogatory answers, and so should be paid more for their presumed per diem fee. We shall therefore award $250.00 and $125.00, respectively. 155 F.R.D. at 122. Other courts have adopted some reasonable hourly rate. See, e.g., Liberte Capital Group v. Capwill, No. 5:99 CV 818, 2007 WL 2492461 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2007) ($80 per hour requested, $60 per hour awarded); Pozzi v. Smith, 952 F. Supp. 218 (E.D. Pa. 1997) ($40 per hour approved). Ms. Cobell avers that she has devoted “between 500 and 1,200 hours each year” to this case over its life span. Cobell Aff. ¶ 13 [Dkt. 3679-3]. Although no records are submitted to show how that time was actually used,9 Ms. Cobell’s claimed time would total somewhere between 7,000 and 16,800 hours over 14 years of litigation. If compensated at $40 per hour, her award based on time would be between $280,000 and $672,000. Ms. Cobell also states that she has spent about $390,000 in out-of-pocket expenses toward prosecution of the case. Id. ¶ 20. 9 For purposes of this illustration, we accept Ms. Cobell’s time estimate at face value, but her own affidavit suggests that her estimate includes hours spent “in outreach, meetings in Washington on the Hill, in court and New York and other destinations to raise money to pay our experts and expenses.” Cobell Aff. ¶ 13 [Dkt. 3679-3]. Time devoted to public relations and political activities should not be considered in setting an incentive award for service as a plaintiff. -12­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 13 of 36 Even though these expenses are relevant, “an incentive award is not intended to provide a recovery for all litigation expenses.” Liberte Capital, at *2. But when her stated hours are added to her stated out-of-pocket spending, the number is still far below the $2,000,000 award sought for her personally. In the end, in fairness to the classes, it is “the proportionality which must temper this decision.” Id. Proportionality is a particularly important concern, because this case for most of the last 14 years was not structured to produce a common fund at all. Plaintiffs founded their original complaint upon the Administrative Procedure Act and sought only injunctive relief for the Historical Accounting Class. Indeed, all damages allegations were struck from the suit early. Cobell v. Babbitt (Cobell I), 30 F. Supp. 2d 24, 39-40 & n.18 (D.D.C. 1998) (after concluding that plaintiffs were not seeking damages, the Court struck “as clearly irrelevant” all allegations of funds mismanagement and asset dissipation). In 2005, the Court reminded plaintiffs that the only “live” claim in the litigation was their demand that the government render a full historical accounting. Cobell v. Norton, 226 F.R.D. 67, 77 (D.D.C. 2005). Thus, regardless of the class representatives’ efforts, this litigation was not aimed at securing a common fund. Until settlement was reached, plaintiffs had no hope of anything but injunctive relief for the benefit of the Historical Accounting Class. See Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (vacating $455.6 million award to plaintiffs, holding that the “district court sitting in equity must do everything it can to ensure that Interior provides them an equitable accounting”). The more than $3 billion dollars relating to the Trust Administration Class settlement funds and to the land consolidation appropriation sprung from the government’s comprehensive effort to avoid future -13­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 14 of 36 litigation and to address chronic problems posed by fractionated ownership interests in Indian trust lands. See Defs. Resp. to Fee Pet. at 9-10. This history is significant because no incentive award is possible when a common benefit is obtained, as opposed to a common fund. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Hadix v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2003), “incentive awards are usually viewed as extensions of the common-fund doctrine, a doctrine that holds that a litigant who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself is entitled to recover some of his litigation expenses from the fund as a whole.” Id. at 898. Not surprisingly, the Sixth Circuit was “unable to find any case where a claim for an incentive award that is not authorized in a settlement agreement has been granted in the absence of a common fund.” Id.; accord Estep v. Blackwell, No. 1:06CV106, 2006 WL 3469569 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2006). Additional requirements of the common benefit doctrine affect consideration of plaintiffs’ petition. When attorney fees are sought in a common benefit case, for example, the beneficiary “class” cannot be made to pay for the benefit conferred unless all the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The class of beneficiaries must be “small in number.” 2. The class of beneficiaries must be “easily identifiable.” 3. The benefits must be “traced with some accuracy” to the beneficiaries. 4. There must be “reason for confidence that the costs [can] indeed be shifted with some exactitude to those benefitting.” Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 265 n.39 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Marquart v. Lodge 837, Intern. Ass’n of Machinists -14­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 15 of 36 and Aerospace Workers, 26 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.1994); Brzonkala v. Morrison, 272 F.3d 688, 691 (4th Cir. 2001). “These requirements preclude recovery of attorneys’ fees by those who undertake to enforce statutes embodying important public values, that is, those acting as private attorneys general.” 272 F.3d at 691 (citing Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 265 n.39) (internal quotations and modifications omitted). Following Alyeska, the D.C. Circuit has required “a reasonably close, though not necessarily perfect, fit between the interests of the litigants and those of the benefitting class.” American Ass’n of Marriage and Family Counselors, Inc. v. Brown, 593 F.2d 1365, 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The D.C. Circuit has denied fees when “the ‘benefit’ to the class, while not inconsequential, is incremental and relatively intangible,” compared to the litigant’s “direct and pecuniary benefit.” Id. These common benefit principles weigh against counting any part of the Trust Administration Claims or the land consolidation fund in deciding on a dollar figure for any incentive award. Plaintiffs go beyond even these funds and compile a list of “benefits” totaling some $9 billion that they claim to have secured for class members. Pet. 6-7. Even if their claims were provable and true,10 they cannot be relied upon to justify the amount of any incentive award. Benefits such as improved trust accounting systems are enjoyed by a wide class of Indians, not just those who are included or choose to remain in the classes. These benefits are 10 Defendants disagree broadly with the degree of credit plaintiffs deserve for various achievements cited in their petition. As one example, plaintiffs contend this suit is “solely” responsible for $4.8 billion in spending on improvements in trust administration. Pet. at 6. Their assertion, however, ignores the influence of tribes (both before and after this suit was filed), legislative oversight and appropriations in Congress, as well as efforts within the Department of the Interior and elsewhere in the Executive Branch. -15­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 16 of 36 enjoyed by Indian country and, indirectly, the public at large, and are not readily traceable. These claimed achievements may justify giving incentive awards, but none of these common benefits can be used to justify the size of the awards. The land consolidation component of the settlement is a case in point. Land consolidation will benefit Indians and tribes where fractionated lands can be reduced. The purchase program will be open to individual owners of fractionated trust land who may comprise a subset of the class or may not be current class members at all. The funds for the program will be held in the Treasury until needed, so that none of this $1.9 billion fund is available to assess for an incentive award. The same is true for the scholarship funds. Those benefits will ultimately help individual Indian children generally, conferring an “incremental and relatively intangible” benefit that cannot support an incentive award. Consequently, plaintiffs’ list of achievements does not aid in determining the appropriate amount of an incentive award. The petition attempts to justify these unprecedented awards with some selective history of the IIM trust accounts. Repetition of sound bites from the past, however, do not justify a $13.05 million request. The reasonableness of an award to class representatives is not a function of BIA history – which the petition distorts – but of the outcome obtained for the class members. The petition, for example, asserts that a 1915 report to Congress indicated that the IIM trust was “riddled with ‘fraud, corruption and institutional incompetence almost beyond the possibility of comprehension.’” Pet. at 2. The assertion is false. The report did not find the trust system “riddled” with corruption but actually said that, due to the “increasing value “ of the Indians’ “remaining estate,” the situation posed an “inducement” to fraud or corruption or institutional incompetence. Report to the Joint Commission to Investigate Indian Affairs -16­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 17 of 36 Relative to Business and Accounting Methods Employed in the Administration of the Office of Indian Affairs, 63d Cong., at 2 (Comm. Print 1915) (Ex. 5 (report excerpt)). The report’s concern was not directed to specific government officials, private individuals, or corporate actors, but identified a general potential problem. Indeed, the report states that the “critical statements which appear in different parts of the report relate to methods and procedure rather than to officials and employees of the Office of Indian Affairs.” Id. at 4. The report further noted that the “incomplete and unsatisfactory accounting system described is largely due to a lack of facilities and lack of personnel for the installation and operation of an up-to-date accounting system rather than to neglect or deficiencies on the part of officials, clerks, and employees in the service.” Id. Indeed, the report cautions that it could “not . . . be accepted as a conclusion . . . that those who have been employed in the Indian Service have been below others in ability or integrity when things have gone wrong. It has been largely due to the conditions under which the service has been required to operate.” Id. at 2. This Court concluded after trial in 2008 that “despite a profusion of evidence and opinion about the unreliability of IIM records, there has been essentially no direct evidence of funds in the government’s coffers that belonged in plaintiffs’ accounts.” Cobell, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 238. The class representatives’ own IIM accounts confirm the Court’s conclusion. In the course of this case, the accounting firm of Ernst & Young conducted a thorough, $20 million historical investigation of transactions in IIM accounts of the class representatives and their predecessors in interest – dating back to 1914. The study found “[o]nly small variances.” Cobell v. Kempthorne, 532 F. Supp. 2d 37, 50 (D.D.C. 2008). The record in this case, then, runs counter to plaintiffs’ narrative. -17­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 18 of 36 This brings the analysis back to fixing a reasonable incentive payment and using a modest percentage of the fund that results directly from plaintiffs’ litigation efforts. Plaintiffs rely on the Court’s decision in Lorazepam, an antitrust case in which awards totaling between 0.2% and 0.3% of the common fund were deemed reasonable. Pet. at 8 (citing In re Lorazepam, 2003 WL 22037741, at *11; and In re Lorazepam, 205 F.R.D. at 400). Plaintiffs err, though, in their application of Lorazapam. First, they assume that percentages appropriate in commercial litigation are also appropriate in an Indian trust case, where Congress has expressly directed the Court to be mindful of the special status of class members. 2010 Act § 101(g)(1). No authority justifies the ready transfer of an antitrust case percentage to this case. Second, plaintiffs use the overall dollar value of this settlement ($3.4 billion) to demonstrate that their requested award is modest. They state that “$2.5 million . . . represents between 0.07% and 0.08% of the $3.4 billion monetary fund created.” As demonstrated above, however, the appropriate frame of reference is not the $3.4 billion value of all settlement components but, at most, the amount secured for the Historical Accounting Fund, which we estimate to be $360 million. See Defs. Resp. to Fee Pet. at 7-10. When the Lorazepam percentages are applied to $360 million, it produces a range of $720,000 to $1,080,000. These results would still yield a total award that is 720 to more than 1,000 times larger than any single member of the Historical Accounting Class can expect to receive, which suggests that the Lorazepam percentages may be far too generous in these circumstances. At the very least, these -18­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 19 of 36 comparisons strongly militate against granting an incentive award totaling more than $1 million for all four class representatives.11 III. None of the $10,556,274.59 in Additional Claimed Expenses Should Be Awarded The class representatives’ request for a separate award of more than $10.5 million in alleged expenses relating to the litigation is meritless. By making a separate expense request, they both disregard their agreement with defendants and tacitly concede that the additional compensation they seek goes far beyond any reasonable figure for an incentive award. The faults in the request are numerous and fall into the following broad categories: Litigation expenses can only be recouped, if at all, through the attorney fee petition, and a separate request here is inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement; No proffer is made as to the reasonableness of any expenses; No expenses documented in the petition reflect personal, out-of-pocket spending by the class representatives; The Court has already rejected nearly $2 million of these expenses; Many of the submitted records demonstrate that the expenses are neither reasonable nor necessary to the litigation; Expenses for public relations, lobbying, and political activities are not expenses involving the prosecution of the litigation, and are never recoverable; and Other expenses for overhead and general administration (e.g., rent, utilities, insurance, bathroom supplies, etc.) are never recoverable. 11 The Court, in its discretion, may divide any incentive award among the four class representatives. Because courts often consider such facts, we note that although each class representative gave one deposition in the case, none was ever a trial witness. Although Ms. Cobell attended many court hearings, the other class representatives rarely, if ever, attended court. -19­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 20 of 36 Each defect is addressed below, along with specific examples from plaintiffs’ submission. None of the extra $10.5 million claimed for expenses should be allowed. A. The Expense Request Violates Terms Of The Settlement Agreement When the parties negotiated the settlement, they agreed that attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs would be litigated within a stipulated range. See Fee Agreement ¶ 4 (Ex. 1). Plaintiffs agreed to ask for no more than $99.9 million, and defendants would not assert that plaintiffs should be paid less than $50 million, in addition to amounts previously paid. Id. The terms include a briefing schedule and identify what the parties would submit. The agreement contemplates that the Court may award whatever sum it decides is reasonable and fair for “attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs” based on the record before it, and neither side will appeal the decision if the amount awarded for “attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs” falls within the parties’ stipulated range. Id. ¶ 4 e. (emphasis added). The Settlement Agreement likewise refers to the filing of “a petition for fair and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs.” SA § J.2. (emphasis added). Thus, the settlement contemplates that the attorney fee award would also include money for reasonable and allowable expenses of the litigation. Plaintiffs’ separate request for expenses in this petition is inconsistent with these settlement terms. No basis exists to presume that plaintiffs may split their expenses between the attorney fee petition and the incentive award petition. After defendants bargained to keep the recovery of attorney fees, expenses, and costs within a negotiated range, it makes no sense to assume that defendants would willingly assent to an unlimited expense recovery request in another form. Where the Settlement Agreement addresses the incentive award request, the terms provide that -20­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 21 of 36 the incentive award shall include plaintiffs’ personal expenses and not become the subject of an additional, separate award. Id. § K.2. Plaintiffs read too much into one line from Swedish Hospital Corp. v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 1261, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1993), when they assert that plaintiffs are entitled “to be reimbursed from that fund for litigation expenses incurred.” Pet. at 16. That decision deals solely with the issue of what attorney fees may be recovered in a common fund case, so the reference to expenses in the quoted phrase is dictum. It does not address an incentive award, which is the subject of this petition, nor does that language trump the bargain that the parties reached in the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, as discussed below, notwithstanding the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs’ attempt to recover expenses not incurred by them out-of-pocket cannot be squared with controlling law. Plaintiffs’ prior fee petitions reveal the pretense in their expense request here. In 2004, plaintiffs submitted a petition for an interim award of fees and expenses in the amount of $14 million under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). That petition included $4.5 million in expenses for work performed by an expert accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). In support, plaintiffs submitted a declaration by Jessica Pollner of PwC. The Court approved $2.5 million of these expenses and denied the rest. Cobell v. Norton, 407 F. Supp. 2d 140, 163-65, 177 (D.D.C. 2005). Without a word of explanation, the very same expenses – using another, virtually identical affidavit by Jessica Pollner – are recast and presented here as expenses of the class representatives. Compare 2004 Pollner Aff. ¶ 34 (Ex.6) with 2011 Pollner Aff. ¶ 34 (Pet. -21­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 22 of 36 Ex. 10) [Dkt. 3679-10].12 This history demonstrates that such expenses fall squarely within the ambit of plaintiffs’ petition for attorney fees, expenses, and costs – not here. On this basis alone, plaintiffs are estopped from contending otherwise, and the Court can and should reject the entire $10.5 million request as improper. Other documents submitted with the current petition support this objection. John I. Hirshleifer, an officer of Charles River Associates (CRA), for example, states that his sworn statement is made in “support of the Plaintiffs’ Application for Fees and Costs pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement and the Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs both dated December 7, 2009.” Hirshleifer Aff. ¶ 1 [Dkt. 3679-9] (emphasis added). He further attests that “CRA was retained on March 6, 2008 by Plaintiffs, through counsel, to provide litigation related services.” Id. ¶ 2 (emphasis added). Likewise, all of the $496,393 associated with the Indian Land Tenure Foundation involves payments made on behalf of class counsel for witnesses hired by counsel. Rempel Aff. ¶ 5 [Dkt. 3679-8] (“I submitted the invoices attached as Exhibit B to ILTF for payment and I have confirmed with ILTF that they were paid. . . .”) (all invoices in the referenced Ex. B are billed to counsel). Other experts also appear to have been engaged by class counsel, not the 12 The 2011 Pollner affidavit, for example states: The hours and fees in Exhibits AC through AG differ slightly from those prepared in my affidavit dated August 13, 2004. I have included additional hours for preparation of fee estimates, budgets, and other analyses that were not previously included in the August 2004 affidavit. 2011 Pollner Aff. ¶ 34. Her affidavit also notes that “[a]s a result of the schedules . . . and the information in this affidavit, Plaintiffs are requesting reimbursement for expenses incurred in prosecuting this litigation in the amount of $4,752,034.” Id. ¶ 36. -22­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 23 of 36 class representatives. See, e.g., Ex.7 (various expert fees billed to plaintiffs’ attorneys). Thus, to the extent any of these costs are proper litigation expenses at all, they should be paid from whatever amount is awarded on the attorney fee petition.13 B. No Justification Is Offered That These Expenses Were Reasonable And Necessary As fiduciaries for all class members, the class representatives bear a duty to demonstrate that all expenses they want class members to pay are reasonable and necessary for the litigation. As the First Circuit explained in the parallel circumstance of an expense petition by class counsel, the petitioners “are not necessarily entitled to the quantum of reimbursement to which they aspire. To the contrary, they must establish the reasonableness of their requests.” In re Fidelity/Micron Securities Litigation,167 F.3d 735, 738 (1st Cir. 1999). “In the course of that exercise, the trial court may insist on examining particulars, such as receipts and logs, so that it can determine whether the claimed expenses were reasonable, necessary, and incurred for the benefit of the class. Unverified expenses may be rejected out of hand.” Id. “Parties seeking reimbursement ‘must present enough supporting documentation to allow the Court to determine whether specific costs are reasonable and necessary.’” Sato & Co., LLC v. S & M Produce, Inc., No. 08-CV-7352, 2010 WL 3273927, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2010) (quoting Fischer v. 13 About half of the $10.5 million claim relates to expert witnesses. The petition identifies four broad expense areas. See, e.g., Pet. at 17. About $6.6 million is sought for Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, and it appears that at least $1.82 million concerns expert fees. See Ex. 8 (summary table of identified experts and invoices to BRDF, with an illustrative sample record for each expert). As discussed in the main text, PwC is an expert, whose charges are identified at $2.22 million (after deducting the litigation expenses previously approved and paid). CRA, another expert firm, has fees of $1.03 million, Hirshleifer Aff. ¶ 2, for a total of $5.07 million for experts. As with PwC fees, all these expenses are ordinarily of the type submitted as litigation expenses with counsel’s fee petition. -23­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 24 of 36 Avanade, Inc., 2007 WL 3232494, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct.31, 2007)). The petition, however, offers nothing to prove the more than $10.5 million in expenses are reasonable and necessary. C. The Claimed Expenses Were Not Incurred By The Class Representatives A first principle of reimbursement is that no one gets paid for expenses borne by others. The expenses comprising this petition were plainly incurred by other parties and so are not proper candidates for reimbursement. The summary table plaintiffs provide on page 17 of their petition, reproduced below, together with defendants’ classification of the charges demonstrates this. Entity Amount Summary/Classification Blackfeet Reservation Dev. Fund $6,612,099.02 Community development corporation Indian Land Tenure Foundation $496,393.00 Witness fees and expenses billed to counsel Charles River Associates $1,037,586.97 Damages model expert hired by counsel PriceWaterhouseCoopers $2,220,195.60 Early accounting experts hired by counsel RSH Consulting $190,000.00 Lobbying in Congress and PR TOTAL $10,556,274.59 Pet. at 17. No name on the list is a class representative. No amounts listed are shown to be out­of-pocket expenses a class representative. On the contrary, other entities that are not party to this litigation incurred the expenses.14 Thus, no basis exists to award these amounts personally to the class representatives, because they did not pay them. The Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc. (BRDF) is a wholly-owned non­profit subsidiary of Blackfeet National Bank, which is, in turn, substantially owned by the 14 In fact, records of many travel expenses relating to Ms. Cobell indicate that she was timely reimbursed for them by a nonparty. See, e.g., Ex. 9 (illustrative travel reimbursements). -24­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 25 of 36 Blackfeet Tribe. Revised Holt Aff. ¶ 21 (Jan. 10, 1997) (Ex. 10). BRDF is not a party. Ms. Cobell is a director of BRDF, but that does not entitle her to be “reimbursed” for BRDF’s expenditures. On the contrary, the record shows that the class representatives have no obligation to repay expenses unless they recoup money for expenses. See Ex. 11 at P000479 (Grant Contract).15 Plaintiffs offer no authority for depleting class members’ recovery to benefit a nonparty to the litigation, and we are aware of none. Similarly, no nexus exists between monies paid by the Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) and a class representative. ILTF itself has filed nothing. Instead, plaintiffs submit an affidavit by Geoffrey Rempel, a CPA and a non-attorney member of plaintiffs’ litigation team. He attests that all of the $496,393 paid by ILTF went to experts hired by class counsel or to pay travel expenses of witnesses at counsel’s direction. Rempel Aff. ¶ 5 [Dkt. 3679-8]. No evidence indicates that any class representative has paid ILTF for these outlays. Although the class representatives executed affidavits in support of their petition, not one document substantiates that any of them actually incurred an out-of-pocket expense. The affidavits by Messrs. Maulson and LaRose and by Ms. Cleghorn identify no incurred expenses. See Maulson Aff. [Dkt. 3679-5]; LaRose Aff. [Dkt. 3679-4]; Cleghorn Aff. [Dkt. 3679-6]. Although Ms. Cobell does attest to having “covered travel and related costs out of my own pocket when funds were depleted,” she submitted no documents to verify what or how much 15 During discovery conducted early in the case, plaintiffs produced documents evidencing financial support offered by BRDF (and other groups) that appear to obligate repayment to these contributors only if covered expenses were actually later recouped. See, e.g., Ex. 11. -25­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 26 of 36 those costs were. Cobell Aff. ¶ 20 [Dkt. 3679-3]. The lack of records is difficult to square with the detailed travel expense reimbursements to Ms. Cobell that appear in the submitted documents of BRDF. See, e.g., Ex. 9 (sample selection of travel receipts and reimbursement checks for trips by Ms. Cobell). Absent a substantiation of personally-incurred expenses, the Court must disallow them. As this Court stated in disallowing unverified expenses of PwC earlier in the case, “[t]his omission is fatal.” 407 F. Supp. 2d at 165. With the records indicating only payments made by nonparties – and not by class representatives – plaintiffs have not demonstrated an entitlement to “reimbursement.” D. The Court Has Already Rejected Almost $2 Million of the Expenses As noted above, the Pollner affidavit attests that PwC incurred fees and costs of $4,752,034, but plaintiffs’ petition seeks “reimbursement” for only $2,220,195.60. Compare Pollner Aff. ¶ 36 [Dkt. 3679-10] with Pet. at 17. The difference is largely explained by the fact that defendants already paid more than $2.5 million of these expenses as part of the Court’s 2005 EAJA award. The resubmission of the unpaid balance is troubling. All of PwC’s charges should have been included as expenses incurred by class counsel and addressed as part of the attorney fee petition presented to the Court in 2004. Most of the unpaid balance, however, remains unpaid because the Court previously disapproved them. The Court rejected $1,363,297.60 of the PwC expenses as “excessive, unnecessary, or redundant time.” Cobell, 407 F. Supp. 2d at 192. The Court disallowed another $483,839 of PwC expenses as improper. Id. Plaintiffs’ attempt to resubmit millions in rejected expenses defies this Court’s direction not to resubmit fees or expenses that were previously paid or rejected. Tr. at 13-14 (May 14, 2007) (Ex. 12). -26­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 27 of 36 Only $149,709 of the amount previously requested on account of PwC could possibly be reimbursable now, for this small fraction was determined to concern matters beyond the scope of the Phase 1 trial, and thus outside the scope of the interim EAJA award. 407 F. Supp. 2d at 192. Without explanation, PwC has now added another $223,350 in expenses for “preparation of fee estimates, budgets, and other analyses,” 2011 Pollner Aff. ¶ 34, that were allegedly omitted from the expenses request in the interim EAJA petition. Therefore, the maximum amount of PwC expenses that the Court should even consider is $373,059 ($149,709 + $223,350). Nowhere, however, does plaintiffs’ petition demonstrate that these costs were reasonable and necessary to the litigation.16 Absent this required showing, the class should not be made to bear this expense. E. Plaintiffs’ Records Prove That Many Expenses Were Unreasonable Or Unnecessary A cursory review of the expense records reveals that many of these expenses, on their face, cannot be reimbursed because they are not reasonable or necessary to the litigation. Given plaintiffs’ failure to justify their submitted expenses, the Court should reject the request outright and not parse through every invoice to divine whether a particular expense was reasonable and necessary. Nevertheless, we tender some examples from the expert witness and travel categories to demonstrate their questionable character. For example, the CRA fees (exceeding $1 million) are for the faulty model that the Court rejected in toto at the 2008 trial. As the Court stated, “Plaintiffs’ model suffers from numerous methodological flaws that . . . , in many instances, are obvious to anyone having basic familiarity with the case.” Cobell, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 231. The 16 For example, a comparison of the fee tables submitted as Exhibit AC to both the 2004 and 2011 Pollner affidavits reveal 216 unexplained new hours for September 1999, resulting in a $48,600 jump in PwC’s current bill. Compare Ex. 13 (2004 Pollner Aff. Ex. AC with 2011 Pollner Aff. Ex. AC at 6 [Dkt. 3679-13] (copy at Ex. 14). -27­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 28 of 36 Court concluded, “[i]nstead of providing unbiased opinions, plaintiffs’ expert witnesses essentially provided plaintiffs with a way to put a dollar value on their argument,” and the Court rejected their entire approach. Id. As plaintiffs’ spokesman, Bill McAllister, told the New York Times after the Court’s $455 million award in August 2008, “He [the judge] basically accepted the government’s argument that not much money is missing. . . . He rejected our methodology and our theory of the case.” Kirk Johnson, Indians Gain a Slim Victory in Suit Against Government, nytimes.com (Aug. 7, 2008), http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/us/08indian.html (a version of this story appeared in the N.Y. Times at A16 (Aug. 8, 2008) (local edition)) (Ex. 15.) Absent class members, who had no way to influence the litigation, should not shoulder the burden of a poorly implemented and counterproductive expert model. Some expert costs now submitted involve questionable overcharges for travel and preparation time. As but one example, expert deposition costs became the subject of briefing by the parties in 2003, following the Phase 1.5 trial. The Court never addressed the issue, but the parties thoroughly briefed whether the expenses were justified. Defendants found numerous excessive and questionable charges and objected to them. See Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order Requiring Defendants to Pay Plaintiffs’ Expert Deposition Fees and Expenses (Oct. 24, 2003) [Dkt. 2353]. These same questionable costs appear to be resubmitted now, including: a $1,000 hotel bill for a one-day deposition (Ex. 16); $139 for one evening’s dinner (Ex. 17) ; over $100 of charges at a hotel lobby bar (Ex. 18); and time billed for sitting in on depositions of plaintiffs’ other experts (Ex. 19 at BRDFINC 00963­ -28­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 29 of 36 64). These few examples raise sufficient concern about these expenses for the Court to insist that the class representatives do much more than simply present a tally. Many travel expenses paid by BRDF for trips made by Ms. Cobell and others relate to activities outside of the litigation. There are travel records that appear to relate to Ms. Cobell’s work as a member of the Advisory Board of the Special Trustee for American Indians. See, e.g., Ex. 20. There are expense reports for personal appearances by Ms. Cobell as a “guest speaker” at public programs and tribal events. See, e.g., Ex. 21. Other trip reports show travel for meetings with tribes. E.g, Ex. 22. Some travel records show payments made for trips taken by persons who are not even parties in the case. See, e.g., Ex. 23 (travel reimbursements to Robert Moore, Justin Lee, and Greg Smitman). On their face, such expenses were not incurred to prosecute the litigation and so cannot be recovered. F. Public Relations And Lobbying Expenses Are Not Reimbursable An incentive award is based upon the prosecution of the litigation. As this Court put it, courts “approve incentive awards to compensate named plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they incurred during the course of the class action litigation,” Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 205 F.R.D. at 400 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ claimed expenses, however, include millions of dollars spent on “public outreach,” lobbying, and political activities. Plaintiffs offer no support for their assumption that lobbying expenses and political activities can be (or should be) compensated by the Court. We are aware of none. For sound reasons, the law does not allow attorneys to recover fees for time spent on lobbying the Executive Branch, promoting an agenda in Congress, or engaging more generally in public relations to promote an agenda. See, e.g., Kentucky Rest. Concepts, Inc. v. City of -29­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 30 of 36 Louisville, 117 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2005); Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169 (4th Cir.1994) (time spent attempting to “sway public opinion” are not recoverable); Leroy v. City of Houston, 831 F.2d 576 (5th Cir. 1987); West v. AK Steel Corp. Ret. Accumulation Pension Plan, 657 Fed. Supp. 2d 914 (S.D. Ohio 2009). Plaintiffs tender no reason to impose a different rule for class representatives. Allowing such a reimbursement would foster improper incentives by encouraging others to use class litigation as an adjunct to a political strategy in the hope of recouping lobbying costs at the conclusion of the case. “Courts that have considered such claims have routinely denied reimbursement for attorney time related to media relations.” Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Carter, 569 F. Supp. 2d 737, 752 (N.D. Ind. 2008). In Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 31 F. 3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 1994), the Fourth Circuit rejected a 42 U.S.C. § 1988 claim for fees for public relations efforts “to sway public opinion and influence State policy-makers.” As the court explained, the “legitimate goals of litigation are almost always attained in a courtroom, not in the media.” Id. The Third Circuit adopted the same reasoning in Halderman by Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hosp., 49 F.3d 939, 942 (3d Cir.1995), where it denied a request for “work related to writing press releases, speaking with reporters and otherwise publicizing the contempt motion,” holding that “the proper forum for litigation is the courtroom, not the media.” The court warned that even if counsel “may perform tasks other than legal services for their clients, with their consent and approval, [that] does not justify foisting off such expenses on an adversary under the guise of reimbursable legal fees,” noting that it was “particularly inappropriate to allow public relations expenses in the case at hand while it was pending before the district judge . . . .” Id. Another court aptly identified the problem: -30­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 31 of 36 Using the media as part of the litigation effort is counterproductive and is not a proper function of litigation. It is the courts who determine the outcome of a case, and the court's decision is based on all the facts, not on what kind of public opinion can be generated through the media. Finally, using the media to publish the alleged “horribles” suffered by the plaintiffs in newspapers all over the world, without proving the truth of any of the allegations, could add an element of coercion and pressure on the defendants to settle due to the bad publicity. Does I v. The Gap, Inc., No. CV-01-0031, 2003 WL 22997250, *2 (D. N. Mar. I. Sept. 11, 2003); accord Hopwood v. Texas, 236 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of fees for media relations and noting “[w]e are chary about granting requests for media fees”). The D.C. Circuit, in In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1990), disallowed recovery for time spent on “[m]edia related activity,” because it had “no bearing on the operation of an independent counsel’s investigation” and so was “not reasonably related to a defense to such investigation.” Id. at 1203 (quoting In re Donovan, 877 F.2d 982, 994 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). The only media-related activity the Court of Appeals allowed was attorney time incurred in reviewing press accounts, because counsel benefitted “in this case” from the “heavy media involvement.” Id. n.19 (original emphasis). No such assertion is made here. In the Ninth Circuit, public relations work by counsel may in special cases be compensable when demonstrated to be “directly and intimately related to the successful representation of [the] client,” Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 976 F. 2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F. 2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993), but that reasoning has not been adopted in this Circuit. Even if it were applicable, “[p]laintiffs have not shown the required direct, intimate relationship between their press activities and success on the merits of the case.” League for Coastal Protection v. Kempthorne, No. C 05-0991-CW, 2006 WL 3797911, *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2006). More important, such reimbursement has been -31­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 32 of 36 denied when, as here, public relations contractors, not counsel, are the source of the expense. Does I, at *3 (denying cost recovery when “the plaintiffs hired a national public relations firm to handle this work”). Yet, plaintiffs seek to recoup such spending. See Ex. 24 (table listing identified public relations/lobbying firms and fees, with one sample bill).17 Other expenses clearly reflect lobbying, not litigation, activity. For example, invoices from another public relations firm, RSH Consulting, identify tasks such as “arranged meetings with key Members of Congress on the . . . House Resources Committee and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs”; “drafted various ‘talking points’ and briefing papers for a settlement through legislation and other subjects”; “organized a briefing for staffers of the Native American Caucus”; and “drafted ‘Dear Colleague’ letters from the Native American Caucus co-chairs, Congressman Kildee and Congressman J.D. Hayworth.” Holmes Aff. ¶¶ 3, 5-6 (Jan. 20, 2011) [Dkt. 3679-20]. This and similar work is not labor of the class representatives; it is public relations and lobbying work performed by third parties, and paid for by nonparties. It is not a proper expense for reimbursement. G. Many Other Expenses Are Purely Overhead, Which Is Never Recoverable. It is axiomatic that basic administrative and operational expenses, often categorized as overhead expenses, are never recoverable as a litigation expense. See, e.g., Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 974 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (disallowing librarian time as 17 In many instances, the nature of the work is not even evident from plaintiffs’ documents. The firm Policy Impact, for example, for which plaintiffs assert a claim totaling $556,209.55 (see Ex. 24 at BRDFINC05568), uses only the word “Consulting” followed by the month and year, with the fee, $50,000, in its invoices. E.g., Ex. 24 at BRDFINC05592. (Also, although it appears that Policy Impact demanded payment of only one-quarter of their fee, plaintiffs here appear to claim the full amount. See id. ) -32­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 33 of 36 overhead). Even when parties are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, they “may not recoup fees for . . . tasks [that] ‘ought to be considered part of normal administrative overhead.’” U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Intern. Const. Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 45, 52 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Michigan v. United States EPA, 254 F.3d 1087, 1095-96 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The same result should obtain for any overhead expenses of the class representatives. It is important to keep in mind that none of the submitted records establishes the expenses to have been incurred personally by any class representative, but even if they had been, general overhead expenses are not recoverable. As part of their petition, plaintiffs include the following expenses incurred by BRDF:18 Description Amount Salaries Rent Electricity Telephone & Internet Interest Accountant Web Site Supplies $438,231.48 $28,848.26 $5,413.78 $12,756.07 $150,000.00 $23,751.67 $47,916.66 $141, 044.77 TOTAL $847,962.69 A majority of the salary expense is attributed to Eva Cobell, an administrator for BRDF. Many of her time records fail even to indicate the hours worked or the tasks performed, see, e.g., 18 The table below is based upon the table in Ms. Cobell’s second affidavit in support of their petition. Cobell Aff. ¶ 8 [Dkt. 3679-7]. Sample BRDF records relating to these categories can be found in Exs. 25-33. -33­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 34 of 36 Ex. 25 (pay records for 2000), and in other cases, it appears that BRDF is seeking reimbursement for vacation time, see, e.g., Ex. 26. Even were such overhead possible to recoup, the records are insufficient. Similarly, annual audits performed on BRDF are claimed in this petition, without showing how any of that expense was in furtherance of the litigation. Likewise, the petition seeks recovery of $150,000 in interest paid to the Otto Bremer Foundation, but no records were produced to prove the existence of any loan, much less the terms, or what purpose the financing served. Thus, as with most elements of the petition, the charges are not only categorically improper, but also so sparely documented that it is impossible to discern whether they were reasonable and necessary to the litigation. All these claimed expenses, therefore, are ineligible for reimbursement. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the petition should be denied in all respects, except for an incentive award no greater than $1,000,000, to be allocated among the class representatives at the Court’s discretion. Dated: February 24, 2011 Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director /s/ Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Deputy Director (D.C. Bar No. 406635) JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ -34­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 35 of 36 Special Litigation Counsel GLENN D. GILLETT JOHN R. KRESSE MICHAEL J. QUINN PHILLIP SELIGMAN JOHN J. SIEMIETKOWSKI Trial Attorneys Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 Telephone: (202) 616-0328 -35­ Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3697 Filed 02/24/11 Page 36 of 36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on February 24, 2011 the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Class Representatives Petition for Incentive Awards and Expenses was served by Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not registered for Electronic Case Filing, by facsimile, with exhibits by mail: Earl Old Person (Pro se) Blackfeet Tribe P.O. Box 850 Browning, MT 59417 Fax (406) 338-7530 /s/ Jay St. John -36­ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Case No. 1:96CV01285-JR KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs December 7, 2009 WHEREAS the Parties entered the Class Action Settlement Agreement, dated December 7, 2009 (“Main Cobell Agreement”); and WHEREAS the Parties desire that the Class should compensate Class Counsel for reasonable attorney fees and related expenses and costs; THEREFORE, the Parties hereby enter this Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs (“Fee Agreement”). 1. Unless otherwise defined herein, this Fee Agreement incorporates all defined terms in the Main Cobell Agreement and shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Main Cobell Agreement. 2. The amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs shall be decided by the Court in accordance with controlling law and awarded from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. 3. The Parties agree that litigation over attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs should be conducted with a civility consistent with the Parties' mutual desire to reach an amicable resolution on all open issues. The Parties agree therefore that all documents filed in connection with the litigation over attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs shall consist of a short, plain statement of the facts and the law with the goal of informing the Court of relevant information for its consideration. 4. Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs Incurred through December 7, 2009. a. Plaintiffs may submit a motion for Class Counsel’s attorney fees, expenses, and costs incurred through December 7, 2009. Such motion shall not assert that Class Counsel be paid more than $99,900,000.00 above amounts previously paid by Defendants. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of such claim shall not exceed 25 pages and shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days following Preliminary Approval, and Class Counsel’s reply in support of such claim shall not exceed 15 pages. b. Defendants may submit a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. Such memorandum shall not assert that Class Counsel be paid less than $50,000,000.00 above the amounts previously paid by Defendants. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, Defendant’s memorandum shall not exceed 25 pages and shall be filed within 30 days after Plaintiffs’ motion. c. Concurrently with any motion for fees, expenses, and costs of attorneys through December 7, 2009, Plaintiffs shall file statements regarding Class Counsel’s billing rates, as well as contemporaneous, where available, and complete daily time, expense, and cost records supporting this motion. Defendants may also submit an annotated version or summary of the time, expense and cost records in support of their opposition. d. Plaintiffs disclosure and filing of the records referenced in the preceding paragraph shall not constitute a waiver of any attorney client privilege or attorney work product protections. Plaintiffs may request the entry of an appropriate protective order regarding such confidential records. e. In the event that the Court awards attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs covered by this Paragraph in an amount equal to or greater than 2 $50,000,000.00 and equal to or less than $99,900,000.00, Plaintiffs, Class Counsel and Defendants agree not to file a notice of appeal concerning such award. 5. Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs Incurred after December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs may submit a motion for Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred after December 7, 2009, up to $10,000,000.00. Such motion shall be based solely on attorney hours and actual billing rates and actual expenses and costs incurred, and may not be justified by any other means (such as a percentage of the class recovery). Such motion shall be resolved in such manner as directed by the Court. Concurrently with any motion for post Agreement attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, Plaintiffs shall file statements regarding Class Counsel’s billing rates, as well as complete and contemporaneous daily time, expense, and cost records supporting this motion. 6. Should (a) either party terminate the Main Cobell Agreement pursuant to the terms thereof, (b) the Main Cobell Agreement become null and void because a condition subsequent does not occur, or (c) the Main Cobell Agreement not finally be approved by the Court, this Fee Agreement shall be null and void, and the parties and Class Counsel shall take such steps as are necessary to restore the status quo ante. 7. Nothing in this Fee Agreement shall affect the right of any non-party to this Fee Agreement. Wherefore, intending to be legally bound in accordance with the terms of this Fee Agreement, the Parties hereby execute this Fee Agreement: 3 SIGNATURES bound Wherefore, intending to be legally bOJllld in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Parties hereby execute this Agreement: FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS: "z£x /LU Thomas J. p~ Associate Attorney General ~';4f'~~ citllM. Harper, Class Counsel Keith M. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:96CV01285-JR Class Action Settlement Agreement December 7, 2009 US2000 11623208.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2 TERMS OF AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 6 A. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................... 6 B. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL .................. 15 C. CLASS NOTICE AND OPT OUT ................................................................... 17 D. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND FINAL APPROVAL ..................................................................................................... 21 E. ACCOUNTING/TRUST ADMINISTRATION FUND .................................. 23 F. TRUST LAND CONSOLIDATION FUND .................................................... 35 G. INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS ..................................................... 38 H. TAXES AND ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS ............................................... 42 I. RELEASES ....................................................................................................... 43 J. ATTORNEYS’ FEES ....................................................................................... 47 K. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ INCENTIVE AWARDS .............................. 49 L. NO FURTHER MONETARY OBLIGATION ................................................ 51 M. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS......................................................................... 52 SIGNATURES......................................................................................................................... 55 i US2000 11623208.1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Case No. 1:96CV01285-JR KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Elouise Pepion Cobell, Penny Cleghorn, Thomas Maulson and James Louis Larose (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and members of the Classes of individual Indians defined in this Agreement (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, Larry Echohawk, Assistant Secretary of the Interior – Indian Affairs, and H. Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and their successors in office, all in their official capacities (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referenced as the “Parties.” Subject to Court approval as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement and upon entry by the Court of a Final Order and Judgment and resolution of any appeals from that Final Order and Judgment, this Action shall be settled and compromised in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 1 US2000 11623208.1 The Parties agree that the Settlement is contingent on the enactment of legislation to authorize or confirm specific aspects of the Settlement as set forth below. If such legislation, which will expressly reference this Agreement, is not enacted on or before the Legislation Enactment Deadline as defined in this Agreement, unless such date is mutually agreed to be extended by the Parties, or is enacted with material changes, the Agreement shall automatically become null and void. BACKGROUND 1. On June 10, 1996, a class action complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “Court”) entitled Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, et al., No. Civ. 96-1285 (RCL) (currently denominated as Elouise Pepion Cobell v. Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior, et al., 96-1285 (JR)) (this “Action”), seeking to redress alleged breaches of trust by the United States, and its trustee-delegates the Secretary of Interior, the Assistant Secretary of Interior-Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Treasury, regarding the management of Individual Indian Money (“IIM”) Accounts held on behalf of individual Indians. 2. The Complaint sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief construing the trust obligations of the Defendants to members of the Plaintiff class and declaring that Defendants have breached and are in continuing breach of their trust obligations to class members, an order compelling Defendants to perform these legally mandated obligations, and requesting an accounting by Interior Defendants (as hereinafter defined) of individual Indian trust assets. See Cobell v. Babbitt, 52 F.Supp. 2d 11, 19 (D.D.C. 1999) (“Cobell III”). 3. On February 4, 1997, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Action Certification pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) “on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of 2 US2000 11623208.1 present and former beneficiaries of IIM Accounts (exclusive of those who prior to the filing of the Complaint herein had filed actions on their own behalf alleging claims included in the Complaint)” (the “February 4, 1997 Class Certification Order”), reserving the jurisdiction to modify the February 4, 1997 Class Certification Order as the interests of justice may require, id. at 2-3. 4. On December 21, 1999, the Court held, among other things, that Defendants were then in breach of certain of their respective trust duties, Cobell v. Babbitt, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1, 58 (D.D.C. 1999) (“Cobell V”). 5. On February 23, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) upheld the Court’s determination that Defendants were in breach of their statutory trust duties, Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“Cobell VI”). 6. Subsequently, the Court made determinations that had the effect of modifying the February 4, 1997 Class Certification Order, determining on January 30, 2008, that the right to an accounting accrued on October 25, 1994, “for all then-living IIM beneficiaries: those who hold or at any point in their lives held IIM Accounts.” Cobell v. Kempthorne, 532 F. Supp. 2d 37, 98 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Cobell XX”). 7. The Court and the Court of Appeals have further clarified those individual Indians entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint in the following respects: (a) Excluding income derived from individual Indian trust land that was received by an individual Indian beneficiary on a direct pay basis, Cobell XX, 532 F. Supp. 2d at 95-96; (b) Excluding income derived from individual Indian trust land where such funds were managed by tribes, id.; (c) Excluding IIM Accounts closed prior to October 25, 1994, date of passage of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103­ 3 US2000 11623208.1 412, 108 Stat. 4239 codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 162a et. seq. (the “Trust Reform Act”), Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808, 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Cobell XXII); and (d) Excluding heirs to money from closed accounts that were subject to final probate determinations, id. 8. On July 24, 2009, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that “[t]he district court sitting in equity must do everything it can to ensure that [Interior Defendants] provide [plaintiffs] an equitable accounting,” Id. at 813. 9. This Action has continued for over 13 years, there is no end anticipated in the foreseeable future, and the Parties are mindful of the admonition of the Court of Appeals that they work together “to resolve this case expeditiously and fairly,” Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 317, 336 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and desire to do so. 10. Recognizing that individual Indian trust beneficiaries have potential additional claims arising from Defendants’ management of trust funds and trust assets, Defendants have an interest in a broad resolution of past differences in order to establish a productive relationship in the future. 11. The Parties recognize that an integral part of trust reform includes accelerating correction of the fractionated ownership of trust or restricted land, which makes administration of the individual Indian trust more difficult. 12. The Parties also recognize that another part of trust reform includes correcting the problems created by the escheatment of certain individual Indians’ ownership of trust or restricted land, which has been held to be unconstitutional (see Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997); Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987)) and which makes administration of the individual Indian trust difficult. 4 US2000 11623208.1 13. Plaintiffs believe that further actions are necessary to reform the individual Indian trust, but hope that such further reforms are made without the need for additional litigation. Plaintiffs are also hopeful that the Commission which Secretary Salazar is announcing contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement will result in the further reform which Plaintiffs believe is needed. 14. The Parties have an interest in as complete a resolution as possible for individual Indian trust-related claims and agree that this necessarily includes establishing a sum certain as a balance for each IIM Account as of a date certain. 15. Defendants deny and continue to deny any and all liability and damages to any individual Indian trust beneficiary with respect to the claims or causes of action asserted in the Litigation or the facts found by the Court in this Litigation. Nonetheless, without admitting or conceding any liability or damages whatsoever and without admitting any wrongdoing, and without conceding the appropriateness of class treatment for claims asserted in any future complaint, Defendants have agreed to settle the Litigation (as hereinafter defined) on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, to avoid the burden, expense, and uncertainty of continuing the case. 16. Class Counsel have conducted appropriate investigations and analyzed and evaluated the merits of the claims made, and judgments rendered, against Defendants in the Litigation, the findings, conclusions and holdings of the Court and Court of Appeals in this Litigation, and the impact of this Settlement on Plaintiffs as well as the impact of no settlement, and based upon their analysis and their evaluation of a number of factors, and recognizing the substantial risks of continued litigation, including the possibility that the Litigation, if not settled now, might not result in any recovery, or might result in a recovery that is less favorable than 5 US2000 11623208.1 that provided for in this Settlement, and that otherwise a fair judgment would not occur for several years, Class Counsel are satisfied that the terms and conditions of this Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate and that this Settlement is in the best interests of all Class Members. 17. The Parties desire to settle the Litigation and resolve their differences based on the terms set forth in this Agreement. TERMS OF AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this Background, the mutual covenants and promises set forth in this Agreement, as well as the good and valuable consideration provided for in this Agreement, the Parties agree to a full and complete settlement of the Litigation on the following terms. A. DEFINITIONS 1. Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. “Accounting/Trust Administration Fund” shall mean the $1,412,000,000.00 that Defendants shall pay into a Settlement Account held in the trust department of a Qualified Bank (as hereinafter defined) selected by Plaintiffs and approved by the Court, as well as any interest or investment income earned before distribution. The $1,412,000,000.00 payment represents the maximum total amount that Defendants are required to pay to settle Historical Accounting Claims, Funds Administration Claims, and Land Administration Claims. 2. Amended Complaint. “Amended Complaint ” shall mean the complaint amended by Plaintiffs solely as part of this Agreement, and for the sole purpose of settling this Litigation, to be filed with the Court concurrently with, and attached to, this Agreement. 3. Amount Payable for Each Valid Claim. “Amount Payable for Each Valid Claim” shall mean the amount prescribed in section E.3 and E.4 below. 6 US2000 11623208.1 4. Assigned Value. “Assigned Value” shall have the meaning set forth in subsection E(4)(b)(3) below. 5. Claims Administrator. “Claims Administrator” shall mean The Garden City Group, Inc., which shall provide services to the Parties to facilitate administrative matters and distribution of the Amount Payable for Each Valid Claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 6. Classes. “Classes” shall mean the classes established for purposes of this Agreement: the Historical Accounting Class and the Trust Administration Class (both as hereinafter defined). 7. Class Counsel. “Class Counsel” shall mean Dennis Gingold, Thaddeus Holt and attorneys from Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, including Elliott H. Levitas, Keith Harper, William Dorris, David Smith, William Austin, Adam Charnes and Justin Guilder. 8. Class Members. “Class Members” shall mean members of the Classes. 9. Contact Information. “Contact Information” shall mean the best and most current information the Department of the Interior (“Interior”) then has available of a beneficiary’s name, social security number, date of birth, and mailing address, and whether Interior’s individual Indian trust records reflect that beneficiary to be a minor, non-compos mentis, an individual under legal disability, an adult in need of assistance or whereabouts unknown. 10. Day. “Day” shall mean a calendar day. 11. Defendants. “Defendants” shall mean Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, Larry Echohawk, Assistant Secretary of the Interior – Indian Affairs, and H. Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and their successors in office, all in their official capacities. 7 US2000 11623208.1 12. Fairness Hearing. “Fairness Hearing ” shall mean the hearing on the Joint Motion for Judgment and Final Approval referenced in Paragraph D(4) below. 13. Final Approval. “Final Approval” shall mean the occurrence of the following: a. Following the Fairness Hearing, the Court has entered Judgment; and b. The Judgment has become final. “Final” means the later of: (1) The time for rehearing or reconsideration, appellate review, and review by petition for certiorari has expired, and no motion for rehearing or reconsideration and/or notice of appeal has been filed; or (2) If rehearing, reconsideration, or appellate review, or review by petition for certiorari is sought, after any and all avenues of rehearing, reconsideration, appellate review, or review by petition for certiorari have been exhausted, and no further rehearing, reconsideration, appellate review, or review by petition for certiorari is permitted, or the time for seeking such review has expired, and the Judgment has not been modified, amended or reversed in any way. 14. Funds Administration Claims. “Funds Administration Claims” shall mean known and unknown claims that have been or could have been asserted through the Record Date for Defendants’ alleged breach of trust and mismanagement of individual Indian trust funds, and consist of Defendants’ alleged: a. Failure to collect or credit funds owed under a lease, sale, easement or other transaction, including without limitation, failure to collect or credit 8 US2000 11623208.1 all money due, failure to audit royalties and failure to collect interest on late payments; b. Failure to invest; c. Underinvestment; d. Imprudent management and investment; e. Erroneous or improper distributions or disbursements, including to the wrong person or account; f. Excessive or improper administrative fees; g. Deposits into wrong accounts; h. Misappropriation; i. Funds withheld unlawfully and in breach of trust; j. Loss of funds held in failed depository institutions, including interest; k. Failure as trustee to control or investigate allegations of, and obtain compensation for, theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, fraud, trespass, or other misconduct regarding trust assets; l. Failure to pay or credit interest, including interest on Indian monies proceeds of labor (IMPL), special deposit accounts, and IIM Accounts; m. Loss of funds or investment securities, and the income or proceeds earned from such funds or securities; n. Accounting errors; o. Failure to deposit and/or disburse funds in a timely fashion; and 9 US2000 11623208.1 p. Claims of like nature and kind arising out of allegations of Defendants’ breach of trust and/or mismanagement of individual Indian trust funds through the Record Date, that have been or could have been asserted. 15. Historical Accounting Claims. “Historical Accounting Claims” shall mean common law or statutory claims, including claims arising under the Trust Reform Act, for a historical accounting through the Record Date of any and all IIM Accounts and any asset held in trust or restricted status, including but not limited to Land (as defined herein) and funds held in any account, and which now are, or have been, beneficially owned or held by an individual Indian trust beneficiary who is a member of the Historical Accounting Class. These claims include the historical accounting through the Record Date of all funds collected and held in trust by Defendants and their financial and fiscal agents in open or closed accounts, as well as interest earned on such funds, whether such funds are deposited in IIM Accounts, or in tribal, special deposit, or government administrative or operating accounts. 16. Historical Accounting Class. “Historical Accounting Class” means those individual Indian beneficiaries (exclusive of those who prior to the filing of the Complaint on June 10, 1996 had filed actions on their own behalf stating a claim for a historical accounting) alive on the Record Date and who had an IIM Account open during any period between October 25, 1994 and the Record Date, which IIM Account had at least one cash transaction credited to it at any time as long as such credits were not later reversed. Beneficiaries deceased as of the Record Date are included in the Historical Accounting Class only if they had an IIM Account that was open as of the Record Date. The estate of any Historical Accounting Class Member who dies after the Record Date but before distribution is in the Historical Accounting Class. 10 US2000 11623208.1 17. IIM Account. “IIM Account” means an IIM account as defined in title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, section 115.002. 18. Interior Defendants. “Interior Defendants” shall mean Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, and Larry Echohawk, Assistant Secretary of the Interior – Indian Affairs, and their successors in office, all in their official capacities. 19. Land. “Land” shall mean land owned by individual Indians and held in trust or restricted status by Interior Defendants, including all resources on, and corresponding subsurface rights, if any, in the land, and water, unless otherwise indicated. 20. Land Consolidation Program. The fractional interest acquisition program authorized in 25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., including any applicable legislation enacted pursuant to this Agreement. 21. Land Administration Claims. “Land Administration Claims” shall mean known and unknown claims that have been or could have been asserted through the Record Date for Interior Defendants’ alleged breach of trust and fiduciary mismanagement of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, water and other resources and rights (the “resources”) situated on, in or under Land and consist of Interior Defendants’ alleged: a. Failure to lease Land, approve leases or otherwise productively use Lands or assets; b. Failure to obtain fair market value for leases, easements, rights-of-way or sales; c. Failure to prudently negotiate leases, easements, rights-of-way, sales or other transactions; d. Failure to impose and collect penalties for late payments; 11 US2000 11623208.1 e. Failure to include or enforce terms requiring that Land be conserved, maintained, or improved; f. Permitting loss, dissipation, waste, or ruin, including failure to preserve Land whether involving agriculture (including but not limited to failing to control agricultural pests), grazing, harvesting (including but not limited to permitting overly aggressive harvesting), timber lands (including but not limited to failing to plant and cull timber land for maximum yield), and oil, natural gas, mineral resources or other resources (including but not limited to failing to manage oil, natural gas, or mineral resources to maximize total production); g. Misappropriation; h. Failure to control, investigate allegations of, or obtain relief in equity and at law for, trespass, theft, misappropriation, fraud or misconduct regarding Land; i. Failure to correct boundary errors, survey or title record errors, or failure to properly apportion and track allotments; and j. Claims of like nature and kind arising out of allegations of Interior Defendants’ breach of trust and/or mismanagement of Land through the Record Date, that have been or could have been asserted. 22. Legislation Enactment Deadline. “Legislation Enactment Deadline” shall mean December 31, 2009, 11:59 p.m. Eastern time. 23. Litigation. “Litigation” shall mean that which is stated in the Amended Complaint attached to this Agreement. 12 US2000 11623208.1 24. Named Plaintiffs; Class Representatives. “Named Plaintiffs” shall mean and include Elouise Pepion Cobell (“Lead Plaintiff”), Penny Cleghorn, Thomas Maulson, and James Louis Larose. The Named Plaintiffs are also referred to as the “Class Representatives.” 25. Notice Contractor. “Notice Contractor” shall mean a mutually agreeable entity that shall provide services to the Parties needed to provide notice to the Classes. 26. Order Granting Preliminary Approval. “Order Granting Preliminary Approval” shall mean the Order entered by the Court preliminarily approving the terms set forth in this Agreement, including the manner and timing of providing notice to the Classes, the time period for objections and the date, time and location for a Fairness Hearing. 27. Parties. “Parties” shall mean the Named Plaintiffs, members of the Classes, and Defendants. 28. Preliminary Approval. “Preliminary Approval” shall mean that the Court has entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval. 29. Qualifying Bank; Qualified Bank. “Qualifying Bank” or “Qualified Bank” shall mean a federally insured depository institution that is "well capitalized," as that term is defined in 12 CFR §325.103, and that is subject to regulation and supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency under 12 CFR §9.18. 30. Record Date. “Record Date” shall mean September 30, 2009, 11:59 p.m. Eastern time. 31. Settlement Account. “Settlement Account” shall mean the trust account(s) established by Class Counsel in a Qualified Bank approved by the Court for the purpose of effectuating the Settlement and into which the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund shall be 13 US2000 11623208.1 deposited and from which Stage 1 and Stage 2 Distributions, among other things set forth in this Agreement, shall be paid. 32. Special Master. “Special Master” shall be the person appointed by the Court as provided in paragraph E.1.a. 33. Stage 1; Stage 1 Distribution. “Stage 1” and “Stage 1 Distribution” shall mean the distribution to the Historical Accounting Class as provided in paragraph E(3). 34. Stage 2; Stage 2 Distribution. “Stage 2” and “Stage 2 Distribution” shall mean the distribution to the Trust Administration Class as provided in paragraph E(4). 35. Trust Administration Class. “Trust Administration Class” shall mean those individual Indian beneficiaries (exclusive of persons who filed actions on their own behalf, or a group of individuals who were certified as a class in a class action, stating a Funds Administration Claim or a Land Administration Claim prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint) alive as of the Record Date and who have or had IIM Accounts in the “Electronic Ledger Era” (currently available electronic data in systems of the Department of the Interior dating from approximately 1985 to the present), as well as individual Indians who, as of the Record Date, had a recorded or other demonstrable ownership interest in land held in trust or restricted status, regardless of the existence of an IIM Account and regardless of the proceeds, if any, generated from the Land. The Trust Administration Class does not include beneficiaries deceased as of the Record Date, but does include the estate of any deceased beneficiary whose IIM Accounts or other trust assets had been open in probate as of the Record Date. The estate of any Trust Administration Class Member who dies after the Record Date but before distribution is included in the Trust Administration Class. 14 US2000 11623208.1 36. Trust Land Consolidation Fund. “Trust Land Consolidation Fund” shall mean the $2,000,000,000.00 allocated to Interior Defendants and held in a separate account in Treasury for the purpose of acquiring fractional interests in trust or restricted land and such other purposes as permitted by this Agreement and applicable law. B. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 1. Legislation Required. The Parties agree that the Agreement is contingent on the enactment of legislation to authorize specific aspects of the Agreement. The Parties agree that enactment of this legislation is material and essential to this Agreement and that if such legislation is not enacted into law by the Legislation Enactment Deadline, unless such date is mutually agreed by the Parties in writing to be extended, or is enacted with material changes, the Agreement shall automatically become null and void. In the event this Agreement becomes null and void, nothing in this Agreement may be used against any Party for any purpose. 2. Effect of Material Modifications. A copy of the proposed legislation is attached as Exhibit “A”. If legislation is enacted in any manner at any time prior to Final Approval which alters, expands, narrows or modifies the attached proposed legislation in any material way, this Agreement shall be null and void in its entirety. 3. Amended Complaint. a. Amendment of Complaint. Within two business days of enactment of the legislation, or by January 15, 2010, whichever is later, Plaintiffs will file an Amended Complaint to which Defendants will provide written consent provided that such Amended Complaint conforms with the proposed Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit “B” to this Agreement. Defendants’ obligation to answer the Amended Complaint shall be held in abeyance pending Final Approval. Defendants’ written consent to the 15 US2000 11623208.1 filing constitutes neither an admission of liability regarding any Funds Administration Claims and/or Land Administration Claims, nor a waiver of any defense to such claims in any form. b. Causes of Action. The Amended Complaint will include (a) a claim for breach of trust with respect to individual Indians and related request for an historical accounting of the IIM Account, (b) a claim for breach of trust seeking equitable restitution to restate the IIM Accounts in accordance with the historical accounting requested, and (c) one or more claims for breach of trust with respect to Defendants’ mismanagement of trust funds and trust assets requesting damages, restitution and other monetary relief. c. Classes. The Amended Complaint will set forth the Historical Accounting Class and the Accounting/Trust Administration Class as the two plaintiff classes. d. Claims. For purposes of settlement only, and only as a provision of this Agreement, the Amended Complaint will include Funds Administration Claims and Land Administration Claims. 4. Preliminary Approval. a. Joint Motion. Concurrent with the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Parties shall file a joint motion for Preliminary Approval of this Agreement by the Court and attach a copy of this Agreement and such other documents which the Parties determine are necessary for the Court’s consideration. 16 US2000 11623208.1 b. Class Certification. The joint motion referenced in subparagraph a. above shall include a joint request by the Parties that the Court certify the Trust Administration Class pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3), and also to amend the February 4, 1997 Order Certifying Class Action under FRCP 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2), in accordance with this Agreement. 5. Requirement for Notice Acknowledged. The Parties recognize that the Court is required to provide the Historical Accounting Class and the Trust Administration Class, pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(2)(A) and (B), as applicable, with reasonable and appropriate notice of (i) the Action, (ii) the proposed Agreement, and (iii) the opportunity for members of the Trust Administration Class to opt out of the settlement pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph C(2)(c), and, pursuant to FRCP 23(h), with reasonable and appropriate notice of attorney fees and costs to be requested by Class Counsel. 6. Joint Motion If Settlement Not Completed. Should (a) either party terminate this Agreement pursuant to the terms hereof, (b) this Agreement become null and void because a condition subsequent does not occur, or (c) this Agreement not finally be approved by the Court, the Parties shall file a joint motion (i) to strike the Amended Complaint, (ii) to vacate any Order of the Court certifying the Amended Complaint as a class action, and (iii) to restore the Parties to the status quo ante. C. CLASS NOTICE AND OPT OUT 1. Class Notice. a. Commencement of Notice. Upon entry of an Order granting Preliminary Approval, the Notice Contractor, in cooperation with Class Counsel and Interior Defendants, shall notify the Classes of this Agreement. 17 US2000 11623208.1 b. Direct Notice. The Parties shall use reasonable efforts, and utilize the services of the Notice Contractor and Claims Administrator, as appropriate, to effectuate a Direct Class Notice as soon as practicable following the date of entry of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval. c. Published Notice. The Parties shall also use reasonable efforts and the services of the Notice Contractor to effectuate Published Class Notice through the use of media, including targeted mainstream and Native American media (including translation to native language where appropriate) contemporaneous with the mailing of the Direct Class Notice. d. Contents of Notice. Pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(2), the notice to the Class Members shall include the following general notice information: the definition of the certified class[es]; a general description of the litigation and its claims, issues, and defenses; material terms of this proposed Agreement; procedures for allocating and distributing funds in the Settlement Account; Class Counsel’s request for and amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs; Class Representatives’ incentive awards, including expenses and costs; options available to settlement Class Members, including the manner, time limits, forum and form of an objection to this proposed Agreement; options available to potential Class Members (“claimants”) to participate in a Stage 2 distribution, including the manner, time limits and form for such an application; the right of any Class Member to enter an appearance pro se or through an attorney to object to the Agreement or any of its terms; the nature and scope of opt 18 US2000 11623208.1 out rights; actions that are required to opt out of the Agreement; the effect of opt outs on the Agreement; the mailing address and toll-free telephone number of the Claims Administrator for class inquiries and clarifications regarding the Settlement; the date, time, and location of the Final Approval Hearing on Agreement; the binding effect on a Class Member’s IIM Account balance as of the Record Date unless the Class Member opts out of the Trust Administration Class; and the binding effect of the Agreement on Class Members. e. Interior’s Second Notice Option. In addition to the Notice described in section 1.d, above, Interior Defendants reserve the right to issue a Second Notice after the Fairness Hearing, with such Second Notice containing detailed information regarding the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and the Land Consolidation Program. The cost of this Second Notice would be a separate expense borne by Interior Defendants. 2. Class Member Opt Out. a. No Opt Out for Historical Accounting Class. In accordance with FRCP 23(b)(2), no opt out will be available to those Class Members in the Historical Accounting Class. b. Deadline for Trust Administration Class Opt Outs. The deadline for those Class Members in the Trust Administration Class to opt out will be sixty (60) days from the first day Notice is sent. Timeliness will be determined using the opt out or objection postmark date. 19 US2000 11623208.1 c. Opt Out Requirements. To opt out, members of the Trust Administration Class must submit to the Claims Administrator a written request for exclusion. The request for exclusion must include the individual’s full name, address, IIM Account number(s), Social Security Number, and a statement of the individual’s intention to opt out of the Settlement. d. Opt Out List. The Claims Administrator shall compile a list of valid opt outs for submission to the Court and, if the Parties disagree over the validity of any opt out determination, then any such disagreement may be lodged with the Court for a final and binding decision. Through the date Class Members must exercise their option to opt out, the Claims Administrator shall be contractually bound to provide written daily status reports in a format agreeable to the Parties that identifies each and every person who has opted out. e. Opt Out Fund Adjustment. When Class Members opt out of the Trust Administration Class, the amount of the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund shall be reduced by the amount such an opting out Class Member would have received in his or her Stage 2 payment, including both the baseline payment and the pro rata amounts. Such amounts for opt outs shall be determined prior to the Stage 2 distribution and paid to Defendants contemporaneous with the distribution of Stage 2 payments. f. Kick-Out Option. In the event that the Class Members who do not opt out of the Trust Administration Class represent in the aggregate less than eighty five percent (85%) of the aggregate amount of all Assigned Values, 20 US2000 11623208.1 then Defendants, at their sole option, may elect to withdraw from and fully terminate this Agreement in which case the Parties will be restored to their prior positions as though the Agreement had never been executed, except as provided in paragraph D.7. In exercising such an election to terminate, Defendants must terminate the Agreement in its entirety and may not terminate only parts of the Agreement. Defendants must exercise this election to terminate no later than one day before the Fairness Hearing by filing a notice with the Court with a schedule under seal of Class Members who opted out and their respective Assigned Values. Any disputes regarding an attempt by Defendants to terminate shall be decided by the Court. D. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND FINAL APPROVAL 1. Motion for Judgment. Pursuant to this Agreement and in accordance with the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the Parties will submit a Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment and Final Approval for consideration by the Court at the Fairness Hearing. 2. Objections to Settlement. A Class Member who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of this Agreement or of the Settlement contemplated hereby must file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on the Parties a statement of the objection setting forth the specific reason(s), if any, for the objection, including any legal support that the Class Member wishes to bring to the Court’s attention, any evidence that the Class Member wishes to introduce in support of the objection, any grounds to support his or her status as a Class Member, and whether the Class Member intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Class Members may act either on their own or through counsel employed at their own expense. Any Class Member 21 US2000 11623208.1 may appear at the Fairness Hearing to object to any aspect of the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of this Agreement or of the Settlement. 3. Binding Effect. Any Class Member who neither objects to the Agreement nor opts out of the Class as provided in paragraph C(2), shall waive and forfeit any and all rights the Class Member may have to appear separately and/or to object and to opt out and shall be bound by all the terms of the Agreement and by all proceedings, orders and judgments in the Litigation. 4. Fairness Hearing. At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties will request that the Court, among other things: a. Grant final certification of the Classes; b. Enter Judgment in accordance with this Agreement; c. Approve the Settlement as final, fair, reasonable, adequate, and binding on all Class Members who have not timely opted out pursuant to paragraph C(2); d. Approve the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs for Class Counsel; e. Approve the incentive awards for Class Representatives, including expenses and costs that were not paid for by attorneys; f. Order the Claims Administrator to process and pay all Valid Claims from the Settlement Account; g. Order the release of all Class Members’ claims pursuant to paragraph I(1)–(9); and h. Order Defendants to make the final payment into the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. 22 US2000 11623208.1 5. Final Approval. The Court’s Final Approval shall grant each of those requests. 6. Effect of Failure to Grant Final Approval. If Final Approval does not occur, this Agreement shall be null and void. 7. Return of Remaining Funds in Settlement Account if No Final Approval. If for any reason Final Approval cannot be achieved, the Notice Contractor and Claims Administrator shall be notified to cease work. To the extent any funds remain in the Settlement Account, Class Counsel shall promptly seek a Court order to pay the remaining valid invoices of the Notice Contractor and Claims Administrator and, within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Parties shall jointly seek a Court order to return to Defendants all funds, if any, that then remain in the Settlement Account. Defendants shall not be entitled to recoup from Plaintiffs or Class Counsel any funds already spent from the Settlement Account. E. ACCOUNTING/TRUST ADMINISTRATION FUND 1. General Provisions a. Special Master. Upon Final Approval, the Parties shall request that the Court appoint a Rule 53 Special Master, who shall have only the duties referenced in this Agreement when so designated by the Court. The Special Master shall only be involved in taking certain actions or making certain determinations in connection with the distribution of the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and eligibility of individuals to participate as Class Members. The Special Master shall have no role regarding the distribution of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Special Master shall also have no role in resolving any disputes between (i) the Parties or (ii) a Class Member and Defendants. The Special Master shall be paid out of funds in the Settlement Account, and shall submit 23 US2000 11623208.1 invoices for fees and expenses to Class Counsel, at reasonable intervals, who shall file them with the Court, requesting an order to pay the Special Master. All disputes regarding the Special Master’s invoices or compensation shall be decided by the Court. The Parties agree to cooperate to minimize the costs of the Special Master. b. Claims Administrator. The Parties agree to cooperate as to all aspects of this Agreement to minimize the costs of the Claims Administrator. All payments to the Claims Administrator must be for reasonable and necessary services in accordance with detailed invoices provided to the Parties and approved by the Court or the Special Master as the Court may designate. Class Counsel shall be responsible for submitting such invoices to the Court and may include invoices for the Claims Administrator’s fees, expenses and costs incurred prior to Preliminary Approval. c. Qualifying Bank. The Accounting/Trust Administration Fund shall be deposited in, and administered by, the trust department(s) of a Qualified Bank or Qualified Banks. To the extent settlement funds are held in deposit accounts in excess of FDIC insurance coverage, the excess amount shall be collateralized with securities that are U.S. Treasury or other securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. d. Duties. Class Counsel, with the Claims Administrator, shall have responsibility for administering the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund in accordance with this Agreement. Class Counsel shall provide the 24 US2000 11623208.1 necessary account information to Defendants as needed to support deposit of the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. e. Distributions. All distributions from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund shall be made pursuant to final Order of the Court or the Special Master as the Court may designate. The Amount Payable for Each Valid Claim and the claims process for making such payment shall be in accordance with the terms set forth below. f. Reliance on Defendants’ Information. Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator shall be entitled to rely on the information provided by the Interior Defendants in making the distributions provided for in this Agreement. g. Defendants’ Limited Role. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, Defendants shall have no role in, nor be held responsible or liable in any way for, the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, the holding or investment of the monies in the Qualifying Bank or the distribution of such monies. h. Payments to minors, non-compos mentis, individuals under legal disability, or adults in need of assistance. Class Members who are known to be minors, non-compos mentis, individuals under legal disability, or adults in need of assistance and who have an account open as of the date(s) of distribution shall have their distributions deposited into their IIM Accounts. If necessary, an IIM Account will be opened by Interior Defendants for each of them. Interior Defendants shall receive these 25 US2000 11623208.1 deposits as trust funds for the benefit of the pertinent individual Indian beneficiary. i. Payments to “whereabouts unknown”. Class Members who are deemed by Interior Defendants be “whereabouts unknown” and who have an account open as of the date of distribution shall have their distributions deposited into their IIM Accounts. For any Class Member who is designated as a “whereabouts unknown” and is not a minor, non-compos mentis, an individual under legal disability, or an adult in need of assistance, and does not claim any funds deposited in that beneficiary’s IIM Account as a result of this Agreement within five (5) years after the date Defendants first transfer monies for the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund to the Qualifying Bank, the principal amount of the funds deposited pursuant to this Agreement in that beneficiary’s IIM Account shall be paid by Interior Defendants to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund set out in Section G of this Agreement. 2. Payments into the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund a. Defendants shall pay $1,412,000,000.00 to the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund in the Settlement Account. This amount shall be paid in installments from the Judgment Fund, as set forth in subparagraphs b, c and d, below. b. Concurrent with the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Parties shall move the Court for an order requiring Defendants to pay $20,000,000.00 to the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund in the Settlement Account, 26 US2000 11623208.1 to be used by Plaintiffs to retain the Claims Administrator and Notice Contractor for necessary work required before Final Approval. Defendants shall make this payment upon order of the Court. c. The Parties may jointly move the Court to order such further payments to the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund as are necessary to fund the work of the Claims Administrator and/or Notice Contractor before Final Approval. Defendants shall make payments requested in the joint motion upon order of the Court. d. Upon Final Approval, Defendants shall pay $1,412,000,000.00 to the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, less any amounts paid under paragraphs b and c, above. 3. Stage 1: Payment of Historical Accounting Claims a. Per-Person Payment. Each member of the Historical Accounting Class shall be paid a per capita amount of $1,000.00 after Final Approval. This will be a per-person, not a per-account, payment. b. Stage 1 Information from Interior Defendants. Interior Defendants will provide periodic updates on Contact Information on an ongoing basis. Within 30 days after Defendants first transfer monies for the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund to the Qualified Bank, the Claims Administrator will be able to rely on the Contact Information Interior Defendants then have for beneficiaries to make a Stage 1 distribution. c. Returned Funds; Remainder Account. For distributions returned from the Stage 1 distribution, the Qualified Bank, working with the Claims 27 US2000 11623208.1 Administrator, shall use its best efforts to ensure that all such funds are deposited into the appropriate individual Indian beneficiary’s trust account at Interior, if open, or into a separate interest bearing account at the Qualifying Bank (“Remainder Account”) if no such IIM Account exists. The Claims Administrator shall take reasonable steps to locate, and distribute funds to, Class Members whose funds are deposited into the Remainder Account. If a Stage 1 participant whose funds were deposited into the Remainder Account subsequently provides documentation which is sufficient to show that such beneficiary is the Stage 1 participant for whom the returned funds were intended, Class Counsel shall file such documentation with the Court or the Special Master as the Court may designate, requesting an order to pay $1,000.00 to each such beneficiary from the Remainder account. 4. Stage 2: Payment of Trust Administration Claims a. Final Determination of Class Prior to Payment. No Stage 2 payments shall be made until all Stage 2 Class Members have been identified in accordance with this Agreement and their respective pro rata interests have been calculated. b. Stage 2 Formula. Each individual Indian beneficiary determined to be within the Trust Administration Class in accordance with paragraph A.35 shall be paid after Final Approval a pro rata amount based upon the following formula: 28 US2000 11623208.1 (1) Baseline Payment. Each individual Indian beneficiary determined to be within the Trust Administration Class shall be paid a baseline amount of $500.00; (2) Amounts Available for Prorating. In addition, each individual Indian beneficiary in the Trust Administration Class who has or had an IIM Account that generated income that was credited to that IIM Account shall be paid an additional pro rata share of the funds remaining in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund after deducting (a) amounts attributable to opt outs in accordance with paragraph C.2 of this Agreement, (b) all Stage 1 distributions, (c) an amount sufficient to cover a baseline payment to all Stage 2 Class Members, (d) the amount deemed necessary to fund the Reserve Fund provided for in section E.4.e.6; (e) all payments made, or to be made to, Class Counsel in accordance with an Order of the Court, (f) all payments made to, or to be made to, Class Representatives in accordance with an Order of the Court, (g) all payments to cover the costs of notice, administration and distribution of the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund (including but not limited to payments to the Notice Contractor, Claims Administrator, and Qualified Bank), and (g) an amount estimated by the Class Counsel to pay the remaining and future costs to be paid out of the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund for notice, administration and distribution. 29 US2000 11623208.1 (3) Calculation of Pro Rata Share. The additional pro rata share referenced in paragraph E.4 above will be calculated based upon an Assigned Value. The Assigned Value will be the average of the ten (10) highest revenue generating years in each individual Indian’s IIM Account, from October 1, 1985 until the Record Date (September 30, 2009). If an account is open fewer than ten (10) years or otherwise reflects fewer than ten (10) years of revenue, the computation of the Assigned Value will utilize a zero dollar amount in each year that no revenue is reflected. For beneficiaries with more than one account during that period, the Assigned Value is calculated on an account by account basis for that Class Member, with each of the resulting calculations added together. Reversed transactions and inter-account transfers between an individual’s accounts will not be considered in the calculation. A Class Member’s pro rata percentage in the Stage 2 distribution shall be calculated based upon his or her Assigned Value divided by the sum of all Assigned Values for all Trust Administration Class Members. This percentage shall then be applied to the funds available for prorating to determine the Class Member’s pro rata payment. c. Information from Interior Defendants for Stage 2. Interior Defendants shall provide assistance to the Claims Administrator with respect to the preparation and creation of (i) the Contact Information for Stage 2 30 US2000 11623208.1 participants and (ii) the Assigned Value calculations and related Assigned Value percentages described in this Agreement. d. Returned Stage 2 Funds. For distributions returned from the Stage 2 distribution, the Qualifying Bank, with assistance from the Claims Administrator, shall use its best efforts to ensure that all such funds are deposited into the appropriate individual Indian beneficiary’s trust account at Interior, if open, or into a Remainder Account if no such IIM Account exists. The Claims Administrator shall take reasonable steps to locate, and distribute funds to, the Class Member associated with such returned funds. If a Stage 2 participant whose funds were returned subsequently provides documentation which is sufficient to the Claims Administrator to demonstrate that such beneficiary is the Stage 2 participant for whom the returned funds were intended, Class Counsel shall file such documentation with the Court or the Special Master as the Court may designate, requesting an order to pay amounts due to such beneficiary from the Remainder Account. In the event the documentation is determined insufficient by the Claims Administrator, notice of that determination shall be provided to the person submitting the documentation, who shall then have the right to the reconsideration process set forth in paragraph E(5) below. e. Stage 2 Timeline. Stage 2 funds shall be distributed pursuant to the following timeline. The Court in its discretion may extend any Stage 2 deadline upon a showing of good cause. 31 US2000 11623208.1 (1) Supplementary Notice. The Parties shall direct the Notice Contractor to undertake a supplementary notice campaign as soon as practicable following distribution of the Stage 1 funds. The purpose of this notice is to target potential claimants and provide information related to the Stage 2 distribution. Such notice shall be targeted generally in Native American population centers. (2) Standards and Procedures. The Claims Administrator shall prepare standards and procedures for the submission, timing and adequacy of documentation for potential additional Stage 2 participants who self-identify. The Parties shall provide assistance to the Claims Administrator to develop such standards and procedures. The Interior Defendants shall designate a liaison to the Claims Administrator for purposes of verifying documentation or responding to other queries regarding submitted documentation that might not be addressed by the agreed-to standards and procedures. The Claims Administrator may rely upon the Interior liaison’s response or, after 14 days, the absence of a response, to the query in evaluating the submitted documentation. The Claims Administrator will take reasonable steps to provide assistance to potential claimants at all phases during the Stage 2 distribution so that they can comply with the agreed-to standards and procedures for the submission of documentation. The Claims Administrator shall maintain adequate records documenting all communications 32 US2000 11623208.1 with Class Members and such records shall be available to the Parties upon reasonable request. (3) Self-Identification Period. Potential class members who wish to participate in the Stage 2 distributions shall submit any documentation to the Claims Administrator within 45 days of Final Approval or such later date as the Court may order. (4) Initial Determination. The Claims Administrator shall make an initial determination with respect to each claimant’s inclusion in the Stage 2 class within 90 days of Final Approval or such later date as the Court may order and shall so inform claimants in writing. If a potential claimant is denied participation as part of the initial determination, the Claims Administrator shall state the basis for its denial and the availability of reconsideration with the submission of additional documentation. Claimants who are denied participation in the Stage 2 distribution may submit additional documentation for reconsideration within 120 days of Final Approval or such later date as the Court may order. A claimant’s failure to seek reconsideration will render the Claims Administrator’s initial determination final and binding upon the claimant. (5) Reconsideration. The Claims Administrator shall make a determination with respect to all claimants’ documents submitted in support of their request to reconsider the initial determination. 33 US2000 11623208.1 The Claims Administrator shall make a second determination within 150 days of Final Approval or such later date as the Court may order, and shall so inform each claimant in writing. If a claimant is again denied participation in the Stage 2 distribution, the Claims Administrator shall state the basis of its denial and the availability of appeal to the Court or the Special Master as the Court may designate. Any appeal shall be made within 180 days of Final Approval or such later date as may be ordered by the Court. A claimant’s failure to timely appeal will render the Claims Administrator’s determination final and binding upon the claimant. (6) Creation of Reserve Fund. Prior to the distribution of Stage 2 funds, the Parties shall discuss the timing and funding of a Reserve Fund out of Stage 2 funds to cover beneficiaries who did not receive notice of Stage 2 distributions and come forward after distribution of Stage 2 funds. Any disagreements between the Parties related to the creation and eventual termination of a Reserve Fund shall be presented to the Court. (7) Distribution. After Stage 2 Class Members have been substantially identified, Class Counsel may apply to the Court or the Special Master as the Court may designate for permission to commence Stage 2 distribution. Funds will be set aside for any identified Class Members. Completion of distribution of Stage 2 funds shall be no later than 14 days after the Court’s decision of the last 34 US2000 11623208.1 claimant’s appeal becoming final. The Court’s decision shall be binding and final, unless timely appealed by the potential claimant. (8) Final Disposition of the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. Any excess Accounting/Trust Administration Funds remaining after distribution (e.g., funds not expended on administration), or funds in the Remainder Account, shall be paid to the organization selected as the recipient of the Indian Education Scholarship Fund set out in Section G of this Agreement. F. TRUST LAND CONSOLIDATION FUND 1. Distribution. Conditioned on the enactment of the necessary legislation, the Interior Defendants shall distribute the Trust Land Consolidation Fund in accordance with the Land Consolidation Program authorized under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., any other applicable legislation enacted pursuant to this Agreement, and applicable provisions of this Agreement. 2. Purposes of Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be used solely for the following purposes: (1) acquiring fractional interests in trust or restricted lands; (2) implementing the Land Consolidation Program; and (3) paying the costs related to the work of the Secretarial Commission on Trust Reform, including costs of consultants to the Commission and audits recommended by the Commission. An amount up to a total of no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be used for purposes (2) and (3) above. 3. Fair Market Value. The Interior Defendants shall offer fair market value in accordance with 25 U.S.C. § 2214 to owners of such fractionated interests. Interior Defendants shall use reasonable efforts to prioritize the consolidation of the most highly fractionated tracts of land. 35 US2000 11623208.1 4. Length of Fund. Interior Defendants shall have no more than ten (10) years from the date of Final Approval of this Agreement to expend the Trust Land Consolidation Fund, at which time any amounts remaining in the Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be returned to the Treasury. 5. Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund. Interior Defendants shall make the transfers to and from the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund as provided in paragraphs G.2.c and G.2.d. 6. Whereabouts Unknown. For those owners of fractional interests in trust or restricted land whose whereabouts are deemed unknown by Interior Defendants as of the date of Final Approval of this Agreement, Interior Defendants shall undertake the following additional efforts to attempt to locate such owners: a. Additional Service. In addition to the class notice requirements under this Agreement, the Interior Defendants shall use due diligence to provide all owners whose whereabouts are unknown with actual notice of the opportunity to convey their fractionated interests through the best means available. b. Notice. The Notice shall contain a general description of the Land Consolidation Program, the fractionated interests that the Interior Defendants wish to acquire, the proposed purchase price for such interests, the mailing address and a toll-free number for inquiries and clarifications regarding the Land Consolidation Program, and the process for responding to the offer to purchase. 36 US2000 11623208.1 c. Returned Notice. In the event the written notice to an owner is returned undelivered, the Interior Defendants shall attempt to obtain a current address for such owner by conducting a reasonable search (including a reasonable search of records maintained by local, State, Federal and tribal governments and agencies) and by inquiring with the Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the subject parcel, and, if different from that tribe, the Indian tribe of which the owner is a member, if applicable, and, if successful in locating any such owner, send written notice in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b) above. d. Notice by Publication. The Interior Defendants shall give notice to all owners that the Secretary was unable to provide notice pursuant to subparagraphs (a) thru (c) above, by publication of the opportunity to convey fractionated interests as follows: (1) at least two (2) times in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties where the subject parcel of land is located or, if there is an Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the parcel of land and that tribe publishes a tribal newspaper or newsletter at least once every month, one (1) time in such newspaper of general circulation and one (1) time in such tribal newspaper or newsletter for a period of six (6) months; (2) posting such notice in a conspicuous place in the tribal headquarters or administration building (or such other tribal building determined by the Interior Defendants to be most 37 US2000 11623208.1 appropriate for giving public notice) of the Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the parcel of land, if any; and (3) in addition to the foregoing, in the Interior Defendants' discretion, publishing notice in any other place or means that the Interior Defendants determine to be appropriate. 7. Consent for Conveyances. For those owners of fractional interests in trust or restricted land who are not located after Interior Defendants undertake the measures set forth herein and the passage of five (5) years from the date of Final Approval, the owners shall, to the extent authorized by the legislation contemplated by this Agreement, automatically be deemed to have consented to the conveyance of those fractionated interests that are located on a parcel of highly fractionated Indian land to Interior Defendants. The term “parcel of highly fractionated Indian land” is defined at 22 U.S.C. § 2201(6). 8. Deposits in IIM Accounts. All funds expended from the Trust Land Consolidation Fund for the acquisition of fractional interests from owners whose whereabouts are unknown shall be deposited in an IIM Account for such owners, for the benefit of those owners or their heirs or assigns. G. INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS 1. Funds for Indian Education Scholarships. Funds for Indian Education Scholarships are being established for the principal purposes of providing an additional incentive for individual Indians to participate in the Land Consolidation Program, beneficially utilizing any remainder of any Accounting/Trust Administration Funds, and providing financial assistance to Native American students to defray the cost of attendance at both post-secondary vocational schools and institutions of higher education. 38 US2000 11623208.1 2. Source of Funds. There will be three initial sources of funding for Indian Education Scholarships, as follows: a. Accounting/Trust Administration Fund Balance. In the event that a balance remains in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund following (1) payment of all settlement distributions to Class Members; (2) payment of all settlement notice and distribution costs, including payments to the Notice Contractor, the Claims Administrator, and the Qualifying Bank; (3) payment of all attorney fees and expenses to Class Counsel as approved by the Court, (4) payment of all Class Representative incentive awards, including expenses and costs that were not paid for by attorneys, as approved by the Court, and (5) payment of any other amounts agreed upon by the Parties or ordered by the Court, such remaining balance shall be transferred by the Qualified Bank in a timely manner upon Order of the Court to the organization selected in paragraph 3 of this section to be governed by the special Board of Trustees (that shall be established pursuant to paragraph 3 of this section). b. Unclaimed Whereabouts Unknown Payments. Pursuant to Paragraph E.1.i of this Agreement, for any Class Member who is designated a “whereabouts unknown” and is not a minor, non-compos mentis, an adult under legal disability, or an adult in need of assistance, and does not claim any funds deposited in that beneficiary’s IIM Account within five (5) years after the date of Final Approval, the principal amount of the funds deposited in that beneficiary’s IIM Account from the Accounting/Trust 39 US2000 11623208.1 Administration Fund, shall be transferred in a timely manner by Interior Defendants to the organization selected in paragraph 3 of this section to be governed by the special Board of Trustees (that shall be established pursuant to paragraph 3 of this section), and the United States shall be released from any further obligation to pay that amount to such Class Member. c. Consolidation Incentive Payments. To provide an incentive for individual Indians to participate in the Land Consolidation Program, a portion of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be allocated for Indian Education Scholarships. For fractionated interests in trust or restricted lands conveyed by owners pursuant to Section F, contributions not to exceed a total, aggregated amount of $60,000,000.00 from the Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be made to a separate account, established at Treasury pursuant to legislation, known as the “Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund.” No further contributions from the Trust Land Consolidation Fund to the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund shall be made once the sum of such contributions reaches a total of $60,000,000.00. Such contributions shall be made in accordance with the following formula: (1) For an interest that Interior Defendants purchase for less than $200.00, a contribution of $10.00 shall be made to the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund. 40 US2000 11623208.1 (2) For an interest that Interior Defendants purchase for between $200.00 and $500.00, a contribution of $25.00 shall be made to the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund. (3) For an interest that Interior Defendants purchase for more than $500.00, a contribution equal to five percent (5%) of the purchase price shall be made to the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund. d. Transfers From Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund. The Interior Defendants shall transfer the amounts in the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund to the organization identified in paragraph 3 below on a quarterly basis. Accompanying the transfer from the Interior Defendants to the organization shall be a report outlining the number of interests conveyed, the purchase price for each conveyance, and the corresponding contribution to the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund. The report shall be available to the public. 3. Recipient Organization. Within 60 days after Preliminary Approval of this Agreement by the Court, Plaintiffs shall recommend to the Secretary at least two and no more than three duly established non-profit organizations to administer the funds for Indian Education Scholarships. Each such organization must have a demonstrated track record and current ability to create and expand academic and vocational educational opportunities for Native Americans. Further, each such organization shall have a history of financial solvency and health, and a strong institutional governance structure that ensures a prudent and fair administration, investment, and distribution of the funds for Indian Education Scholarships. The Secretary of 41 US2000 11623208.1 Interior shall select from this list one organization to be the recipient of the funds for Indian Education Scholarships on the conditions that (a) the organization agrees to create a special Board of Trustees to govern the funds consisting of no more than five (5) members that will include two (2) representatives selected by the Secretary of Interior or his designee and two (2) representatives selected by the Lead Plaintiff or her designee, with the fifth representative selected by the organization; and (b) the organization provides reporting of its activities and access to its records related to the funds for Indian Education Scholarships which is satisfactory to the Secretary of Interior and Lead Plaintiff. 4. Release from Liability. The Parties shall not be liable, individually or collectively, for any claims arising out of or relating to the use, management, administration, distribution or other acts, omissions, or events regarding the funds for Indian Education Scholarships. 5. Removal Authority. The two (2) representatives selected by the Secretary of Interior and two (2) representatives selected by the Lead Plaintiff, as provided in paragraph 3 of this section, shall be empowered by majority vote to remove the funds for Indian Education Scholarships at any time from the selected recipient organization for any reason, including but not limited to, mismanagement of the funds and to select a new administrating entity that meets the qualifications set forth in paragraph 3 above. H. TAXES AND ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS 1. Legislation. The Parties contemplate that legislation shall address the treatment for tax purposes and eligibility for benefits of any Settlement Distributions to Class Members. 2. Source and Nature of Payments from Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. Notwithstanding the potential enactment of any legislation regarding taxability contemplated by the preceding paragraph, the Parties agree that the funds distributed pursuant to this Agreement 42 US2000 11623208.1 for the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund include monies derived directly from interests of individual Indians in trust and restricted lands. 3. Source and Nature of Payments from Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Parties agree that all payments for fractionated or escheated shares of individual Indian trust land purchased pursuant to the Trust Land Consolidation Fund are derived directly from interests of individual Indians in trust and restricted lands. 4. Payments not deemed interest. No portion of payments to Class Members from either the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund or the Trust Land Consolidation Fund is considered payment of interest. I. RELEASES 1. Release by Historical Accounting Class. Except as provided in this Agreement, upon Final Approval, all members of the Historical Accounting Class and their heirs, administrators, successors, or assigns (collectively, the “Historical Accounting Releasors”), shall be deemed to have released, waived and forever discharged the United States, Defendants, any department, agency, or establishment of the Defendants, and any officers, employees, or successors of Defendants, as well as any contractor, including any tribal contractor, (collectively, the “Releasees”) from the obligation to perform a historical accounting of his or her IIM Account or any individual Indian trust asset, including any right to an accounting in aid of the jurisdiction of a court to render a money judgment, except as provided in paragraph I(7). The Historical Accounting Releasors shall be deemed to be forever barred and precluded from prosecuting any and all claims and/or causes of action for a Historical Accounting Claim that were, or could have been, asserted in the Complaint when it was filed, on behalf of the Historical Accounting Class, by reason of, or with respect to, or in connection with, or which arise out of, any matters stated in the Complaint for a Historical Accounting that the Historical Accounting Releasors, or any of 43 US2000 11623208.1 them, have against the Releasees, or any of them. This release shall include any and all Historical Accounting Claims, however characterized, whether under the common law, at equity, or by statute. 2. Release by Trust Administration Class. Except as provided in this Agreement, upon Final Approval, all members of the Trust Administration Class and their heirs, administrators, successors, or assigns (collectively, the “Mismanagement Releasors”), shall be deemed to have released, waived and forever discharged the Releasees from, and the Mismanagement Releasors shall be deemed to be forever barred and precluded from prosecuting, any and all claims and/or causes of action that were, or should have been, asserted in the Amended Complaint when it was filed, on behalf of the Trust Administration Class, by reason of, or with respect to, or in connection with, or which arise out of, matters stated in the Amended Complaint for Funds Administration Claims or Land Administration Claims that the Mismanagement Releasors, or any of them, have against the Releasees, or any of them. 3. Exclusions From Releases. The releases provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 directly above neither release nor waive (a) claims for the payment of the account balances within existing IIM Accounts, (b) claims for the payment of existing amounts in special deposit accounts, tribal accounts, or judgment fund accounts, (c) claims arising out of or relating to breaches of trust or alleged wrongs after the Record Date, (d) claims for damage to the environment other than those claims expressly identified as Land Administration Claims, (e) claims for trespass or continuing trespass against any or all of the Releasees, where such Releasee is acting in a capacity other than as a fiduciary for Plaintiffs, (f) claims against tribes, contractors, or other third parties (provided that this exception does not apply to agents for the Defendants to the extent such agents had performed Defendants’ fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs), 44 US2000 11623208.1 (g) equitable, injunctive, or other non-monetary claims for correction of boundary and appraisal errors, (h) money damages arising out of boundary and appraisal errors, where such errors occur after the Record Date or where such errors are not corrected within a reasonable time following written notice to Interior after the Record Date, (i) claims arising out of leases, easements, rights-of-way, and similar encumbrances existing as of the Record Date against any or all of the Releasees to the extent such Releasee is acting in a capacity other than as a fiduciary for the plaintiffs, (j) claims against the Releasees arising out of, or relating to, water or water rights, whether adjudicated or unadjudicated, involving the adjudication, quantification, determination, establishment or protection of such rights; provided, however, that this exception does not apply to breach of trust claims for damages, losses, injuries, or accounting for income arising prior to and including the Record Date, other than claims that the Releasees failed to timely enforce such water rights; and (k) health and mortality claims. Nothing within these stated exclusions is meant to limit or shall defeat or void valid defenses, if any, based on statute of limitations, laches, or estoppel. 4. Trust Reform. By accepting this Agreement, Plaintiffs are neither waiving nor releasing any claims or causes of action for future trust reform. Defendants waive no defenses to such claims or causes of action, including res judicata. 5. Escheated Interests Not Released Unless Voluntarily Settled Later. Claims of beneficiaries or former beneficiaries for any interest that has been escheated to tribes, states, municipalities, other political subdivisions, the federal government, and companies, where the escheatment occurred in a manner which is unconstitutional according to decisions of the United States Supreme Court, are not released by this Agreement, except to the extent specific 45 US2000 11623208.1 settlement payments are made and accepted by such beneficiaries or former beneficiaries from the Trust Land Consolidation Fund in accordance with paragraphs F(1) – (8). 6. Osage Headright Owners. The members of the Historical Accounting Class and the members of Trust Administration Class do not include Osage headright owners, except to the extent individual Osage headright owners have, or have had, (i) IIM Accounts in which their Osage headright payments have been deposited, (ii) IIM Accounts for funds other than Osage Headright monies, or (iii) beneficial ownership interests in trust land. Nothing in this Agreement releases claims of individual Osage headright owners regarding their headright interests, except to the extent monies from such headright interests beneficially owned by such individual Indian have been deposited into an IIM Account for the benefit of such individual Indian. 7. Preservation of Claims and Rights by Opt Outs. Notwithstanding the releases stated above (including without limitation the release of Historical Accounting Claims in paragraph I(1), Trust Administration Class Members who properly and timely opt out in accordance with the instructions in paragraph C(2) of this Agreement hereby expressly preserve and do not release, waive or discharge any Funds Administration Claims (including without limitation accounting error claims) and/or Land Administration Claims, whether such claims arise in equity or at law. Further, any such opting-out Class Member retains and shall be entitled to all methods of proof, applicable evidentiary presumptions and inferences (if any), and means of discovery available in any court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to that court’s procedural and evidentiary rules applicable to fiduciaries, including without limitation any right to an accounting in aid of the jurisdiction of a court to render judgment. 8. Agreed Balances. Trust Administration Class Members who do not opt out in accordance with paragraph C(2) (c) of this Agreement will be deemed to have waived any right 46 US2000 11623208.1 to an accounting in aid of judgment in connection with Funds Administration Claims and Land Administration Claims. Further, except as provided in the preceding paragraph with respect to Class Members who opt out of the Trust Administration Class, each such Trust Administration Class Member and his or her heirs, successors, and assigns will be deemed to have agreed that the stated balance in his or her last IIM Account periodic statement received from Interior in 2009, prior to the date of this Agreement is accurate and that any IIM Account closed before January 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have a zero balance. Further, if a Trust Administration Class Member did not receive a periodic statement for an open IIM Account in 2009 prior to the date of this Agreement, that Class Member may request written confirmation of his or her IIM Account balance(s) as of the Record Date; such Class Member shall be deemed to have agreed to the balance(s) shown on such written confirmation received from Interior, unless such Class Member opts out of that Class in accordance with this Agreement. 9. Vacatur of Document Retention Orders. Upon Final Approval, all existing document retention orders shall be deemed vacated; provided, however, that Plaintiffs do not release Defendants from any ongoing duty to maintain trust records necessary to prudently manage the individual Indian trust. J. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 1. Notice of Amount to be Requested. Prior to the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of this Agreement, Plaintiffs shall file a notice with the Court stating the amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs they will be requesting for Class Counsel through the date of this Agreement. This amount shall be included in the Notice to the class referenced in paragraph C.1. 2. Petition for Attorneys’ Fees. Within the time set by the Court, Plaintiffs shall file a petition for fair and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs through the date of this 47 US2000 11623208.1 Agreement for the Court’s approval (“Fee Petition”). Plaintiffs shall post that Fee Petition on their website http://indiantrust.com/. 3. Objections. Within the times set by the Court: (a) Class Members may object to the compensation Plaintiffs have requested for attorneys in the Fee Petition, (b) Defendants may submit a response to the Fee Petition, and (c) Plaintiffs may reply to such objections and responses. 4. Post-Agreement Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs. Attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs incurred subsequent to the date of this Agreement shall, upon Final Approval, be paid at reasonable intervals as ordered by the Court. Reasonable time spent after this Agreement in representing the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to preparing fee applications, shall be compensated at the actual hourly billing rates. Defendants may respond to, and Class Members may object to, any petitions for post-Agreement attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs, and Plaintiffs may reply to such response and objections. 5. Court to Decide. The amount to which Plaintiffs are entitled for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs are within the discretion of the Court in accordance with controlling law, after receipt and consideration of Class Members’ objections, Defendants’ responses and Plaintiffs’ replies. 6. Payment. All payments for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs are to be made following Final Approval from the Settlement Account. 7. Time of Payments. Payment for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs through the date of this Agreement shall be made immediately upon the deposit of the funds in the Settlement Account after Final Approval. Payment of post-Agreement attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs are to be made after Final Approval at the times directed by the Court. 48 US2000 11623208.1 8. Release of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Upon completion of all payments addressed in this Section J, Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, on behalf of the Classes and each individual Class Member, will be deemed to have irrevocably and unconditionally released, acquitted, and forever discharged, any claim that they may have against Defendants for attorneys’ fees, expenses or costs associated with their representation of Plaintiffs and the Classes in this Litigation. Plaintiffs shall file no further claim against Defendants for attorneys’ fees or expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 or costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920; this paragraph does not apply to claims by Plaintiffs for payments from the Settlement Account, in accordance with this Agreement, for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs, and Plaintiffs’ incentive awards, including costs and expenses. K. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ INCENTIVE AWARDS 1. Notice of Amounts to be Requested. Prior to the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of this Agreement, Plaintiffs shall file a notice with the Court stating the amount of incentive awards which will be requested for each Class Representative, including expenses and costs that were not paid for by attorneys, which expenses and costs are expected to be in the range of $15 million above those paid by Defendants to date. These amounts shall be included in the Notice to the class referenced in paragraph C(1). 2. Petition for Expenses and Incentives. Within the time set by the Court, Plaintiffs shall file a petition for incentive awards, including expenses and costs, of the Class Representatives (“Class Representative Petition”). Plaintiffs shall post that petition on their website http://indiantrust.com/. 3. Objections. Within the times set by the Court: (a) Class Members may object to the amounts Plaintiffs have requested in the Class Representative Petition; (b) Defendants may submit a response to the Class Representative Petition; and (c) Plaintiffs may reply to such 49 US2000 11623208.1 objections and responses. Defendants do not consent in any manner to an award of costs, expenses or incentives, except to the extent supported by and consistent with controlling law. 4. Post-Agreement Expenses and Costs of Class Representatives. Class Representatives’ expenses and costs incurred subsequent to the date of this Agreement shall, upon Final Approval, be paid at reasonable intervals as ordered by the Court. Defendants may respond to and Class Members may object to any petitions for post-Agreement expenses and costs of Class Representatives. Plaintiffs may reply to such responses and objections. 5. Court to Decide. The amounts to be granted on the Class Representative Petition and any post-Agreement request for expenses and costs are within the discretion of the Court in accordance with controlling law, after timely receipt and consideration of objections received from Class Members and/or Defendants. 6. Payment. All payments of Class Representatives’ incentive awards, including expenses and costs, shall be made from the Settlement Account. 7. Time of Payments. Payment of incentive awards, including expenses and costs, shall be made immediately upon the deposit of the funds in the Settlement Account after Final Approval. Payment of post-Agreement expenses and costs are to be made at the times directed by the Court following Final Approval. 8. Complete Compensation. Defendants shall have no additional liability for any incentive awards or expenses and costs of Class Representatives. The payments to Class Representatives under this section K, together with any amounts due them as Class Members under this Agreement, shall be full and complete compensation for the Class Representatives in connection with this Litigation and for any Accounting Claims and Trust Administration Claims the Class Representatives had through the Record Date. 50 US2000 11623208.1 L. NO FURTHER MONETARY OBLIGATION 1. Complete Monetary Obligation. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the payments of $1,412,000,000.00 into the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and the $2,000,000,000.00 deposited into the Trust Land Consolidation Fund represents Defendants’ complete financial obligation under this Settlement relating to the settlement and compromise of all Historical Accounting and Trust Administration Claims for Class Members. 2. No Further Monetary Obligations. Except for the payments of $1,412,000,000.00 into the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and the $2,000,000,000.00 deposited into the Trust Land Consolidation Fund, the Parties further agree and acknowledge that Defendants shall have no further monetary obligations whatsoever, including but not limited to any monetary obligations with respect to the Class Representatives, the members of the Classes who do not opt out, Class Counsel, Claims Administrator, Notice Contractor, the Qualifying Bank, or the Litigation. Defendants, however, will retain all monetary obligations that exist as a result of the trust relationship that will continue to exist between Defendants and all individual Indian beneficiaries. Likewise, the Parties agree that the Classes, Class Representatives, Class Counsel, Claims Administrator, Notice Contractor, and Qualifying Bank shall have no monetary obligation or incur any liability to Defendants or their agents regarding this Agreement or other matters settled and within the scope of this Agreement. 3. Cooperation. Interior Defendants will in good faith cooperate and make their resources and information available to assist in the distribution of notices and, subsequently, settlement payments. However, Interior Defendants assume no financial responsibility or liability related to the quality of the information to be provided. 51 US2000 11623208.1 M. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 1. No Assignment. Class Representatives represent and warrant that they have not assigned or transferred, or purported to assign or transfer, to any person or entity, any claim or any portion thereof or interest therein, including, but not limited to, any interest in the Litigation or any related action. 2. Non-Admission of Liability. By entering into this Agreement, Defendants in no way admit any liability to Plaintiffs and the Classes, individually or collectively, all such liability being expressly denied. Nor do Defendants admit that a class action is an appropriate vehicle to bring Trust Administration Claims. Rather, Defendants enter into this Agreement to avoid further protracted litigation and resolve and settle all disputes with Plaintiffs and the Classes. The Parties understand and agree that neither this Agreement, nor the negotiations that preceded it, shall be used as evidence with respect to the claims asserted in the Litigation, the propriety of a class action, or in any other proceeding or dispute except to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 3. Cooperation Between The Parties, Further Acts. The Parties shall cooperate fully with each other and shall use their best efforts to obtain the Court’s approval of this Agreement and all of its terms. 4. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and (A) with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class Members, their spouses, children, representatives, heirs, administrators, executors, beneficiaries, conservators, and attorneys, and (B) with respect to Defendants, the Releasees. 5. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, or delegate any duty, obligation or undertaking established herein to any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement. 52 US2000 11623208.1 6. Arms Length Transaction; Materiality of Terms. The Parties have negotiated all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement at arms length. All terms and conditions of this Agreement have been relied upon by the Parties in entering this Agreement. If any Class Member petitions the Court for a modification of, addition to or alteration of any material terms or condition of this Agreement and if the Court on such request or sua sponte does modify, add to or alter any of the material terms or conditions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall become voidable and of no further effect upon the filing with the Court of a Notice of Withdrawal from settlement by Class Counsel or Defendants’ Counsel within five (5) business days of receipt of any order or final statement of the Court modifying, adding to or altering any of the material terms or conditions of this Agreement. 7. Captions. The captions or headings of the sections and paragraphs of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part of this Agreement. 8. Construction. The determination of the terms and conditions of this Agreement has been by mutual agreement of the Parties. Each Party participated jointly in the drafting of this Agreement and, therefore, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are not intended to be, and shall not be, construed against any Party by virtue of draftsmanship. 9. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the United States without respect to the law of any particular State. 10. Notices Between the Parties. For all documents, notices, and submissions filed with the Court, service of a copy on the other Parties shall be deemed complete when uploaded and docketed with the Court’s ECF system. 53 US2000 11623208.1 11. Agreement to Hold Personal Information Confidential. The Parties recognize that this Agreement will require the exchange of individual Indian trust data and/or confidential personal information that is or may be subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, relating to actual and putative class members. The Parties agree to cooperate in taking all appropriate steps to maintain the confidentiality of all such information. In order to facilitate the prompt exchange of information to facilitate the best practicable notice to the Class, the Parties further agree to file a stipulated motion with the Court promptly upon public announcement of this Agreement requesting the Court to enter an appropriate order to authorize the disclosure of such information by the Interior Defendants or Plaintiffs to the Notice Contractor and Claims Administrator. 12. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Parties acknowledge that Plaintiffs' deadline for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of Cobell XXII is December 21, 2009, and that the Supreme Court's rules do not permit this deadline to be extended further. To preserve their right to seek Supreme Court review in the event that this Agreement is terminated, becomes null and void, or otherwise is not finally approved, it is understood that Plaintiffs intend to file a petition for a writ of certiorari on or before the deadline. (Signatures appear on next page) 54 US2000 11623208.1 SIGNATURES Wherefore, intending to be legally bound in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Parties hereby execute this Agreement: FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS: Dennis M. Gingold, Class Counsel Thomas J. Perrelli Associate Attorney General Keith M. Harper, Class Counsel 55 US2000 11623208.1 Page 1 936 PLI/Corp 321 Practising Law Institute Corporate Law and Practice Course Handbook Series PLI Order No. B4-7153 April, 1996 Financial Services Litigation *321 CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS: CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUES, INCLUDING ETHIC­AL CONSIDERATIONS AND COUNSEL FEES AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS Sherrie R. Savett Roberta D. Liebenberg Ralph G. Wellington Copyright (c) 1996, Practising Law Institute *323 I. CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUES IN NATIONWIDE, CONSUMER-ORIENTED CLASS ACTIONS A. General 1. Class certification is much more difficult in consumer oriented cases than in traditional class action substantive areas, such as securities and anti-trust. 2. Those traditional areas for class certification rely principally on violations of a federal statute, i.e. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Securities Act of 1933, Sherman and Clayton Acts. The consumer oriented class action cases are principally brought under various state laws and common law. Most states have a consumer fraud statute which makes a defendant liable for unfair or decept­ive acts or practices. These statutes often provide for treble damages and often do not require priv­ity. It is these statutes that can very often be the legal claim underlying many nationwide consumer financial services class actions. Depending on the underlying facts, other claims that can be asserted in consumer class actions include breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, strict liability, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and restitution. *324 3. There is a clear trend among courts recognizing the propriety of class actions in mass tort actions, particularly those arising from the sale of defective products. See In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 789 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1986); In Re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 880 F.2d 709, 734 (4th Cir. 1989); Central Wesleyan College v. W.R. Grace & Co., 143 F.R.D. 628 (D.S.C. 1992), aff'd, 6 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 1993); Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 782 F.2d 468, reh'g denied, 785 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1986); In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 100 F.R.D. 718 (E.D.N.Y. 1983), mandamus denied sub nom., In re Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co., 725 F.2d 858 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1067 (1984); Brummett v. Skyline Corp., No. C81-0103-L(b), slip op. (W.D. Ky. April. 11, 1984); In re Federal Skywalk Cases, 95 F.R.D. 483 (W.D. Mo. 1982); In re Three Mile © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 Island Litigation, 87 F.R.D. 433 (M.D. Pa. 1980); Pruitt v. Allied Chemical Corp., 85 F.R.D. 100 (E.D. Va. 1980); Coburn v. 4-R Corp., 77 F.R.D. 43 (E.D. Ky. 1977); Bentkowski v. Marfuerza Compania Maritima, S.A., 70 F.R.D. 401 (E.D. Pa. 1976); Hernandez v. Motor Vessel Skyward, 61 F.R.D. 558 (S.D. Fla. 1973), aff'd without op., *325 507 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1975); Biechele v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 309 F. Supp. 354 (N.D. Ohio 1969). B. Attacks on Class Certification and Ways To Overcome Those Attacks 1. Defendants will argue in each instance where a nationwide consumer class action is sought that, first, there should be no certification at all because individual issues predominate. Depending on the factual situation, if the underlying claim involves a product or a financial practice, defend­ants will argue that individual issues of reliance will prevail, that the product was misused or im­properly applied, that the product was improperly maintained, or they will try to develop facts demonstrating that there are unique circumstances involving each individual person's use of the product or the financial practice. 2. Plaintiffs must demonstrate, in the case of a product, that the predominate issue is the defect in the product as opposed to the individual usage, that this is the common issue which predominates, and that individual issues of reliance, damages, proper use, and statute of limitations all go to the merits and are impermissible inquiries at the class certification stage under the Supreme Court's opinion in *326 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). If the conduct at issue or the practice at issue took place over several years, defendants will try to point out that the practice changed as years went along, that different model numbers or designs of the product create differ­ent issues of reliance, that warranty terms changed and that there were neither common defects nor a uniform objectionable financial practice. 3. Plaintiffs must try to find uniting factors such as a common writing, a policy statement, or a common formula or design if it is a product, in order to show that common issues predominate. 4. A very good case for plaintiffs is Delgozzi v. Kenny, 628 A.2d 1080 (N.J. Super. 1993), where a consumer class action involving an allegedly defective water heater was certified on behalf of purchasers and users of 35,000 heaters in 28 states for more than 10 years. Certification was gran­ted in the face of defense arguments that statute of limitations issues were present, that there were many different models and designs of the heater over several years, that the heater would work if it was properly maintained, and that there were individual issues of maintenance and *327 servicing, and that the state laws of 50 different states would apply and made class treatment improper. This court left open the question of whether or not a national class or merely a New Jersey class could be certified. On remand, the trial court in New Jersey did certify a national class. Delgozzo v. Kenny, Order dated August 26, 1994, Judge Supnick, (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). C. Nationwide Certification In Federal and State Court 1. Federal courts have certified nationwide consumer class actions involving solely state law claims and no federal claims in several instances. One instructional case is Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 105 S.Ct. 2965 (9185) where the Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to apply the law of Kansas to all the claims as opposed to applying the law of the various other states because the court determined in that case that the nexus of the underlying claims was not sufficiently con­nected to the state where the case was brought so that that state's law could be applied uniformly. One can argue that because the scheme was hatched in the forum state, that that state has an interest in applying its law universally. The Supreme Court *328 suggests that there could be cases where significant contact or aggregation of contacts to the claims asserted by the class could allow one state's law to be chosen if the result would not be arbitrary or unfair. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 3 2. More commonly, courts have rejected the argument that the class cannot be certified because the law of 50 different states would have to apply. Such courts have held that the law of those 50 states on common law claims such as contract, breach of warranty, and fraud are not so different that the variances in state law should be controlling and should defeat class certification. The best examples of such holdings are In re General Motors Corporation Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 785 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.C. 818 (1995) and In Re School As­bestos Litigation, 789 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1986). The Third Circuit in GM, citing School Asbestos, took a practical approach to the argument that the law of 50 states would destroy class certification by stating: . . . . in School Asbestos, the court certified a nationwide (b) (3) class after counsel demon­strated to the court how the laws of the 50 states *329 could be reduced to four general patterns, providing the framework for subclasses if the nationwide action had proven unmanageable. School Asbestos, 789 F.2d at 1011. Although there was no such demonstration in this case, we have no reason to doubt that such a demonstration would have been possible, for we cannot con­ceive that each of the forty-nine states (excluding Texas) represented here has a truly unique stat­utory scheme, or that all of the model years possessed distinct fuel tank designs. Damage issues, moreover, are not as individualized as the district court seemed to assume: the cost of repair could have served as the measure, and that cost would not vary much among class members. Hence, it is quite possible that a nationwide class could have been properly certified here. (pp. 817-818). The GM court went on to state at p. 815: Indeed, to the extent that state-by-state variations in procedural laws created legal obstacles, the district court should have considered dividing the action into geographic sub-classes instead of considering the entire nationwide class to be hobbled. Additionally, the court should have con­sidered making the inquiry we made in In re School Asbestos Litig., 789 F.2d at 1011, as to whether the case in terms of claims and defenses might fall into three or four patterns so that, with the use of special verdict forms, the case might have been manageable. We also note that, in other cases, courts have certified nationwide mass tort class actions, which also include myriad individual factual and legal issues, relying on the capacity for a court to de­certify or *330 redefine the class subsequently if the case should become unmanageable. See, e.g., In re School Asbestos Litig., 789 F.2d at 1011 (3d Cir. 1986). 3. Defendants will try to emphasize individual issues which vary in the various states on these common law claims. The major variances involve whether or not privity is required, whether or not reliance is required, whether affirmative defenses may or may not be asserted, and whether the pa­role evidence rule may apply. Plaintiffs, to win certification, must assert common issues which can be proven for everyone predominate, and that subclasses can be created to deal with the various dif­ferences, such as privity, reliance, and affirmative defenses. It would still be economical, a plaintiff would argue, to have the common questions of defect, fraud, concealment and breach of warranty tried in a class case or to create a small number of geographic subclasses where there are few bright line differences in state law. 4. For example, the law with respect to breach of implied warranties is substantially similar throughout the United States. Fifty-two jurisdictions have adopted Sections 2-314 and 2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which govern *331 implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, respectively. Thus, it is evident that the law of implied warranties is “sufficiently” alike for application on a class-wide basis to all the plaintiff class' warranty claims. The only significant difference in the elements for a prima facie case under the various jurisdic­ © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 4 tions' law of implied warranties concerns the existence or non-existence of a requirement for “vertical privity” between the consumer or user and the manufacturer-seller. Since some states require privity while others do not, the implied warranty claims of the plaintiff class would fall into only two sub­classes at most. Thus, defendants' assertions as to “wide variance” among the various jurisdictions' laws cannot be sustained for the warranty claims, and common questions of law clearly exist in the adjudication of such claims. 5. As to consumer fraud statutes, the major variances in those statutes which prohibit unfair or de­ceptive acts or practices are in the areas of reliance and scienter. Again, these can be sorted out by geographical subclasses. The plaintiffs must emphasize, especially in a consumer class action where the damages for each individual are *332 very small, that to deny certification sounds the death knell of the action, as it would not be economical for either an individual plaintiff or a lawyer to take on the case on other than a class basis, and therefore justice could not be done. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is an analysis of the consumer fraud statutes and their differences which mainly revolve around whether or not reliance and/or scienter must be proved. 6. Another key cases which has certified a national class based on state law theories is In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litig., 100 F.R.D. 718 (E.D.N.Y. 1983), mandamus denied, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987). A key case denying class certification on a consumer class action is Walsh v. Ford Motor Company, 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The court, considering motor vehicle breach of warranty claims, refused to apply a single state's law to all class members and the district court sub­sequently held that the variations in state laws precluded certification. 7. Only a few state courts have certified national classes in consumer class actions. Among them are New Jersey, (Delgozzi v. Kenny, cited above), Illinois, California, and Alabama. *333 D. Adequacy -Willingness Of Plaintiff To Bear Out-Of-Pocket Expenses 1. In consumer class actions, another means by which defendants try to defeat class certification is to demonstrate that a plaintiff either does not understand or is unwilling to assume responsibility for the costs of litigation if an action is unsuccessful. This argument only becomes relevant in those states in which a plaintiff must remain ultimately responsible for costs pursuant to the state's ethical or disciplinary rules or where the plaintiff's counsel refuses to advance all necessary costs. 2. Since consumer class actions usually involve small damages per person and large classes, such an attack could be fatal in a non-contingent cost state. 3. Many states have adopted ABA Model Rule 1.8(e) which states: (e) A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or con­templated litigation, except that: (1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent upon the outcome of the matter. 4. In those states that have not adopted the ABA Model Rules, many have adopted *334 Rule DR5-103(b) from the old Code of Professional Conduct which is similar to the new rule, but re­quires that “the client remains ultimately liable for such expenses.” The list below sets forth for all 50 states whether the client is ultimately responsible for costs or whether an attorney may advance the courts, repayment of which can be made contingent upon the outcome of the case. STATE CONTINGENT CLIENT RESPONSIBLE ALABAMA X ALASKA X ARIZONA X © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 5 ARKANSAS X CALIFORNIA X COLORADO X CONNECTICUT X DELAWARE X DIST. OF COLUMBIA X FLORIDA X GEORGIA X HAWAII X IDAHO X ILLINOIS X INDIANA X IOWA X KANSAS X KENTUCKY X LOUISIANA X MAINE X MARYLAND X MASSACHUSETTS X MICHIGAN X MINNESOTA X MISSISSIPPI X MISSOURI X MONTANA X NEBRASKA X NEVADA X NEW HAMPSHIRE X NEW JERSEY X NEW MEXICO X NEW YORK X NORTH CAROLINA X NORTH DAKOTA X OHIO X OKLAHOMA X OREGON X PENNSYLVANIA X RHODE ISLAND X © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 6 SOUTH CAROLINA X SOUTH DAKOTA X TENNESSEE X TEXAS X UTAH X VERMONT X VIRGINIA X WASHINGTON X W. VIRGINIA X WISCONSIN X WYOMING X *336 5. For those states where the client must remain ultimately responsible for the costs, it will be very difficult in many instances for the client to take on such a responsibility since the underly­ing claim may have damage of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. 6. Another way around this problem, if you are in a state where the plaintiff must remain ulti­mately responsible for costs is to argue the doctrine espoused in Rand v. Monsanto, 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991), holding that the federal courts should adopt the ABA Model Rules which provide for contingent liability for costs since Rule 23 is designed for the nation as a whole, and slavishly following the different state's rules on the allocation of costs would balkanize litigation. The Court concluded that “DR5-103(B) is inconsistent with Rule 23 and therefore may not be applied to class actions. Accord, County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F. Supp. 1407, 1413-15 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). See also Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 68 L.Ed. 2d 693, 101 S.Ct. 2193 (1981), invalidating another local rule of ethics that frustrated the use of class actions.” *337 II. COUNSEL FEES AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS A. The law in most circuits has shifted from a lodestar time and multiplier analysis to a percentage approach. 1. The Supreme Court paved the way for this in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) where the court stated that in common fund class action cases, fees are to be based on a percentage of the fund bestowed on the class. The court in Blum specifically distinguished percentage fees awarded in common fund cases from statutory fees that are awarded in civil rights cases based on the amount of attorney time expended on the litigation. 2. Most of the federal circuits have endorsed this approach. See, In re Continental Illinois Securit­ies Litigation, 962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1992); Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 945 F.2d 969 (7th Cir. 1991); Camden I Condominium Association, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774 (11th Cir. 1991); Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989); Uselton v. Commer­cial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 9 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 1993); Swedish Hospital Corporation, et al., v. Donna E. Shalala, 1993 W.L. 299332 (D.C. Cir. August 10, 1993); Brown v. Phillips Petro­leum Co., 838 F.2d 451, 454 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822 (1989); Bebchich v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, 805 F.2d 396, 406-07 (D.C. Cir. 1986); In re: *338 General Motors Corporation Pick Up Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3rd Cir. 1995). 3. The percentage of recovery method is now widely perceived in federal courts across the coun­ © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 7 try as the most sensible and efficacious approach to calculating attorneys fees. Among the reasons are because that is the way counsel are compensated for securing a recovery on a contingent basis in the private legal services marketplace, and because the percentage approach directly aligns the interests of counsel with their clients. Most judges favor this approach because it is more simple for them to administer, avoids complex fee petitions, and removes the temptation for lawyers to bill un­necessary hours, instead creating an incentive to maximize efficiency. 4. In state courts, either the lodestar or percentage approach is used. An applicant for counsel fees should be alert to state statutes and rules governing fees awarded in contingent fee cases. Such re­strictions will apply in class actions because virtually all are taken on by lawyers on a contingent fee basis. See, for example, New Jersey Rule of Court, 1:21-7 which limits counsel fees. N.J. Ct. Rule 1:21-7 Contingent Fees provides: In any matter where a client's claim for damages is based upon the alleged tortious conduct of another, including products liability claims, and the client is not a subrogee, an attorney shall not contract for, charge, *339 or collect a contingent fee in excess of the following limits: (1) 33 1/3% on the first $250,000 recovered; (2) 25% on the next $250,000 recovered; (3) 20% on the next $500,000 recovered; and (4) on all amounts recovered in excess of the above by application for reasonable fee in ac­cordance with the provisions of paragraph (f) hereof. *** (F) If at the conclusion of a matter an attorney considers the fee permitted by paragraph (c) to be inadequate, an application on written notice to the client may be made to the Assignment Judge for the hearing and determining of a reasonable fee in light of all the circumstances. A copy of any such application and of all papers filed in support of or in opposition thereto, together with a copy of the court order fixing the fee shall be filed with the Administrative Office of the Courts. This rule shall not preclude the exercise of a client's existing right to a court review of the reason­ableness of an attorney's fee. *** (I) CALCULATION OF FEE IN SETTLEMENT OF CLASS OR MULTIPLE PARTY AC­TIONS . . . Counsel may, however, make application for modification of the fee pursuant to para­graph (f) of this rule in appropriate cases. *340 5. In federal courts, the percentages awarded generally range from 25% to 35% of the recov­ ery. State court rules on contingent fees can limit this further. See New Jersey Rule. 6. In jurisdictions which award fees on a time and multiplier basis, if the settlement is big enough to bear a multiplier, the multipliers can range from anywhere between 1.1 and 4 or even more. B. Incentive Payments To The Named Class Representatives 1. It has become commonplace for the named representatives to request a special payment for having borne the flag and headed a class action. Most courts are receptive to this because they feel that private attorneys general should be encouraged, and such incentives further the goals of federal and state laws. A list of representative cases where incentive payments have been granted to class representatives include the following: 1. In Re Convex Computer Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File Civil Action No. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 8 CA3-91-1563-X (N.D. Tex. August 1, 1994) (awarded $10,000 to each of the two named plaintiffs); 2. In Re Sound Advice, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 92-6457-Civ. Ungaro-Benages (S.D. Fla. March 24, 1994) (awarded $2,500 to each of the four plaintiffs); 3. In Re A.L. Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 92-4694 (D.N.J. 1994) (awarded $1,500 to each of the two-named plaintiffs); 4. John Paul Decker et al., v. Security Pacific, et al., Case No. CV 90-6497 RMT (C.D. Cal. November *341 16, 1993) ($5,000 awarded to each of the named plaintiffs); 5. Belman v. Warrington, C.A. No. H-91-3767 (S.D. Tex. November 15, 1993) (awarded $10,000 to each of the two-named plaintiffs); 6. In re Amdahl Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-92-20609-JW (EAI) (N.D. Cal.) --the firm as co-lead counsel obtained a class settlement of $13 million, approved on September 29, 1993. (awarded $5,000 to named plaintiff); 7. In Re: Revco Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:89 CV 0593 (N.D. Ohio September 14, 1993) (award of $200,000 from first settlement and a supplemental award of $50,000 from the second settlement); 8. In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 878 (N.D. Fla. September 7, 1993) ($10,000 awarded to each of the three designated class representatives and $5,000 to each of the 19 remaining class plaintiffs); 9. In Re: Intellicall Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:91-CV-0730-P (N.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 1993) ($2,500 awarded to each of the five named plaintiffs); 10. In re Employee Benefit Plans Securities Litigation, Civil No. 3-92-708 (D. Minn. June 2, 1993) (awarded $5,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs); 11. In re: Bank of Boston Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 89-2269-H (D. Mass. February 24, 1993) (award of $7,500 to each plaintiff); 12. Julia K. Masnik et al. v. Bolar Pharmaceuticals et al., Civil Action No. 90-4086 (E.D. Pa. February 1, 1993) (award of $2,000 to each of the two plaintiffs); 13. In re Surgical Laser Technologies Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 91-2478 (E.D. Pa. 1991, Oct. 30, 1992), 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16724 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (Ditter, J.) (awarding $2,500 each to three class representatives who were subjected to discovery and $1,000 each to six other named plaintiffs; noting that this “is common practice in these [securities fraud class action] cases”); 14. In Re Public Service of New Mexico, Master File No. 91-536-K-(M) (S.D. Cal. September 8, 1992) ($5,000 awarded to each of the 10 named plaintiffs); *342 15. In re Unisys Securities Litigation, Master File C.A. No. 89-1179 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 1992) (Reed, J.) (awarding $1,000 each to numerous named plaintiffs); 16. In re Revco Securities Litigation, Master File No. 851, Case No. 89 CV 593 (E.D. Ohio May 5, 1992) (awarded $200,000 to class representatives, plus $20,000 in costs); 17. Cytryn, et al. v. Cook, et al., No. #-89-20801-R.F.P. (N.D. Cal. May 1, 1992) (Raychem Se­curities Litigation) (awarded $5,000 to each of the named Plaintiffs); 18. Berl v. The Southland Corporation, C.A. No. CA3-90-1254-H (N.D. Tex. November 1, 1991) ($15,000 award to named plaintiff); 19. In re Seagate Technology Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-84-2075(A) -WAI (N.D. Cal. August 14, 1991) ($5,000 awarded to each of several named plaintiffs); 20. Mazza v. McGee, C.A. No. 89-8601 (E.D. Pa. April 22, 1991) ($5,000 award to each of two © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 9 named plaintiffs); 21. Squitieri v. Gould, C.A. No. 89-6832 (E.D. Pa. March 1, 1991) ($17,500 award to named plaintiff); 22. Moskowitz v. Lopp, No. 88-0355, Slip. op. (E.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 1991) (Bechtle, C. J.) ($10,000 award to plaintiff in recognition to service to class)); 23. Lines v. Marble Financial Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 90-23 (D. Vt. 1991) ($8,000 to each of two plaintiffs in a $2 million settlement); 24. In re SmithKline Beckman Corp. Securities Litigation, 751 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Pa. 1990) ($5,000 award to each of several class plaintiffs); 25. Malanka v. deCastro, [1990-1991 Current Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶95,657 (D. Mass. 1990) ($5,000 award to named plaintiff); 26. In re Petro-Lewis Broker-Dealer Litigation, C.A. No. 1:85-cv-172-RLV (N.D. Ga. 1990) (approving award of one half of out-of-pocket losses totalling $150,122.80 in lieu of pro rata share to fifteen class plaintiffs); *343 27. CBS Inc. v. Paley, Inc., 86 Civ. 9140 (JMC) (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (payment of $15,000 awarded to derivative plaintiff who initiated litigation on behalf of company); 28. In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litigation, C.A. No. C-1-89-026 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 1990) (approving two incentive awards of $55,000 and three of $35,000 to five class representatives); 29. In re People Express Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 86-2497 (D.N.J. 1989) (8 named plaintiffs awarded full amount of losses in lieu of pro rata share of settlement fund); 30. Geist v. Arizona Public Service Corp., Civil Action No. 87-1172 PHX-CLH (D. Ariz. 1989) (awarding incentive payment of $10,000 to named plaintiffs); 31. In re Norelco Clean Water Machine Litigation, Master File No. 88-8423 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 1989) (awarding $1,500 to each of four class representatives); 32. Gross v. Hertz Corp., Master File No. 88-0661 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 1989) (awarding $1,000 to each of four class representatives); 33. In re First Jersey Securities Inc. Litigation, MDL No. 681 (E.D. Pa. June 23, 1989) ($25,000 award to named plaintiff); 34. In re New York City Shoes Securities Litigation, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6346 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 1989) (approving awards of $4,000 to each of six named class plaintiffs); 35. In re Meritor Bank Shareholder Litigation, No. 87-0755 (W.D. Pa. May 5, 1989) ($3,000 awarded to each of nine plaintiffs); 36. Home Unity Shareholders Litigation, No. 87-5609 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 1989) ($5,000 payment to seven plaintiffs). 37. Tornetta v. Diamond-Bathurst, Inc., No. 87-4678 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (award of $5,000 granted to plaintiff in securities class action in addition to his entitlement to a proportionate share of the settlement fund); 38. Golden v. Shulman, [1988-89 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶94,060 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (approving *344 $5,000 award for named plaintiff in securities class action); 39. Greenfield v. Footwear Investors, Inc., No. 84-5472 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 1988) (granting a $5,000 supplemental award to the named plaintiff in a federal securities law action); 40. In re Broadview Savings Bank Securities Litigation, No. C86-3522 (N.D. Ohio 1988) (named plaintiff awarded $10,000 payment); 41. Genden v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 700 F. Supp. 209, 210 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 10 ($20,085 awarded to named plaintiff in securities class action); 42. GNC Shareholder Litigation, 668 F. Supp. 450, (W.D. Pa. 1987) (awards totalling $9,000 to three plaintiffs in securities class action); 43. Beechnut Apple Juice Litigation, No. 86-6608 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 1987) (incentive award of $7,500 to various plaintiffs); 44. In re Continental/Midlantic Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 86-6872 (E.D. Pa. August 27, 1987) (E.D. Pa. 1985) ($20,000 payment to each named class representative); 45. Franklin Container Corp. v. International Paper Co., No. 77-3204 (E.D. Pa. 1987) (court awarded $100,000 to each of two named plaintiffs in antitrust case); 46. In re Minolta Camera Products Antitrust Litigation, No. MCP 1 (D. Md. 1987) ($2,000 awarded to plaintiff in consumer antitrust case); 47. In re Academy Insurance Securities Litigation, Master File No. 83-6026 (E.D. Pa. July 25, 1985) (approving $5,000 payments to each of the two representative plaintiffs in the action); 48. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (approving an award of $20,000 to each of two named plaintiffs in actions filed under federal antitrust laws); 49. Academy Insurance Securities Litigation, No. 83-6026 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ($5,000 payments to each of two representative plaintiffs); *345 50. Levit v. Katchmark, No. 82-3955 (E.D. Pa. 1984) ($1,000 payment to representative plaintiff in securities fraud suit); 51. Roberts v. Magnetic Metals Co., No. 79-0023 (D.N.J. 1982) (awarding named plaintiff $1,000 in a “freeze-out” merger case); 52. Wolfson v. Riley, No. 79-642 (N.D. Ohio 1979) ($10,000 awarded to each of two plaintiffs); This list shows that such payments are normally in the range of $1,000 to $5,000. 3. In the state court, this has been occasionally done. An example is Delgozzi v. Kenny where each of the five named representatives received $1,000. Since these representatives are usually sub­ject to extensive discovery and deposition, it can be argued that such payments are justified by the time and effort expended by the class plaintiff in addition to the fact that such individual brought the class claims. KALIKMAN AND MASNIK SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY COUNSELLORS AT LAW LAW DIVISION 2 KINGS HIGHWAY WEST CAMDEN COUNTY MADDONFIELD, N.J. 08033 Docket No. L-04603-88 (609) 428-5222 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS : : TITO DELGOZZO, CLAUDIA CAPRITTI, : ROBERT SLIMM, CHARLES HECK and : Civil Action © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 11 WENDY HECK, : Plaintiffs, : v. : : ORDER CERTIFYING THE WILLIAM KENNY, JR., STANLEY R. : PLAINTIFF CLASS ORCZYK, PAUL A. VERMYLEN, JR., MEENAN : OIL CO., INC., BLUERAY SYSTEMS, INC., and KOV : CORP., : Defendants. : *347 This 26th day of August, 1994, upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Nationwide Class of Purchasers and Users of “blue flame” Furnaces or Boilers of Defendant Blueray Systems, defendants' response and plaintiffs' reply thereto and oral argument thereon, and pursuant to the opinion of the Appellate Division in Delgozzo v. Kenny, 266 N.J. Super 169 (1993), the Court finds that: *348 1. The joinder of all class members is impracticable; 2. There are questions of law and fact common to the class; 3. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; 4. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class; 5. Common questions of law or fact predominate over any individual issues; 6. A class action is the superior method of adjudicating this controversy; Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Nationwide Class of Purchasers and Users of “Blue Flame” Furnaces or Boilers of Defendant Blueray Systems is granted, and that the following class is hereby certified: All purchasers and users (except Blueray dealers and distributors) of Blueray “blue flame” furnaces or boilers. (S) SAMUEL L. SUPNICK, J.S.C. SAMUEL L. SUPNICK, J.S.C. *349 States' Consumer Protection Statutes The following states have statutes that broadly prohibit any “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” either with no further specificity or with an “included but not limited to” list of specific practices that are prohibited. Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471 (“(a) . . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are . . . unlawful. (b) The terms . . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices' include, but are not limited to . . . (6) representing that goods . . . are of a particular standard, quality, or grade . . . if they are of another . . .”); Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a) (“[n]o person shall en­gage in . . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade of commerce”); Florida: Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) (“unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are . . . unlawful”); Georgia: O.G.C.A. § 10-1-393(a) (“[u]nfair © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 12 or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or practices in the trade or commerce are . . . unlawful”); Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(a) ( “unfair or decept­ive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful”); Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.170(1) (“[u]nfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are . . . unlawful”); Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1405 (“[u]nfair or decept­ive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce *350 are . . . unlawful”); Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5 § 207 (“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or com­merce are . . . unlawful”); Maryland: Md. Com. Law § 13.301 (“[u]nfair or deceptive trade practices include any: . . . (1) False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual descrip­tion, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers . . .”); Massachusetts: Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 93A § 2 (“[u]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are . . . unlawful”); Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020.1 (“[t]he act, use, or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pre­tense, false promise, misrepresentation, [or] unfair practice . . . is declared to be an unlawful prac­tice”); Montana: Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-103 (“[u]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in the con­duct of any trade or commerce are unlawful”); Nebraska: Neb. Stat. § 59-1602 (“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce shall be unlawful”); New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A: 2 (“[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to use . . . any unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . .”); New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3 (“unfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful”); New York: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) (“[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce . . . are hereby declared unlawful”); North Carolina: *351 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 57-1.1 (“[u]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are . . . unlawful”); Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02(a) (“[n]o Supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction . . .”; Rhode Island; R.I. Gen Laws § 16-13.1-1(e) (“‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices' means . . . (13) engaging in any act or practice which is unfair or deceptive to the consumer; or (14) using any other methods, acts or practices which mislead or deceive members of the public in a material respect . . . ”); South Caro­lina: S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20 (“[u]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful”); Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104 (“(a) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared un­lawful”); Texas: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. tit. 2 § 1746(a) (“[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are . . . unlawful”); Vermont: Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2453 (“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, are . . . unlawful”); Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.020 (“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct any trade or com­merce are . . . unlawful”); West Virginia: W. Va. Code Ann. § 46A-6-104 (“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are . . . unlawful”); Wisconsin: Wis. Stats. Ann. § 100.20 (“trade practices in business shall be fair . . . [U]nfair trade practices in business are . . . pro­hibited”). Some statutes generally prohibit “any unfair or deceptive *352 act” but also add “with the intent that others rely upon.” Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1522.A (“[t]he act, use, or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepres­entation . . . with intent that others rely upon such . . . is . . . an unlawful practice”); Delaware: Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2513(a) (“[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, . . . with intent that others rely upon such . . . is an © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 13 unlawful practice”); Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 815 § 505/2 (“unfair or deceptive acts or practices . . . with intent that others rely upon . . . are . . . unlawful . . .”; see also Ill. Rev. Stat. 9 ch. 815 § 510/2 (listing various deceptive practices, including “(5) represents that goals or services have . . . charac­teristics . . . that they do not have,” and “(7) represents that goods or services are a particular stand­ard, quality or grade . . . if they are of another,” but not including the “intent that others rely” lan­guage); Iowa: Iowa Code § 714.16.2(a) (“[t]he act, use or employment by a person of an unfair prac­tice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation, with intent that others rely upon . . . is an unlawful practice”); New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 (“[t]he act, use or employ­ment by any person . . . of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation . . . with intent that others rely upon . . . is . . . an unlawful prac­tice”); North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 51 -15-02 (“[t]he act, use, or *353 employment by any per­son of any deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, with the intent that others rely thereon . . . is . . . an unlawful practice”); Utah: Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-4 (“(1) A deceptive act or practice . . . violates this chapter . . . (2) Without limiting the scope of Sub­section (1), a supplier commits a deceptive act or practice if the supplier, with intent to deceive: (a) indicates that the subject of a consumer transaction has . . . performance characteristics . . . if it has not . . . (b) . . . is of a particular standard, quality, grade, . . . if it is not . . . ”). Nonetheless, this “intent that others rely” language is not a requirement for a showing of specific intent to deceive. See e.g., Flagstaff Med. Center, Inc., v. Sullivan, 773 F. Supp. 1325, 1361 (D. Ariz. 1991). The following states have statutes which limit claims to a generally similar “laundry list” of some­what more specifically defined practices, but a number of these are quite broad, such as representing that a product has qualities, uses, benefits, or ingredients that in fact it does not have; Alabama: Ala. Code § 8-19-5 ([t]he following deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are . . . unlawful: . . . (5) Representing that goods . . . have . . . characteristics . . ., uses, benefits or qualities that they do not have . . .; (7) Representing that goods . . . are of a particular standard, qual­ity or grade . . . if they are of another”); California: Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 (“[t]he following . . . un­fair or deceptive acts or practices . . . are *354 unlawful: . . . (e) Representing that goods or services have . . . characteristics . . . uses, benefits . . . which they do not have; . . . (g) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade . . . if they are of another”); District of Columbia: D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3904 (“[i]t shall be a violation of this chapter . . . for any person to . . . (a) represent that goods . . . have . . . characteristics, . . . uses, [or] benefits . . . that they do not have; . . . (d) represent that goods . . . are of a particular standard, quality, [or] grade . . . if in fact they are of another; . . . (f) fail to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead; . . . (x) sell con­sumer goods in a condition or manner not consistent with that warranted by operation of sections 28:2-312 through 318 of the District of Columbia Code, or by operation or requirement of federal law”); Minnesota: Minn. Stats. Ann. § 325D.44 (“[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his business . . . he . . . (5) represents that goods . . . have . . . characteristics, . . . uses, [or] benefits . . . that they do not have; . . . (7) represents that goods . . . are of a particular standard, quality, or grade . . . if they are of another; . . . (12) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding”); Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (“[t]he following . . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or com­merce are . . . prohibited . . . (c) Representing that goods . . . have . . . characteristics, uses, [or] bene­fits . . . that they do not *355 have, . . . (g) Representing that goods . . . are of a particular standard, quality, or grade . . . if they are of another . . .”); Oregon: Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646-608(1) (“[a] person engages in an unlawful practice when . . . the person . . . (e) Represents that . . . goods or services © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 14 have . . . characteristics . . . benefits . . . [or] qualities that they do not have . . .”); Pennsylvania: Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 73, § 201-2(4) (“‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices' means any one or more of the following: . . . (v) Representing that goods or services have . . . characteristics . . . benefits . . . that they do not have; . . . (vii) Representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade . . . if they are of another”); Virginia: Va. Code § 59.1-200 (“[t]he following fraudulent acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction are . . . illegal. . . . E. Misrepres­enting that goods . . . have certain . . . characteristics . . . uses or benefits; F. Misrepresenting that goods . . . are of a particular standard, quality, [or] grade. . . .”). The following states have adopted either the first or second type of statute but have added a scienter requirement, e.g., that defendants knowingly engaged in a deceptive trade practice. Arkansas: Ark. Stat. Ann. § 4-88-107(a)(1) ( “[d]eceptive and unconscionable trade practices made unlawful and pro­hibited by this chapter include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Knowingly making a false representation as to the characteristics . . . of goods or services . . . or of a particular *356 standard, quality, [or] grade . . . ”); Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(2) (“[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice when . . . such person . . . (g) Represents that goods, food services, or property are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, . . . if he knows or should know that they are of another”); Idaho: Idaho Code § 48-603 (“[t]he following . . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices . . . are unlaw­ful, where a person knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, that he has in the past, or is . . . (7) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, . . . if they are of another”); Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5.3(a) (“[t]he following acts or representations as to the subject matter of a consumer transaction . . . are deceptive act: . . . (2) That such subject of a con­sumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality . . . if it is not and if the supplier knows or should reasonably know that it is not”); Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-626(b) (“[d]eceptive acts and practices include, but are not limited to . . . (1) Representations made knowingly or with reason to know that . . . (D) property or services are of a particular standard, quality, [or] grade . . . if they are of another which differs materially from the representation”); Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598.410 (“[a] person engages in a ‘deceptive trade practice’ when in the course of his business or oc­cupation he . . . 7. Represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, . . . if he knows or should know that they are of another”); Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 753 (“[a] *357 person engages in a practice which is declared to be unlawful under the Oklahoma Consumer Protec­tion Act when . . . he . . . 7. Represents, knowingly or with reason to know, that the subject of a con­sumer transaction is of a particular standard . . . if it is of another”); South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws § 37-26-6 (“[i]t is a deceptive act or practice for any person to . . . (2) knowingly and intention­ally act, use or employ any deceptive act or practice . . .”); Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-105(a) (“[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice unlawful under this act when, in the course of his busi­ness and the connection with a consumer transaction, he knowingly . . . (iii) Represents that mer­chandise is of a particular standard, grade, style or model, if it is not”). 936 PLI/Corp 321 936 PLI/Corp 321 END OF DOCUMENT © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Important information about the $3.4 billion Indian Trust Settlement For current or former IIM account holders, Owners of land held in trust or restricted status, or their heirs A federal court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. Para el aviso en español, llame o visite nuestro sitio en internet. Din4k’ehgo ‘i[ hane’ biniiy4go, b44sh bee holne’ doodago b44sh [ich7’ii biyi’j8’ nihaa nanitah. . A proposed Settlement has been reached in Cobell v. Salazar, a class action lawsuit about individual Indian land, funds and other assets held in trust by the federal government. Courts decided that the federal government has violated its trust duties, including a duty to account for Individual Indian Money trust funds. The Settlement will resolve claims that the government violated its trust duties by (a) mismanaging individual Indian trust funds and other assets, (b) improperly accounting for those funds, and (c) mismanaging trust land and other assets. The individual Indian trust land is called “allotted” land and owners are from time to time referred to as “beneficiaries,” “allottees,” or “landowners.” . You may be part of this Settlement with certain rights in this Settlement if you are an: • Individual Indian Money (“IIM”) account holder (even if the account currently is not active or open), • Individual Indian who has or had an ownership interest in land held in trust or in restricted status, • Heir to a deceased IIM account holder or individual landowner. . The Settlement establishes funds worth approximately $1.5 billion to pay individual Indian trust beneficiaries for past accounting problems and resolve historical asset mismanagement claims. Settlement and administrative expenses, incentive fees and expenses of the Class Representatives, and legal fees and expenses will be paid out of these Settlement funds. Another $1.9 billion will be used primarily to buy up interests in trust lands that are owned by many people (“fractionated interests”). . Congress has passed legislation authorizing the Settlement and provided funding for it. The President has signed the legislation into law. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the majority of individual Indian trust beneficiaries will get at least $1,500. . The Settlement also creates an Indian Education Scholarship Fund worth up to $60 million to improve access to higher education for Indian youth. Your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act, so please read this notice carefully. These rights and options—and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this notice. You can object to or comment on the Settlement. see Question 30 You can go to a hearing and ask the Court to speak about the Settlement. see Question 36 You may also have the right to exclude yourself from part of the Settlement. see Question 28 . The full details of the Settlement can be found in a document called the Settlement Agreement, and subsequent modifications to it, which can be found on the web at www.IndianTrust.com. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 2 BASIC INFORMATION ………………………………………………………………………..PAGE 4 1. Why did I get this notice? 2. What are Individual Indian Money (“IIM”) accounts? 3. Who is affected by this Settlement? 4. What is this lawsuit about? 5. Why is there a Settlement? WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?...............................................................................................PAGE 5 6. Who is part of the Settlement? 7. Are there exceptions to being included? 8. If I never had an IIM account or my IIM account is now inactive or never existed, does this Settlement affect me? 9. I’m not sure if I’m included in the Settlement. THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS—WHAT YOU GET..............................................................PAGE 7 10. What does the Settlement provide? 11. What is fractionated land? 12. How much will my payment be if I’m an Accounting Class Member? 13. How much will my payment be if I’m a Trust Administration Class Member? 14. How will the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund be distributed? 15. What happens to any funds left in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund? 16. What is the Trust Land Consolidation Fund? 17. How much money can I get from selling my land? 18. How can I sell my land? 19. What happens to land when owners cannot be located? 20. How long will the Trust Land Consolidation Fund continue? 21. How will the Indian Education Scholarship Fund work? 22. How will the Indian Education Scholarship Fund be administered? 23. How does this Settlement affect trust reform? HOW TO GET A PAYMENT………………………………………………..............................PAGE 11 24. How can I get a payment? 25. When will I get my payment? REMAINING IN THE SETTLEMENT………………….…………………….........................PAGE 11 26. Do I need to do anything to remain in the Settlement? 27. What am I giving up as part of the Settlement? EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT ......................................................PAGE 12 28. What if I don’t want to be in the Settlement? 29. How do I get out of the Trust Administration Class? OBJECTING TO OR COMMENTING ON THE SETTLEMENT.........................................PAGE 13 30. How can I object to or comment on the Settlement? 31. What’s the difference between objecting to and excluding myself from the Settlement? THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU ................................................................................PAGE 14 32. Do I have a lawyer in the case? 33. How will the lawyers be paid? Do the Class Representatives get paid extra? THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING.....................................................................................PAGE 16 34. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement? 35. Do I have to come to the hearing? 36. May I speak at the hearing? GETTING MORE INFORMATION ..........................................................................................PAGE 16 37. How do I get more information? QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 3 BASIC INFORMATION You received this notice because Interior Department records show that: (a) you are now or have been an Individual Indian Money (“IIM”) account holder, or (b) you have an individual interest in trust land, or (c) you have requested that this notice be mailed to you. A Court authorized this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed Settlement of this class action lawsuit and about your options, before the Court decides whether the Settlement is fair and to give final approval to the Settlement. This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, and your legal rights. Judge Thomas F. Hogan, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, is currently overseeing this case. The case is known as Cobell v. Salazar, No. 1:96cv01285, and is a class action lawsuit. In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called Class Representatives (in this case, Elouise Cobell and others) sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. The people together are called a “Class” or “Class Members.” The people who sued—and all the Class Members like them—are called the Plaintiffs. The people they sued (in this case, the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury and the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (together called the “federal government”)) are called the Defendants. One court resolves the issues for everyone who remains in the Class. IIM accounts primarily contain money collected by the federal government from farming and grazing leases, timber sales, mining, oil and gas production, and other activities on trust land, as well as certain per capita distributions. The funds in IIM accounts are held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of individual Indians. The Settlement will affect all Class Members (see Question 6). Class Members include individual Indian trust beneficiaries, which means those individuals who: . Had an IIM account anytime from approximately 1985 through September 30, 2009, or . Had an individual interest in land held in trust or restricted status by the U.S. government as of September 30, 2009. The estate of a deceased individual described above whose account was open or in probate status as of September 30, 2009 is included. Probate means you have asked a court to transfer ownership of the landowner’s property after he or she died. This Settlement does not relate to certain historical claims or any future claims of Class Members. It does not relate to claims tribes might have against the federal government. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 4 The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas: . Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets. . Trust Administration Claims include: o Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds. o Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources. The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members. The Settlement is an agreement between the Plaintiffs and the federal government. Settlements end lawsuits. This does not mean the Court has ruled in favor of either side. The parties wish to resolve their differences and realize that many Class Members are elderly and dying and need to receive compensation. In addition, large numbers of Class Members currently live in poverty. So, after 14 years of litigation, both sides want to settle the lawsuit so individual Indian trust beneficiaries receive compensation for their claims. The Settlement will also help the federal government reduce future administration expenses and accounting issues. Class Representatives and lawyers representing them believe that the Settlement is reasonable under the circumstances. WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT? The proposed Settlement affects individual Indians across the country, including members of most federally recognized tribes west of the Mississippi River. The Settlement includes two groups or “Classes.” An individual may be a member of one or both Classes. Most people included in the Settlement are members of both Classes. Historical Accounting Class . Anyone alive on September 30, 2009, . Who had an open IIM account anytime between October 25, 1994 and September 30, 2009, and . Whose account had at least one cash transaction (that was not later reversed). Note to heirs: . The estate of an IIM account holder who was deceased as of September 30, 2009 is included in the Historical Accounting Class if the IIM account (or its related probate account) was open as of that date. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 5 . The heirs of any Class Member who died after September 30, 2009, but before distribution of any Settlement funds, will receive that Class Member’s Settlement payments through probate. Trust Administration Class . Anyone alive on September 30, 2009, and who • Had an IIM account recorded in currently available electronic data in federal government systems (“Electronic Ledger Era”) anytime from approximately 1985 to September 30, 2009, or • Can demonstrate ownership interest in trust land or land in restricted status as of September 30, 2009. . The estate of any deceased beneficiary whose IIM account was open or whose trust assets had been in probate as reflected in the federal government’s records as of September 30, 2009. Note to heirs: . The heirs of any Class Member who died after September 30, 2009, but before distribution of any Settlement funds, will receive that Class Member’s Settlement payments through probate. The Historical Accounting Class does not include individuals who filed a separate lawsuit before June 10, 1996, against the federal government making a claim for a complete historical accounting. The Trust Administration Class does not include individuals who filed a separate lawsuit or who were part of a certified class in a class action lawsuit making a Funds Administration Claim or a Land Administration Claim against the federal government before December 10, 2010. It could. If you are included in the Historical Accounting Class and/or the Trust Administration Class as defined in Question 6, this Settlement does affect you. If you are NOT currently receiving quarterly or annual IIM account statements, you should fill out a claim form and mail it to the address on the form. You can also submit your claim form online at www.IndianTrust.com. You may be asked to provide additional information to demonstrate your membership in the Historical Accounting Class and/or the Trust Administration Class. Claim forms and documentation will be due within 45 days of the Court’s Final Approval of the Settlement (or, at a later date set by the Court). Final Approval will be after the Fairness Hearing. Check the website or call the toll-free number for information on the claims filing deadline. If you are not sure whether you are included in one or both Classes or you are unsure if the federal government has your current address, you should call toll-free 1-800-961-6109 with questions or visit www.IndianTrust.com. You may also write with questions to Indian Trust Settlement, P.O. Box 9577, Dublin, OH 43017-4877. If you believe that you should be considered a member of either Class, but are not receiving quarterly or annual IIM account statements, you must fill out a claim form and mail it to the address on the form. The deadline for filing claims is explained in Questions 8 and 24. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 6 THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS—WHAT YOU GET The Settlement will provide: . $1.412 billion Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, plus a $100 million Trust Administration Adjustment Fund, plus any earned interest, to pay for Historical Accounting and Trust Administration Claims. This money will also pay for the cost of administering and implementing the Settlement, as well as other expenses (see Question 13). . $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund to purchase “fractionated” individual Indian trust lands (see Question 11). The program will allow individual Indians to get money for land interests divided among numerous owners. Land sales are voluntary. If you sell your land it will be returned to tribal control. . Up to $60 million for an Indian Education Scholarship Fund to help Native Americans attend college or vocational school. This money will come out of the $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund and will be based upon the participation of landowners in selling these fractionated land interests. More details are in a document called the Settlement Agreement, which is available at www.IndianTrust.com. Fractionated land is a parcel of land that has many owners, often hundreds of owners. Frequently, owners of highly fractionated land receive very little money from that land. ACCOUNTING/TRUST ADMINISTRATION FUND Each member of the Historical Accounting Class will receive $1,000. This is a per-person, not a per-account, payment. It depends on how much income you’ve collected into your IIM account. Each member of the Trust Administration Class will receive a baseline payment of $500. The $100 million in the Trust Administration Adjustment Fund will be used to increase the minimum payment for Trust Administration Class Members. The current estimate is that will raise the minimum payment to Trust Administration Class Members to about $800. Individuals with an IIM account open between 1985 and September 30, 2009 may receive more than $800. This payment is separate from, and in addition to, the $1,000 payment to individuals in the Historical Accounting Class. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 7 The payment calculation uses the sum of your 10 highest years of income in your IIM account to determine your share of the Trust Administration Fund. That Fund is estimated to be $850 million to $1 billion. The exact dollar amount you will get cannot be known with certainty at this time because it is based on (a) the recorded income deposited to your IIM account over a period of time, and (b) the amount of money that will be left in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund after deducting: . All of the $1,000 payments to Historical Accounting Class Members, and . Attorneys’ fees, their expenses, including expense reimbursements and possibly incentive fees to Class Representatives (see Question 33) and the costs of administering and implementing the Settlement. Congress has determined that payments to Trust Administration Class Members should be increased for individuals whose payments are calculated to be: . Zero; or . Greater than zero (but only if you would have received a smaller Stage 2 payment (see Question 14) than Trust Administration Class Members whose payment is calculated to be zero). For example, if you were supposed to receive a base payment of $500, your payment might be increased to $800. If your neighbor was supposed to receive a base payment of $600, his payment might be increased to $800. The following are estimated calculations and are in addition to the $1,000 you will receive as a member of the Historical Accounting Class. Your final Trust Administration payment could be more or less. • If the sum of your 10 highest years of revenue is between $0 and $5,000, you may receive between $800 and $1,250.00. • If the sum of your 10 highest years of revenue is between $5,000.01 and $15,000, you may receive between $1,250.01 and $2,500. • If the sum of your 10 highest years of revenue is between $15,000.01 and $30,000, you may receive between $2,500.01 and $5,000. • If the sum of your 10 highest years of revenue is between $30,000.01 and $75,000, you may receive between $5,000.01 and $12,000. • If the sum of your 10 highest years of revenue is between $75,000.01 and $750,000, you may receive between $12,000.01 and $125,000. • If the sum of your 10 highest years of revenue is greater than $750,000.01, you may receive more than $125,000. If your account shows fewer than ten years of income, a zero dollar amount will be used in the years for which no income has been recorded. Reversed transactions and transfers between an individual’s accounts will not be included in that calculation. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 8 If the Settlement is approved, there will be two distributions. Stage 1 – The $1,000 payments to Historical Accounting Class Members will be distributed shortly after the Settlement is approved and the Court’s order becomes final. For those Class Members who cannot be found, their payment will be deposited in a Remainder Account until the Class Member is located and can demonstrate his or her ownership interest. If a Class Member cannot be located prior to the conclusion of the distribution process, his or her funds will be transferred to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund (see Question 21). Stage 2 – Payments to Trust Administration Class Members will be distributed after it is determined that substantially all the Trust Administration Class Members have been identified and the payments have been calculated (see Question 13). After all payments are made, any money that is left over will be contributed to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund (see Question 21). TRUST LAND CONSOLIDATION FUND Over time, through generations, Indian trust lands owned by individuals have been fractionated into smaller and smaller undivided (“fractionated”) ownership interests. According to government calculations, owners historically have received very little money and the cost to administer the IIM account frequently has been more than what is paid out to individual Indians. The $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund will provide individual Indians with an opportunity to get money for the fractionated land. As an additional incentive for owners to sell their land interests, an amount above the fair-market value will be paid into the Indian Education Scholarship Fund (see Question 21). The Trust Land Consolidation Fund will be used for four things: (1) to purchase the fractionated land interests, (2) to carry out the Trust Land Consolidation Program, (3) to further Trust Reform efforts (see Question 23), and (4) to set aside up to $60 million for Indian scholarships. At least 85% of the Fund will be used to purchase land. The Department of the Interior will consult with tribes to identify fractionated interests that the Department may want to consider purchasing. The Department of the Interior will offer fair market value for fractionated trust land. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 9 The procedures for selling trust land have not been determined at this point. Once those procedures have been determined, the Department of the Interior will attempt to contact individual Indian trust beneficiaries who own fractionated interests that it wishes to purchase. For fractionated interests that the Department of the Interior wishes to purchase, but whose owners cannot be located, Interior will attempt to find missing Class Members, including through the publication of notice in appropriate newspapers and newsletters for a period of at least six months. Five years after the Settlement is granted final approval, Class Members whose whereabouts are unknown, after diligent efforts have been made by the federal government to locate them, will be assumed to have consented to the transfer of their fractionated interests and their Indian Land Consolidation Funds will be deposited into an IIM account. The Department of the Interior will have up to 10 years from the date the Settlement is granted final approval to purchase the fractionated trust land. Any money remaining in the Land Consolidation Fund after that time will be returned to the U.S. Treasury. INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP FUND The Indian Education Scholarship Fund will provide money for Native American students to attend college and vocational school. It will be funded in three ways: . Up to $60 million will come from the Trust Land Consolidation Fund in connection with the purchase of fractionated interests in trust land. Contributions will be as follows: Land Purchase Price Contribution to Fund Less than $200 $10 Between $200 - $500 $25 More than $500 5% of the purchase price The amount paid into the Indian Education Scholarship Fund is in addition to the fair market value amount that will be paid to the individual Indian landowner. . Any remaining funds in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, after all distributions and costs relating to the Settlement are paid, will be transferred to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund. . Any payments for Class Members that remain unclaimed for five years after Settlement is approved will be transferred to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund. This transfer will not occur for money being held for minors and adults who are mentally impaired, legally disabled, or otherwise in need of assistance. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 10 A non-profit organization chosen by the parties will administer the Indian Education Scholarship Fund. A special board of trustees will oversee the Fund. The trustees will be selected by the Secretary of the Interior, the representative Plaintiffs, as well as the non-profit. The Secretary will select his trustees only after consulting with tribes and after considering names of possible candidates timely offered by tribes. INDIAN TRUST REFORM Reform of the Indian trust management and accounting system should continue in the future. The Settlement Agreement allows some funds in the Trust Land Consolidation Fund to be used to pay costs related to the work of a commission on Indian trust administration and reform. In the future, Class Members will still be able to bring claims against the federal government for trust reform. HOW TO GET A PAYMENT To be eligible for any payments under the Settlement, you must be a member of one or both Classes. If you are not receiving quarterly or annual IIM account statements and you believe you are a member of either Class, you will need to fill out a claim form. The claim form describes what you need to provide to prove your claim and receive a payment. Please read the instructions carefully. Claim forms and documentation will be due within 45 days of the Court’s Final Approval of the Settlement (or, at a later date set by the Court). Final Approval will be after the Fairness Hearing. Check the website or call the toll-free number for information on the claims filing deadline. The claim form should be sent to: Indian Trust Settlement P.O. Box 9577 Dublin, OH 43017-4877 If you are denied participation, there will be an opportunity to submit additional documentation. Payments will be made after the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, and any appeals are resolved. REMAINING IN THE SETTLEMENT You do not have to do anything to remain in the Settlement unless you are not receiving quarterly IIM account statements. In that case, you will need to fill out and return a claim form in order to get a payment. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 11 If the Settlement becomes final, you will give up your right to sue the federal government for the claims being resolved by this Settlement. The specific claims you are giving up against the federal government are described in Section A, paragraphs 14, 15, and 21 of the Settlement Agreement. You will be “releasing” the federal government and all related people as described in Section I of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is available at www.IndianTrust.com. If you did not receive an IIM account statement for 2009, you may request your IIM account balance as of September 30, 2009 by calling 888-678-6836. If you request your IIM account balance, you are agreeing to the balance provided by Interior unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement (see Question 28). The Settlement Agreement describes the released claims with specific descriptions, so read it carefully. If you have any questions, you can talk to the law firms listed in Question 32 for free or you can talk to your own lawyer at your own expense. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT By law, you cannot exclude yourself from the Historical Accounting Class, if you are a member. You can only exclude yourself from the Trust Administration Class. If you don’t want to be in that part of the Settlement, you must take steps to exclude yourself. This is sometimes called “opting out.” By excluding yourself, you keep the right to file your own lawsuit. Or you can join any other person who opted out and bring a separate lawsuit against the federal government on any Trust Fund Administration or Land Administration Claims that you may have. If you choose to exclude yourself from the Trust Administration Class, . You will not receive any money for your Fund Administration and Land Administration Claims. . You will not be bound by the Court’s ruling and will keep your right to sue the federal government for these Claims. . You cannot object to or comment on this aspect of the Settlement as far as it concerns the Trust Administration Class. If you are a member of the Historical Accounting Class: . You cannot exclude yourself. . If the Court approves the Settlement, you will not be able to sue the federal government about the Historical Accounting Claims. . You will receive a $1,000 payment. . You can object to and/or comment on the terms of the Settlement. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 12 To exclude yourself, you must send a letter by mail saying that you want to be excluded from Cobell v. Salazar. Be sure to include your full name, telephone number, social security number, IIM account number(s) (if any), and your signature. You can’t ask to be excluded on the phone or at the website. You must mail your exclusion request so that it is postmarked by April 20, 2011 to: Indian Trust Exclusions P.O. Box 9419 Dublin, OH 43017-4519 Please note that the share of money you would have received if you had stayed in the Trust Administration Class will be removed from the $1.512 billion Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and given back to the federal government. OBJECTING TO OR COMMENTING ON THE SETTLEMENT Any Class Member may comment on or object to the Settlement. However, if you exclude yourself from the Trust Administration Class, you may only object to, or comment on, other parts of the Settlement that you do not like. Also, you may comment on or object to fee and expense requests for Class Counsel and incentive awards and expenses for Class Representatives and other amounts that may be awarded by the Court (see Question 33). If you object to any part of the Settlement you must give reasons why. You may also comment favorably on any part of the Settlement. To object or comment, send a letter stating: a) The case name (Cobell v. Salazar) and case number (1:96cv01285); b) Your full name, address, telephone number, IIM Account Number(s) and signature; c) Comments you have about any aspect of the Settlement, including (1) fee and expense requests for Class Counsel, (2) incentive awards and expenses for Class Representatives, or (3) other fees and expenses that may be awarded. Your comments must state the specific reasons why you are objecting to the Settlement; and d) Any legal support or factual evidence that you wish to bring to the Court’s attention, any grounds to support your status as a Class Member, and whether you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Mail your comments or objection to these three different places postmarked no later than April 20, 2011: COURT CLASS COUNSEL DEFENSE COUNSEL Clerk's Office United States District Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Cobell Class Counsel 607 14th Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2018 Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. Dept of Justice, Civil Div. P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 At your own expense, you may also appear at the Fairness Hearing to comment on or object to any aspect of the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement (see Question 36). QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 13 You object to the Settlement when you disagree with some part of it but you wish to remain a Class Member. An objection allows the Court to consider your views. On the other hand, exclusion or “opting out” means that you do not want to be part of the Trust Administration Class or share in the benefits of that part of the Settlement. Once excluded, you lose any right to object to any part of the Settlement that relates to the Trust Fund Administration Claims or the Land Administration Claims, because those parts of the case no longer affect you. If you exclude yourself, you are free to bring your own lawsuit for those claims. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU Yes. The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you and other Class Members as “Class Counsel,” including: Dennis Gingold 607 14th Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2018 Keith Harper Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 607 14th Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2018 You will not be charged personally for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in Court for you at your own personal expense. The amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs to be paid to Class Counsel will be decided by the Court in accordance with controlling law, giving due consideration to the special status of Class Members as beneficiaries of a federally created and administered trust. The amounts awarded will be paid from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs have filed a Notice with the Court to state the amount of fees, expenses, and costs they will assert through December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs’ Notice states the following: 1. On December 7, 2009 the parties signed an Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs, stating in their motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs that plaintiffs may not assert that Class Counsel should be paid more than an additional $99,900,000.00. In response, defendants may not assert that Class Counsel should be paid less than $50,000,000.00. This Agreement is available at www.IndianTrust.com. 2. Plaintiffs’ petition will assert that Class Counsel should be paid $99.9 million for fees, expenses, and costs through December 7, 2009. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 14 3. Class Counsel are working pursuant to contingency fee agreements, which provide that Class Counsel shall be paid a combined total of 14.75% of the funds that are created for the benefit of the classes. Applying that percentage to the $1,512,000,000 to be deposited into the Settlement Account would result in an award of $223,020,000.00 for Class Counsel. 4. The Court is not bound by any agreed upon or requested amounts, or the contingency fee agreements between Class Representatives and Class Counsel. The Court has discretion to award greater or lesser amounts to Class Counsel in accordance with controlling law, giving due consideration to the special status of Class Members as beneficiaries of a federally created and administered trust. The Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs, as modified, also provides that Class Counsel may be paid up to $12 million for work, expenses and costs after December 7, 2009. Class Counsel will not be entitled to be paid such amounts unless the Settlement is given final approval by the Court. All such requests for fees, expenses, and costs after December 7, 2009 are to be based on Class Counsel’s actual billing rates and are subject to approval of the Court, following an opportunity for Class Members to object and defendants to respond. Plaintiffs will file a petition for payment of attorneys’ fees and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of that request no later than January 20, 2011. That petition and memorandum will also be available at www.IndianTrust.com. As required by the Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs, at the same time Plaintiffs file the petition for attorneys’ fees, they will also file statements regarding Class Counsel’s billing rates, as well as contemporaneous, where available, and complete daily time, expense, and cost records supporting that petition. Those records will thereafter be available at the Clerk’s Office, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001. Plaintiffs have also filed a notice with the Court that they will seek incentive awards and expense reimbursements for the Class Representatives as follows: Elouise Pepion Cobell $2,000,000.00 James Louis Larose $ 200,000.00 Thomas Maulson $ 150,000.00 Penny Cleghorn $ 150,000.00 Plaintiffs will also be requesting $10.5 million to reimburse the Class Representatives’ expenses. The requested amounts are in addition to payments the Class Representatives will be entitled to as Class Members. Any amounts awarded will be paid from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. Plaintiffs will file a petition for payment of those incentive awards and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of that request no later than January 20, 2011. That petition and memorandum will also be available at www.IndianTrust.com. Class Members and Defendants may object to or comment on plaintiffs’ requests for Class Counsel and Class Representatives (see Question 30 above). After considering the objections and comments of Defendants and Class Members, the Court will determine the amounts of (a) attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs and (b) plaintiffs’ incentive awards and expense reimbursement in accordance with controlling law giving due consideration to the special status of Class Members as beneficiaries of a federally created and administered trust. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 15 THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 am on June 20, 2011, at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check www.IndianTrust.com or call 1-800-961-6109. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will also consider how much to pay the lawyers representing Class Members and whether to award any additional payment to the Class Representatives. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. We do not know how long these decisions will take. No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. But you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection or comment, you don’t have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay another lawyer to attend on your behalf, but it’s not required. Yes. You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. You may appear at the Fairness Hearing to comment on or object to any aspect of the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement. GETTING MORE INFORMATION This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and the subsequent modifications to it at www.IndianTrust.com. You may also write with questions to Indian Trust Settlement, P.O. Box 9577, Dublin, OH 43017-4877. You can also register for updates and get a claim form at the website, or by calling the toll-free number, 1-800-961-6109. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-800-961-6109 OR VISIT WWW.INDIANTRUST.COM. 16 . .I()TN'I';:-.J ".'1:.11.'. t\·.~,n,Xj'J(1,r II~'IIf, .1:'111 l'II().':UI!II!"_ , ::!I,j6.;-. " - >,',,~ .. ' l....(.'I~.;--..,\1.... ~ _"""!''f ~~,:~t :.~~1~~::~,~~:;7l:~'11~~~,==:.~:,~,=;~=:=::::::::,::::~::::::::::::=:.::::~:' ~ ellUI'\!.'I' lJ,:-'f,IUJ ()t~'ll:t.111ml or thl! 1.711\(1,'\1 rl,urI:lUI: •••:T" __•• ~78 :. l',\ll~ '" ~1J.~~.,\,~r~:.IWIC,r.8__(,~,~j~,\R~;r,r:~::.1}~~r.:..~~)." _'.' .11..-,\11111),_11) (If I1rumdnl Ilrm·lsl,on. ot 11Ht" -"llrj(III~, .lnlll!ell lind I!I'~ 1;O'!'em]og Ind:ltIn (un.UIl.· ) "­ -'. " .",' --~, ,:. ' ',,; Apt)erlLlJx. 2,-n.'tn I]('u olll:llll() ot on;ulllr.IIUOrl. at lhe OUke /J'( IIHlhm "',lTulr8: -;.", f]J,:ifl'lllyI.10l2.', :'-_".-: . ';, ': :>"" ' ., '. ­ : APIICIIIlIx 3"";-1!'1Iullicln! Jj[lltlil~kll IUltll ,,":]~ooule J:ll't'roufeoJ blr thO' CI}JJIIIlJ~")"n .mflt:.;..'>.",~:,::-,.t.«IMO'li onll Emdell'(7'. Ihowln), lUIG1)"*", ot ,~OtI't tUIlC'lkinll. OtJ;mll:!.lltioQ.":_ -';:.::-: ~:; ..:;.:, lInlt.. and ,~hnJjJcl,er ct e~'pendlttlre. : . . '." I":.'." .' ' .. ' .• ~ : I." .,'... )~:-. ';', , ,·.A(1lld1dlx 4.-rrfl[)j""':llchttldnC'M Rnll ,lJcc(llintin,IC Ilrnre.lllrct :ot IhlJ Unltl'tl ~~hitP.,.1~·~:'."'''''.-·'·~'''-,.,1l'1d...r.n Att\'l('E~bntltlaJl tl.Jr.OUI:h the CornmJlh>e QI1'EI;:'OnoDlI anLlt lmF~~~\~;;"I_ ~~ toftIKi_,)t 1Ii('l [ltpartment o( tbe IfntNIOl'. _." _ -~ '. ~ _.'" (Hll.n~ ... ~. ''''-~'.' ~ .. "'.. :::::~i~~~;.;. " .,,;, -,'.; .-.', " -:-' "/;: ',:,;:;~ .I:USJ.~I:SS A:W A(TUGXi'I)~(: )lliTlloIIS· 11\111,1:, IIUH~AU.' . !.' ' . . :PAJl.'t' I.-.i)l~S~l_~~I~'-~~':':P:~EfIE~~ ~'~~Alrr:z.5.~lON,'; l1:~R~J)S.. " '-" .II.Nl) P'RO'I:EIIUlI.E., . ",' ,__ ; _:, ~ , .' Jpij~j~ G',()mmi,,~um tc) 'hu.:e.ftiqate Indian' .11f(dr;r' :'_'/" .' ,__ Si':rtj;:tltird Con(Jl'c88,of tli~~ Uni/"d Btate.,.lVaIh1'1t!I1~O'~, D., 0.' UJ0,:TJ.f.))~·~: At j'01J1' i:IlQllest th,~ N'c\\"· York llurca'll or M1II1:icipl&1 HeE.eilrch-' }1Il:~ mado....t1,n. lnqlliry blto thl! hUldnes:!J dnd Qo::ountlllg" methods '~mplovcd in t~,e'-Itdtninilj:trtltion of I~he Ojfi.~:, ol~ A~dillln· ',;_ Atrllir!f. A Bunlmllry of, c~m'cl1)8i,on8, willl be_ fOllnd in. tho"l.nt('(}o ._ duc:tor'!' pnrt of tliis rE~po.rt. W'hil,l!~~.detQilEd dc~riptioll Ol~ pl'esent",mcth(}(!1 tlnd ool1uHiohs is: sulJrilit~~d h1!r'~\rith, it'wns thou,ght 'unde-': . mmble to take the tim(~ to work ,out concretely the Ct)n~stru.:tl...'e details IInless: some e.cti,orl w-ere tnkel' whicll wanTa il1dj-i:.llt<~ tho.t, tllcllC detail.::' wel'e t~csi.red, . ,:­ .. . , " . "-'~.../, /. '. ., • . .. ..Xf.~t,1 j.-Olt S.:['r.~L\,L I,:~_~~f; ~,jr~~:~:~t1~1:~.U~NT. ;,:.-.t....·~>-· -The l1e,~d ;rN· sp(!Cinl.c·ue in mllllllL!emi!nt"of the fo.,rt t.hOl;,il1l theory (If 1..: ••• ·.1•.•. 'r'.~.H.__ '-­. citizen. He ho.s ~,ot -en~n , Indial1l individually does-11 :nJh'jdullJ1y ilp-pelil to tho 'ldlTJini8truth·~;oJl(J tho vubli(! 8erl'j,re ![or thel ell.forcemeOl~ oj; ,hi!L,.r conslJ'~rcd nil n w;Jll'il .. ~ ..1.-f1'..' .. ' I l"',., ; • arc hctd in trust,' of. tion. ThE~ , ver:sioft OJ: welfllrG h~ve '.' pecuJ"~ion &1:-0, , l1IinOU8 elrcc1; on anet oUicers'1)f I)ur "~ .. ",~ ..,;; '.., .. ~'.-."'.'!;-:!",(~' ,(,:!-~;~'~,~~t~~;;~t::~~~: \~:~~.J.'t~r;·: "~'" ,'." ...;" ,:~:~:'~;~:~tt~~1§~~::j .'. ' '.,. ~~ ,. , . ·nliill~.r::-il:l .\~U ACCOUNTING M£:IHOD8 INiDl,H1 nUm~AU• .:, . ..".,; ..;.,:",;," . . Ithe inl4!f."{ty of I:hC~iC has' l)e~l brotmn down. It is not. to. It.e tlccep~d' n9 3, conclusioll, howc\"'~r, that tt.oM~.whl? till""! bee1li employed in the .: )n!1i!ln· Seni~~e JI:l\·tl 11~!cli 1,,,J.ow otll('l".~ in I,llilil.y ·or integrit.v· when' ·l.hlf1~'"!1 ha\'(~ ~ronl~ '.... rong.! It ha:fI: bl.'cil I:lq,;-cly.dqo to ~h~ ronuitions under whi('h ~h~ scn"le,! hila ~'een'rc'1l1jrcd to 0Ill~ratc. ~... . , '" . . ~, ("(I1·t:lt;-';:~'''~;T :~r.\("O:~f.UY 1:\,'\flr.Q'(JA'T~. ' ..,'. ; .. Tn the Ii NIt· P]:;I\'l' tilt: mn~hint'r.v of tlw (lm·CII'nrrll'nl;. kl~ ri,ot been " 'itch I)tt'lt to th,!! rml'l}rlse of :~dlll)in ifitl!l'inf! It tl'·I,I!it.·, III tlill S(~('on(l place :;t'" sYlIlplIth.v IH·.fa\'(II'lIhlc nrillion to dl'uJ:llul th~,t IIII1t'hrne be dC\'dop~'d, Tn fad tIle plIblic (loin • .• tn,' th:c G(H"t'l'lIlHl'nt haH been Cil~hf'I' hosti:l~ f.lf Thi:~ is, {me side of (h(~ pic-ture. On " prott'cJ:ion whkh opernteQ, lal~gell'y· n,s nt nH time~ ~I'CflC ,n;'alth in the form silorerted; '"llluable IQnd~, m:l!lcs, oil fif'lds. pnd rt':SOIll'('C'll to bn dj~svolJed or npprOrll·i:1I'ed.. to the 1!~6. lIn(), 1~ll'g~! PI'Oti!.S to bc~ made by those den ling with trml; . nnimfltC'd by. moti\'(!li of gain. This hn:~ bf'('n the' nil;... wMdl th(~ Jrulinn Scn'icl! hilS bC(,1I1 f,l')l" mOl'e thlm n c~t1.~ '1.llry-tTIe' Jndinn dlll'illig Idl thi~ tillll': hadn~~ his I"i(.!'lits :lnu IH'C}per. .., 01' h':,;:,{ extrnt, ncgfrctt.'('l: the gllfmlinn. th(> no\"'ern.• II1lln)· instrmC'I.'R., pit.~.si,·~ t() ('(mditions which hare.l~on'~rib. hi.:~ uudoing. ':'c\, ...r ' \~An~!'itjlft·dJlc Ito th~' 'incl;('nf;in~: ":II!lIe! of ·hi~: 1'('I:nllininj:!' l~;;tate-: tltPI'C ;'lE~(t:'lm :iriuIICrltll'lrtJO' fr:md. '~orrllntion. :1 nJ-im,titutiona 1 incolTl.~ '1~ c'ompl'ehen!;iol1;'-The prop:. 1'.'->·· ,~, :ll'(~ c~tim:1ted nl~ not It:!;.,> Ithrm ,;~. .~-.....,..._.... Th('re if!: !:itil.l n. ,grl'at oblij!:ltio:h ;~:; J~ha.rl~ed, '~·h1:ch I1lIlS'~'nm tbr'()lI~:h, m:uw YCllr;;. TIle OOV.·, hnm~itti il~lf OWl'~l m::'In'~' miJ1ionl~·of. (1!ollnr,'1 for~ J::ldian mone\'~ jf:~'·. lj\""hie~i i~ils com'cl'teJ'1 to itS,· own ·"lse~ nild 'it.i II o:r jJl.UoI"l':st to note 4·.;~;.. •ihat ! J J not knc1\\', Ilrl,d th" o~cem ,~o n(lt I~now \\'!lat is Itho pr~~nt ...... ",1. '" .. f: 11, .. T_,l._ •• 1.._.'-III theil' IWcpmg-, l'.\,cry ~:omml1mti" ,~;<~~i ._.. "."."" hllR.in it !l('T'!';()[\S who :H"e Ilsing'.c\·CI·,V ,.~> " lei." ecmlllJrtnll to ohtflin nffil~inl !lC'tioa tCI .Hlt! cnr1 that ., .. PO>iSl's'f'i('lf) 01: Indinn lnndl'l,; ·an'rit C{;'I'jloration~ main. 1p1lh.",i&ts and Itnl)I'i~!,cipTecl l1,g'~~nLi with·:t ... i,ew or getti,tlg con. ('essi'o.h~ ,.1j·.:t5:('s, lu~~l, e~j~l:ttion which· lJ'1rC ItnvOI:abJo to tli('ir OWJl s~1fi$h lllrposrsi ~"t. lrnfaj::·QmbTu· t(J1 the Indinn •. " '. the" 'I'i('wpoint of th~' one ·of oq!nniznl;ion. Ilnti(jll!lti!ti metho&I. 011 1!'~;~nHal·del~ect3 the l[nctS--:-IIlCk of I'rli"!:~n t Ii nelV rtlTnirs is '['Inl:r , .;, l)n'cedcnl~" t,r). be: fc~·II~~'''~~l AI·C. a·rnple; 1m P~'ivllte ':orporat-e trusts. thllt ,IH~\,~ !J('(!n.,.mismnnrll-'"('cl n h.,~b: of nppelll hD,s heen, .found oilly '\'hen !¥Jmc fn'.orllbI(!·'cil·cllmsl~anec lias b'('(mgnt' to :lig-ht conditiorul so shockinp:, rUI tOI c:II'I!;(!: thoSe" p~:oplc; who hru'e possesseu political pOWel", '~,!J n, mattA~r.'of f;clf,p·J"l:)~dloll1;., to demnnd .I, thorough reor­ ~Hnb:!ltio)tl' and. re,·il,iou'· hf' methouEf;:,_ The BAffiB moti,ve hA,15 Jain hack of Ic~slnl:io[\. {or the Indian; ,,: :But. i~he· rnnth·l~ t{o·,'C1, (:0111(1 :<~ome-only thlrollgh sOllte menns ._. ' • wmd(~ 1'l~g:tI[:ldy J1llfll.c'pllit.lie.l:hc. fllct."·fI(~r~~ar.v l~oJ~ln'olpp,e:'l1 tm\:<;~T('I1'Ce of t111~;c :~1,'h,(J It:,p' n~ pcrson:11 Intel:l4,t I~" JT1I(hnn :1..I1I1:,ra,.·.".:,(.<"TillS: Iwam: I~I'I~ h",t'rl'" \\'ilnt.llla~. ," "\pp(,~III, 11l1~ heen rruHI,~ OiIll,v ,,.lien"!,<: conllitlc)n~ h:l\·o ,·!cy"Iop{·t.1 wlddl(cmt:1l1,:rcl'cil thl;!)fn';:;I:nml hc.ilth· ..' .... of million~ of American.!, thr('nt"n~d.h.v th,~ c)!lltl~lwr~ 01' (li~~If;8 re­ sult!> or .;;o('inl ncgJecl) ",:, .. ::">'r."'.,::.' ., . ":' .;.;~:: ~~~f~' 'I"· '·"·}N" . ·... ~CQ:-;'RTI:U(:'ll\'l! Il:r.COJOU;X[I'ATIOXI'.:':",. : , ,:,' .... , ..>. ',;'''(''':' ..~.', .:~:". :'.,'. ,.': .·1','.,:·.: . ", {1I'it·fl '{ ~t:l t('·tt~tfil:;i;.~ltl:·,:;~:ti\~~:· ~'c~~mi~'''~;ll;l71~', ... ,',' ·:i~:..'~~r!'.; ...~:>'. '-1:,-:-., ,. --. "­ "G"-"·-""·"'.A.~""""T····'f·'-,~_~_:~··n"<,,,;. ";\_-""'_ ;"'.;~ ~r~~§!:~~~~;{M,~::Z";"",,, '"i'''ij."!t'~'''''·''' ',.",--""jU'..:'1" '''' .';:'1'>. ,,'• r '.~ "" f'~.~.',.·L··,:.)..t,,;,::;';;'{·l!:'·:;,~'·":,,~,,:~,_:~~,>:I'.~:,' :,,:,"'-"~-.. '-.I',~ "'''i'''' , . l>lEJlfOOS IN,Du~ lItiRI~U'. -'r:. '­ -' ".. ~ '.:,r <'.,:'t'-·' . /.. . \ _,_. , .2. That r in tunlcing these c:itllngefl, unit.~ oJ ol"*3 J1ization be e:::;tab­ LiBJlE~ to. exel"ciSeI.tha fUDcltion of" gU:lt'diflIl.6hip e,r eare',. edueution, and ph'r8i'~al \ve] Care of th~ ][ndlanr which. nre !.eparate and distinct,Iron\;uj:I!~~~Qjr_ orgnllizll,~iolr:t, whichl are chnrged wit,tl !.~e exercise ot , fUDctlOllS I[)i '.' trusteeshIp.I) _ , . ,.,', ~ -.: 8. Tftat ill endt group of org(lni~ntion units ~L cJ,~ar uistin,;tion be DladlJ.b.eh1:~n the: ..' line n :1.90 dil:,tingllished 1'ram the'" stuff.': That-­in, tbe ,~, line 11 ol:'gnJrli1;lltiQn would he l'espoll.sib!e for dorll~' things and ,the. U I,talf II orgunilut.lOn ":ouId lJ4~ rE~p()nsible fall' Ilcivu;lng: the ~hellds of tho li:ic with Ire.spet;li to pl:lQninv and t.he manner jll whicll .::. pll~~ and ordel's n~'e~ eii'iute~ by.otllu!r::J, !~be '~:lfr 00, be ~elief4~ fronl ";. u'f(IIIDi and u~cutU1.g or~E~rs ,which" re4IUU"e direct dea!.m~;s ~!ltb. the :' hw~, lhc: Indmns, or Wltlt the busmess world. . .<:~ ". ' .:. J. That tIle, whole sen'iet, bE: ta~en Ollt Ol( p<,lities nlld tho pe!'SQnnei" or both br:mcnes of the liel'\'ice be'so clnsstfied :lnd I;raded with liucb 'SuInlr J'a.~9 ali to pl'l)r1cle {I senice-wiue opportunity for proll~otion.:Jhase( on illldi'l'idilul elHciency,~ im.tead of hal'ing: theopportuoity of the indidJ'u.Ill so !imit.ed n.':i nClt to olfer him a career'. ., 5. Thtlt methods e,f ttpPJ~oprial~iong be changed 'W'ith ~ "'jew to es­ ,~t. . tt,blbhjn~_11 more: etf'ecti'-e cantrcil o\"er tht, cclntrading Q·n,j. plIrcn.as,. -. itlg relD.tklons, :md nt t~e Silme .time ~:'<,ILlcin.; the eosl: and-eliminating ~ the unnl~lSar'Y ~~ red tape n .0J: fulmlnlstrnj:lOn,:. \" o. That the allot~~n~1 be made under'conditions :ll:tac'hed to appro." pl:1ation,s whidl would locate ad!mirlisttati\'e re:spoll5ibi1il~y Jor tho e,:erci.se of fOl'esight in pJDlnn ing work to. be dohe 'flswell as rev'iew .' of l"t.'Jruits, ~Ind to twa en(1 r{~uiriJ1lg the est~ilJlishmenl~ of aceounts IlD'd: ;. current report~~ which w.ill ~.how cost of wOlrk Imc1er E~ach allotment. \. ;<". :·7. '11111t methods: Clf inspection be· systemaHzed ·arid developed in 81J,eh mal1nE!r thut. the e.dminist:rati:on may utilize the reporUl of'super.i "visom and Rpe(.'iuJ o~'entiJ moru effecti,·dy, and ~o this Imd to install . 1it:lI.Dd.ardiud forms of U score eardlJ 'I wher'~\'e,r prjlcl.icable, on which_ . l'8vie'wable fads may be reported insl~ad oj: 1e,;~llg the whole mil'tt.er' "' to thn inititltivc (lIid:llis.::retiqn of each indixid.ual. " . . , 8~e Thalt pro,"isioD he mnd,a for, the mon,~ econom.ic pUfc.ha.!:e, ud dis. ~riibuj~ionl of slipplies,mllt,rial!l, and eqtliproent. " . ._ A ..-. • I, comp,iete system of double-,mf:ry :lCC()'Uiltinj~ bE, in&t4111ed - :e complete, aecurntc~,' dnd up-to"dote r-epc,"rts of aU the aUllUilllistlmtor: by Cong.res~!', or br citizens in tbe hUfli,nes,s, ~Ind 6r~ando.L re,la~ioru~ ·0: the Indian '," .. ('~:lTrGr8Jt or }:(ETHO[~t~ S01~ Oi~ PI~JlSOXS~L. -:'t. 'rh~"cr~-ti,:al ,5t~-te~'~ntJl whi~h apPI~~r in diirerE'nt pal·ts of i,he" re. . port .rebte to m~lho-cla and procedure rather' than to officia:ts a,od empiCl'Yees of the Oflie'e oj~ Inclul,n A1ftlirs. The inc()mplel~and uns;it.­.istac~~ry-.. n~~OIl,rltirlg·syst~jn described is .tarl~eJ)' due to a Inck of' fadl.itie8~Lnd .Is1:k (.f. per.s()~nel., (or the illlstnlIntioll and operation of an up-ro-date nccounting'sy!;tem rnthl~r than to, neJ~led or dl~6dencies!=tD ·)flrt:. ofoffidal:~, cleri.s, :mdl ~[rtptbyees.:ln t.he scryiC(~ ·Fot: some pam;:it hilS, beep,' ·Nnh7.ed that tlle mel;bods n6w in. os~ are not fA~~ t~-t:h.(I diaraf.t~r\()F~·olume ~f .wor~ 'whic~ i~s b~inj; pt~rfCl'rm~~d. 1'(!"hzatl0n _he,.s; ~rough1i:a.houj~.lrom time 1;o·tlm~t changes whl.ch • ".'.. .. placcd on an. old p;llmlenli­ . \ " --:-"'~ OJ c \ ,.,,},; '"):. , CJ1AI='TER I. " I "',,' ';ir • '\"r: . Iz.;:1:1lo[)C"~no:.,.~ ..'~ ~!r .~.:, 'Go\l'~~mel1lt th:lt htl!! h3d tl: . f~lcc ~1I0U:i~';~ --~. :~'. le.lnS ()ccl1s~med by tl~e raC!: thn~ r.eopJell of djlrer~nt ryi~es,.spl'~~iri'~, ....,,};~/ dl1f'er~nt plngl1n~;es, and "In (h~el't ,t £t:lges 01 ~lllh~nl;lOn 1111\~~~~: ::.: oo~upled I~ natIonal fc~rrltol'V andrrL1H' beef11 subJect Ito u t'OIlUllon: /~'lt~ go\ernptent in \Thjch ..~~t1e rllce'in iti:l~i~I't.y to cOIlr1.m.md ~f1d :n()fl:;Ei ~~,~:'~;:~~ " . \ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOISE PEPION COBELL, et aI" ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civii Action No. 96-1285 (RCL) ) GALE A. :NORTO~J, Secretary of the Interior; et al.,) ) Defendants. ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF JESSICA POLLNER i, Jessica PoHner, for my affidavit ifl the above-captioned matter, declare as follows: 1. I a.t11 a principal in PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) and have been employed by the firm and its predecessor firm, Price Waterhouse LLP (PW), since 1991. i am in the Advisory Services practice, where I provide statistical and ruialytic support for complex disputes and litigation. For the pu..j)ose of t.l-tis affidavit, ! will refer to the organization in which I am a principal as "PwC", rather than "PwC and its predecessor firm PW." 2. I am a professional statistician, and received my Ph.D. in statistics from the State University ofNew York at Buffalo in 1980. tv1y undereiaduate training is. in mathematics (1973, State University of}!e\v York at Buffalo). I receive·d a Master's degree in mathematics (,vit..l-). a spec.ialization in statistics) from Boston University in 1974. 3. In the course of my employment at PwC, i have analyzed large and complex databases; developed sampling plans; extrapolated sample iCSUltS to the population; a..'1d reported on those results. I aa.'1l f~"'1liliar ,vith the statistical literature on samnle desiIDl and evaluation, . ­ alld have testified on these issues. 4. Dennis Gingold engaged PwC in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs in June 1996. My role on this engagement was to oversee tlie data 3J.-illlysis lli""ld anticipated statistical sampling of the Individual India.~ ~~1onies (II~.1) account..l!olders. I provided this direction over the entire engagement period. A brief outline of our efforts to obtain the documentation and information necessary to perform an accurate analysis of the Indian accounts, as weii as a description of our efforts to workjointiy with Defendants' experts follows. 5. From June 1996 through l".Jovember 1996, p\vC'S primary tasks were to research and develop a discovery request. This discovery request was ordered on November 27, 1996. As described more thoroughly in Attachment A, letter to Dennis Gingold dated November 11, 1997, documents and data requested pursuant to illis order were not provided in a timely and compiete manner. 6. In December 1996, PwC was provided access to the lIM database (covering the period 1985 th~ough 1996) maintained by the Office of Trust Funds Management (OTFM). These data were provided to us on approximateiy i 00 cartridges, and captured infonnation from three fiies: IITRA:t~, HISTRA}.J, and :t-J1aster. \Ve developed a unified analytic database from these files, \vrich \11as a critical source ofinformation for this engagement. Defendants indicated that these data were all the data available regarding t-he IIM accounts. However, as PwC came to find out, these tlles were missing critical information regarding the llM accounts. PwC incurred over $450,000 in fees for building and analyzing the OTFM database. As showll on Exhibit AD, these tasks include: Statisticallwalysis (Ta-:;k 005); Database fonnatting (Task 006); Perfonn agency credit/debit a.'1alysis (Task 024); Development ofanalytic database from OTFM files (Task 029); and Summary reporting regional accounts (Task 058). 7. Since the OTF~1 data V'/ere intended to serve as the ba~is for PwC's statistical sample, PwC would not have proceeded with the extensive analysis ofthe OTFM database if we had not intended to pursue a statistical sampling approach. Due to the Defendants' inability to provide documents for the five named plaintiffs; the lack of docwllentation and manuals provided for a nurnber of BWOTF~v1 systems; t..'le limited data provided during our site visits; and the lack of cooperation from Defend!l.1lts' experts~ we abandoned t..l-.Ie statistical sampling approach in July 1998. 8. On February 7, 1997, PwC requested assistance from the Defendants to understand the nuances ofthe OTFM data (Exhibit 0). PwC received a response irom Defendants on March 11, 1997 (Exhibit F). The 1',,1arch 11, 1997 response requested eX8...mples of certain items. \Ve submitted the requested examples and requested further clarification in a letter dated March 14, 1997 (Exhibit G). The March 14, 1997 letter was re-submitted to Defendants on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 0). No further response on these issues was ever received by PwC. 9. PwC received data aIld supporting documentation regarding oil and gas transactions for IIM accounts from the Mineral Management Service (MMS). Some ofthese data were unreadable. As shown in Exhibit C, on February i 9, i 997, we requested fwiller . .. I,. ,,-1I.'-CI J A L • D h·J..·.. U D ~. , documentatton regarolng tne lVllVl;:') uata. .t-\S SHown In LX.uluh. J.J., e.Lena.a.Tlts response to this letter on rv1arch 19, 1997 suggested a teleconference with MMS to discuss ~••+o+o~A;nn ;00",.0 As shown in Exhibit I. this teleconference took place on March 21, uu....., ...u..L.L ..... .L .16 ..............._..... - . 1997. A further request for MMS documentation was issued on Aprii I, 1997 (Exhibit j) 10. On February 21, 1997, PwC requested lease and ow11ership data from the Integrated Records ivlanagelnent System (IHlv1S) as sho\vn in Exhibit D. This letter also requested a lueeting with the Bureau of Indian .A.ffairs (BIA) and/or Bureau of Land Management (ELM) to p.lrther understand the relationship among the various agencies invoived with the liM accountholders. Defendants response to this ietter dated March j 7, j 997 (nxhibit H) neglected to address the IRMS data or answer many of the questions regarding the agencies. As shown in Exhibit L, we again requested th.e IR~.1S data on ~A..pri! 17, 1997, and requested information regarding the La...l1d Records Information System (.LRIS). The April 17, ! 997 letter was re-submitted to Defendants on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 0). The status ofthese requests as of April 1, 1998 is provided in Exhibit Z. II. PwC formally requested the LRIS data and documentation 011 December 4, 1997 (Exhibit U). The status of these requests as of April 1, 1998 is provided in Exhibit Z. Some LF1S data w-ere ultimately provided, ho\vever, we were not able to successfully access these data. PwC incurred almost $175,000 in fees for reviewing the IRMS and LRIS data. As shown in Attachment AD, these tasks include: Examination ofTSR data tapes provided " .. .." ~"'~, h'm n • ~ "' by B ( ; eVJew data recclvea trom ilIA ~ I aSK VI"); 1\.evJew uata tapes ,rom IA Tas k 011) R BrA (Task 022); and Review tapes received fiom BIA (Task 027). :f'.!either the IR..MS nor the LRIS data were ultimatel')' useful due to the lack of documentation nroduced bv . " Defendants and the inability of Defendants to provide accessible files. PwC would not have incurred this time had we been aware that documentation would not be available or that the data would be unreadable. 12. Due to u~e limited time frattle for which OTFM data were available, on March 3, 1997, PwC requested data for the time period 1972 through 1985 for two regions (Exhibit E). This request was submitted to Defendants once again on August 8, i 997 as shown in Exhibit O. No data were ever provided in response to tillS request. i 3. FrOln the inception of this 'Nark, PwC had excha...nged insights and observations with l~..n1Ur Anderson (A_A) professionals concerning the analysis ofthe OTFM database. At no time from June 1996 through July 1998 had there been any agreement that both PwC (engaged by the Plaintiffs) and AA (engaged by the Defendants) would analyze similarly the database. At best, we hoped for some agreement on a s~-npling approach. A.s described below and in more detail in .(d;a.ttacl"l...'11ent l\., we had nlLtnerOus difficulties working jointly v'/ith A~J\ to design a statistical sampling plan in a timely manner. 14, On August 7,1997, we indicated to David Lasater ofAA and Lewis Wiener of tile Department ofJustice that the sampling methodology suggested by AA (in a meeting heid in the AA offices in 'New York) -was reasonable. Dr. Lasater indicated that his thoughts ,vere preliminary afld the design was not yet complete. As shown in Exhibit p, on September 10, 1997, we issued a letter (0 Dr. Lasater requesting that PwC and AA jointly finalize the statistical sampling plan at a meeting scheduled for September i 8, 1997. Dr. Lasater responded to PwC's ietler on September 16, 1997, indicating that AA was not "close" to finalizing a sfuupling plan (Exhibit R). On September 18, 1997, Dr. Lasater, J-v1r. V/iener, and other A . .l.A.. staff attended a meeting in the Washington, D.C. PwC offices. At that time, Dr. Lasater indicated that he would need an additional six months of time before he could complete the statistical work that wouid support his sampling design. 15. In late September 1997, Pv/C proposed a sa..111pling design and drew a random sample of approximately 300 accounts, in a manner consistent with AA's August 1997 proposed approach. We provided Mr. Wiener an explanation of the design, and inciuded ancillary information on the sample in a document dated September 23, 1997 (Exhibit S). 16. In a letter dated October 9,1997, Mr. Wiener indicatcd~ "we join in the adoption ofPrice Waterhouse's proposed stratified random sampling plan (the "Plan''). We do, however, have concerns regarding certain elements ofthe Plan that shouid be addressed while we are moving forward with its impiementation." In December 1997, \.ve received AA's proposed approach to salnpling, which was substlli.,tially different from both th.e PwC approach and the proposal tacitly suggested by Dr_Lasater in August 1997. In fact, AA continued to revise their annroach over a several day period in December 1997. As .L .L _ _ detailed in a letters to Dennis Gingold dated December 9, 1997, December i6, i 997, and December 17, 1997, we had numerous conversations with AA regarding the sampling pian. (Exhibits T, W, and X) 17. In December 1997, PwC provided AA with the methodology we utilized in selecting the sample of 300 accounts. (Exhibit V) 18. A detailed summary oiPwC's sampling plan is contained in Exhibit Y. 19. \Vhile p\vC staff \vere all~lyzing the OTFM data for the purpose of developing an efficient sa..rnp!e design that would be representative ofthe over 500,000 accounthoiders, we were contemporaneously reviewing and requesting other relevant documents and data, all of which were expected to provide support for our statistical sat-npling approach to the Individual Indian accounting. In addition, 'we par+jcipated in site visits to a number of BIA offices; met \vitI1 i1:u,rt.hur Anderson staff; attended court-mandated status conferences; exa..rnined other electronic databases; and performed an in-depth analysis of documents for the five named plaintiffs. 20. On April 16, 1997, we requested a site visit to the Phoenix area office (Exhibit K). ~A..t that tirne, we provided a listing of 50 aCCOll.T1t holders for whom we wished to review documentation and a detailed list of documentation that we wished to review. PWC agreed to limit the scope ofthis request to 33 account holders at three agency offices. This site visit took place on May 20 through May 23, i 997. On July 10, 1997, at. additional nine boxes of docwnents for tJie 33 account holders \-vere provided to PwC. The difficulties we experienced wiLlI the site visits are detailed in a letter to Dennis Gingold dated September 15, 1997 (Exhibit Q). 21. On May 15, 1997, PwC requested the arrangement of a site visit to the Portland area ~-,................ n A ......1..' .... ·A A 1· -t .fL1f1 t h lcl fi tw oUlce t~xnlO1t IVl). 1\.1. 1.111S t.lme, we prOVlu.eu. a .LIS .. 0 ... TU' accoun~ ....o......ers ~rom _.. 0 agency offices for \vhom \ve wished to review documents. As a result ofthe unproductive nature ofthe Phoenix site visit, we requested assurances from Defendants that a Portland site visit would be productive (Exhibit N). This site visit took piace on -~ .......... -........ '.1"1"" 1,' -'..l ·L L ... -~ August 26through August LIS, I 'J'J I. 1ne QIIIlCWUes we expenenceu Wltll tHe site VISits PwC incurred over $470,000 in fees for the site visits and the review and analysis of the documents obtained from the site visits. As shown in Attachment AD, these tasks include: Analysis of Salt River documents (Task 009); Site visits (Task 059) and Analysis of Phoenix documents (Task 060). PwC would not have conducted extensive site visits ifwe had been apprised that few' dOCwllents would be available for revie\v a..'1d analysis. Thus, p\vC \vould not have incu..rred these fees ifwe had been aware that documents 'ovQuld not be availab1e. 23. Documents responsive to Plaintiffs' First Order ofProduction regarding the five named plaintiffs were provided sporadically over the tinle period u\at PwC was engaged by Piaintiffs. DOCUlllents for the five nlli'11ed plaintiffs that 'overe provided to PwC, were unorga.llized and often duplicative. PwC had to allocate substantial resources to catalog, Bates nnmber, and organize the documents received for the five named plaintiffs. We incurred over $55,000 in fces for producing an inventory and Bates numbering 01 the documents for the five named piaintiffs (Attaciunent AD, task 043). This inventory was uitimateiy provided to defenda..,ts so t.1-tat they could attempt to come into compliance 24. In addition, we incurred about $250,000 in fees for anaiyzing the incomplete documents produced for the five named plaintiITs (Attachnlent AD, Task 008). PwC would not have incurred these fces if we had been apprised t.~at complete docu..rnents for th,e five named plaintiffs ,,,ould no! be provided. 25. In general, documents and information were neither provided to us during our site visits, nor in response to the production orders. Status reports ofdOCUUlents and data requested as ofSeptenlber 17, 1998 and t--Jovember 20, 1998 are provided in Eyjlibits A_A. and AB. ~v1oreover, our effort in aIlalyzing the 1irnited documentation for the site visit and five named p!aintiffaccount holders was substantial, but ultimately was not useful, due to the data limitations, and the incomplete tiles provided to Pwc. 26. In October 1997, p\vC began researching &~d developing a..'1 alternative approach to analyze the II},,;! accounts. Pv·/C inc.urred over $1 million in fees for researching and developing t.his alternative approach. As shown in Attachment AD, these tasks include: Research/compilation offindings (Task 004); Perform analysis ofdata obtained through research (Task 025); and Research oii, gas, timber and minerals income (Task 032). PwC would not have undertaken the aforementioned tasks if documents had been made avaiiable for the statistical saaupling approach. 27. Thrrmuhrmt om engagement. PwC nrovided critical trial related assistance to Plaintiffs' ~~~~-O-------·----t;;;J-= ... / attornevs. These tasks included, but were not limited to: trial and deposition testimony; preparation ofan expert report; attendance at depositions for opposing experts; and assistance with pre-and post-trial briefs. PwC incurred over $1.5 million in fees for trial-related assistfu,ce. As shov~'I1 in i~:Lttac:b.LL'11ent i\D, these tasks include, but are not limited to: Prepare for and participate in discussions/meetings with counsel (Task 002); Review of documents received (Task 003); Preparation ofmemorandum/letters (Task 007); Review deposition questions (Task 012); Attend depositions (Task DiS); Review depositions (Task 016); Supplenlental Interrogatory Responses (Task 020); Prepare affidavit of Jessica Ponner (Task 021); Discovery Request (Task 030); Prepare expert report (Task 033); Preparation for and attendance at hearing (Task 034); Review affidavit (Task 035); Prepare expert support binder (Task 037); Review documents -Government report (Task 040); Review of Fourth request for production documents (Task 041); Review of possible trial exhibits (Task 049); Prepare affidavit rc: electronic discovery (Task 051); Trial attenda..l1ce and preparation (Task 052); Assista.nce with post-trial briefs (Task 053); Review of trial transcripts (Task 054); and Outline for report (Task 056). 28. In support ofthis affidavit, a number of schedules are provided that detail the time spent pursuing the statistical saolpling approach; developing ill. alternative approach to __ ..,, __ ~~1..... -+\.,.,. 4-.0., ...+ "' ................"."+;1'\0· ".:ln~ <;1~'-!;dlna Pl~lntlff.;;:' ~tt{lrnpvt;: \With tri:Jl-re.l::1ten t;:ts.ks. It::,",Ullt...lJ'I;;J llH... u ......3 ... u"".... VU.l-.l-.... J.J.O' ............................ u ........o ... ............ ~........ ~ _ww~......._.J~ ...._..... ____ .. ..-' ____ -' ____'-__'-_ .A. complete list ofthe tasks completed by PWC is provided in Exhibit AD. 29. PwC's time recording system requires employees to enter time spent on a cHent engagement into an eiectronic database. Hours are recorded for each day twice a month; From th" onset of this en!!a!!ement through March 1998. the PwC invoices provided to 30. ..----------.....,...... ~~~.~-~ ­ the client included total hours by task -however, sutlicient details were not maintained to allow a description of the specific tasks perfornled by person by day. Subsequent to day, as \vel! as the total hOllrs for each task, 31. PwC billed Plaintiffs at a tlat rate 0[$180 per hour from June 1996 through May 1997. From June 1997 through March 1998, we bilied Plaintiffs at a rate 0[$180 per hour for Tn_.,,~, 1000 "'~ h;)1prl Pb;nt;ff~ ~t ~ rMf' of '1:700 nf'r hom for nrofe••;nnal .taff and $75 JCll.LUCll] .lJJJ, ,.,"" ..,...u.'-''-&.& ............................. -~ -.. -~-~....... -~~ r-'--------r----'-'------.-,-...--..__ . " per hour for paraprofessional staff. From February 1999 through August 1999. we billed Plaintiffs at a rate of $200 per hour for professional staff and $95 per hour for paraprofessional staff. From September 1999 through January 2000, we billed Plaintiffs at a rate of $225 per hour for professional staff. 32. PwC issued invoices for expenses related to providing services to Plaintiffs. These expenses include travel to site visits, travel to meetings with AA, photocopying, and other engagement-related expenses. Exhibit ,rAl.C contains t..~e hours a..l1d expenses per month for those tasks completed by PwC. Exhibit AD contains hours per task. Exhibit AE contains tasks by months for June 1996 through December 1996. (Note that this is the finest level of detail that is available for this time period.) Exhibit AF contains staff person by task by month for January 1997 through Ivfarch 1998. ~.J"ote that this is the finest level of detail that is available for t..lJ.is time period.) Exhibit A..G conbins hours by staff person by task and date for April 1998 throug.1] Ja..l1uary 2000. 34. As a result ofthe schedules provided in Exhibits AC through AG and the information in this affidavit, Plaintiffs are requesting compensation of $4,528,684. State of The District ofColumbia The foregoing was subscribed and sworn before me by Jessica PoHner, this JLday of ~August 2004. Signature ofaffiant (SEAL) ~ ~ Lancaster Consulting T·Le Litigation and Alanagement L"onsulting 5130 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Teiephone 602-241-3300 Facsimile 602-241-3303 info@laocastcrconsnlting.com January 14; 2003 Dennis [vi. Gingold, Esq. 1275 Pennsyivania Avenue, 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 Re: lIM Matter Dear rvfr. Gingold: Enclosed is the firm's bill for services rendered in the above referenced matter for the period December 26, 2002 through January 6, 2003. Sincerely, Dwight 1. Duncan For the Firm DJD/m! DDne ..... ,.... nf"'lno1-:>-:>n UI'\.LJI lI"'v-VUU J "';";;;1 Litigation and Management Consulting 5130 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone 602·241·3300 Facsimile 602·241·3303 info@lancasterconsllHing.com Taxpayer ID #86-0909173 january j 4, 2003 Invoice Number 4316 Invoice for Professional Services For Professional Services (12/26/02 tbrough 1/6/03): Consultant ~A..mount Dwight J. Duncan (Sec aUacned summary for details oftime and tasks) 46.5 $250 $1 i,625 Randall R. Smith (See attached summary for details oftime and tasks) 51.1 $160 8,176 1vfelissa J. Hulke (See attached summary for detaiis oftime and tasks) 17.4 $110 1,914 Total amount due for this invoice $21.715 DDne..... ,.... nrtrt .... -:>An u, '\.LI I 11'\1 v-vuu J ..J"1'U Re; iiiiii Mafutr Summary 01 Engagement Timo ana Tw.s Consultant: 0... 12f2e..'2COZ 1212611002 1212712002 1212712002 121271200Z 1212912002 1213012002 12,'30,,2002 1213112002 1213It)OO2 ~2~H2D!)2 llmOO3 11212003 11212003 itlflOO::; 11312X13 lJ3J2003 1i3l";;003 11312003 11312003 1iei2!)(l~ 116J2003 11612003 1ffil2000 ,./2003 1/612003 11612003 ii6J2CiCi3 Dwight J. Duncan HOUffl 7.0 U Meetwith R. Smith to dl;cun hl~toricgl gccounting IIsslgnment III1d revenue model. 3.' ~eetwith R. Fasold and R. Smith (PaI1-Time) 10 discuss historical acrounting document and 3llsociated models. " U TBiealnf6rence with O. Gingold, J. Rempel, M. Brown, R. Fasold, and R. Smith rugarctng preliminary assessment of historical accountlng dO!:llment Hnd anticipated soopa otworl< lor LgncasOOr Congu~ing. 11 Review Plaintiffs' Plan Fl'OYided by R. Farold. 0.3 Calt WIth R. Fasold to discuss methodoklgy and Plaintiffs' Plan. '.0 2.' Re"_ dDCUfllents pl"O'oided by R. Fasold. 0.5 Meet w~h R. Sm~h to dis!:llss revenue model and methodology defll1itions. U Me:llwi~'1 R. 8milh ~tH:! M. Hl.~!:e to di~~mel!':cdo!~gy::.":d ~~::ted rcre::n;!':, ::~d !::r:;...:::~ ~or PI::ir:~'ff:.' Plan. 5.3 Draftlsoguega for Plaintiffs' Plan. 0.1 Meetwlth R. Smith to diswss Plaintiffs' Plao. " Research melhodn1ngi .... in!fn~PI"intills' PI"" u.~ leleconterunCII With K. F-asOtd anl.fl{.l:>lT\1th fOtiISCU$5 pl~lI'rtIrrs' Plan an~ revenue maCiel. 1.3 Reviaw documents provided by R. Fasold. 22 ResesrGh meUwdoluoi65 inlfw ptairttiffs' Plan. ':;,4 1.1 Meel wilh R Smith to discuss language for Plaintiffs' Plan 8-S8ociatedwith revenue model. 1.5 Analyze Plaintiffs' PI"" with R. Smith. 0.1 0.6 Rsvi(!W Plaintilf~' f>lan. 0.5 Assist in ctafting language for Plaintitfs' Plan with R. Smith. HI 0.' Meet wttt1 M, Hulke to dl50.1SS lanl/U3ge 01 Plelnttns' Plan (quotes) and source dllCUments. 0'- Assist in drafting Plaintiff!;, Plan_ 0.' Meet wiltl R. Smith to diSCU8S final pmposed dlanges 10 Plaintiffs' Plan 0.3 leieconferencawim R. Fasoid and R. Smith reganiing proposed nnai ianguage sdiis forthe Piaintiffs' Plan. 46.5 BRDFINC-0001341 Consultant: 1212612D02 1212612002 - 12l27!2Q()2 1212712002 1212912002 121300002 12130120D2 121311.2002 lZm!2002 1213112002 11212003 "2121"" 113J2003 11312003 11612003 ~!e!20ro. 1,ea003 116.2003 11B1.;>[m~ 11612003 Randall R. Smith HOII~ Descriptions 7.0 Meet With R. Faaold 91\(1 D. D.mcanlo discuss hlmortcal accIlUrr\lnQ dOOlJment ..nd oS50Cla:ed mode1l1. Meet with D D.lOCQn to discuss hlstoricat accounting ::I9l!I~mont and revenue model. 0.5 Meat with O. Duncan to d~wsshl5toncal ac.coun~ng ::I$slgnmanl and fmaTiZll soopa 01 work. Talaconlererloowtth D. G1ngol4, J. Rempel. M. Brown, R. Fasold, arul R. Smith regardmg pre~mirnuy ~SS'ner"lt di&cuss final pro~oS>ld ehMges It> rlQirrtil'fs' Plan, " relaC(lnference WIIIl R. Fasold and D, Duncan regaraing proposeo finlli ianguagEt sdiis ioriile Piainiiis' Pian 15"1.1 DDnel .... "" nl"'ll"'lo1-:lA"1 UI'\.LJI lI'11v-VUU J -,)"1"£ ""'. OeKrtptlons i.1 Moot witil U. lJul'tean and K ~rnilh to discuss methodol0{lY ...nll"$~<)o;iat.ed resoorc.h, amJ l~n9uaga forPlalnttffs' Plan. 12131120D2 3.B Research on artides regardinQ \he use of geographic mormatlon systems.. 11212003 " AnalYl6 Seclion I ofPlaintiflS' Plan tor Inconsistencies with soun::;a dooumen1s and crea\B a list til SDUILe documents received/required. 5.e 1J3J2003 0' Research artk:l'ils for GIS msthogy. 11512003 13 Rasearch artich!$ for GIS methodology. 11612003 1';;/2000 " Meetwilll D. Duncan to (li$<;\lMtanguaga lor Plaintiffs' Pkln (,onrext of quotes on pages 1-29) 17A DDne..... ,.... n("'jno1-:>A~ U I '\.LI I II ... v-VUU J ..J""t>J Liligo/lon and Management Comu{ting SUO North C~ntl'a] Avenne Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone 602-l41..J300 Facsimile 602-241-3303 iDfo@laocastenonsnlting.eom ~yfarch 11, 2003 Dennis M. Ginsold, Esq. 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 Re: lIM Matter Dear Mr. Gingoid: Enclosed is the finn's bill for services rendered in the above referenced matter for the month ofFebruary 2003. Sii1.cerelyI DDne..... ,.... nf"'lno1-:ll:.n U I '\.LJ I II ... v-vuu J VVU Lancaster Consulting LLC Litigation and Management C07lSulting 5)30 North Central Avenne Phoenix, ArizoDIl 8S012 Tel~phone 602..241-3300 Facsim!!e 602-241-3303 mfc@I~¢astereonsu.l~.Jlg.c;:om TiiXyayer ID #O(j..0909173 March 11, 2003 Invoice Number 4349 Invoice for Professional Se.rv:ices Re: m,,1 l',.'Iatter For PJofessiQlJal Services ( 2/1/03 through 2128/03): Comrnlt:.nt Dwight J. Duncan (See attached su.1J.l..T.2.ry for details oftime a..?J.d tasks) Hours 108.5 Rate $250 Amoun! $27,125.00 Randy R. Smith (See attached swnmary for details oftim.e and tasks) 124.6 $i60 $19,936.00 Melissa J. Bulke 54.3 $110 5,9nOO (See attached smn...ma.ry for details Qftime and tas!c.s) P"LlblicatioilS obtained nOl:n Science Djrect~ Catchword.com & Portland Pres8~ Lt 273.76 Total amount due for this invoice $S'I.30U6 To ensure proper credit to )"JUT accoulli piease writt (JUY ilJ'VOice number 0" your check, 0' sefid a copy oj'his page with your payment BRDFINC-0001351 Consuttam: Dwighl J, DUncan "'.. "~~ 2MfIQ3 ... Read Plalm!ll's rebuttal, 2t4nOO3 2.a Z\·./..th..~ -!.a Wl'120/l3 ,. iJ7~"" .. ilii;<:OOO ,., Anal}lZe Pl:iIInIl~ Model. '.f :mor.lOO3 ~.2 """)3 211112003 U MHt \liHh Ft Smlthm review al8umptltma. and c!kulatlohllrl thiI Pk:IInIrfra.' modal. .2.'1212003 ,., :!If2!2QQ:lo 2.13 ,. ~f3l2OO3 211312003 .0 :"t~'2003 ;,0 2113'."" 0.' ~"12OOl ,. 2li5ti.OlJ.3 2111/2000. '"... Draft IDIpert report ml!f;1QOO, 2,(;; ih{II:003 211gl2OO1 5,'.. 212C!;:nOO 21!.O1>lO) ,~.. m,f:t)O~ .., uwXlOO - ','-, e.' 0.5 2/,..,,",,, 1., COllI with R, Smth, F\. Fasold and L Stfmeit tD dllCUIIII oth8 pl3lndft I!lCpert'" report ",.""" •., 2.J2C.'~O~3 0., 1.G """""" ,," BRDFINC-0001352 Consultant ""., """""" ~l2enoo3 ....7S.~ iJ27/ZOOJ 2IZ7/.20D3 ZiZ;i2iM4 ="" ~"""" DwlghtJ. Duncan Holmt Descrlptlcn!! .., ~, v •• ,.. ~1YiI1I1(. Iot:l~tlt, R. F~.wId, R SmIlh, D. Slngald, M. Blwm, b. Rempel tc dl5llll11.1! my 9l!pert rl'.por1. ,., Mootwll1't Smith to cIrRI!: 8X,rw1' repart ~...;. .., .1:.2 "'L' ."" DDne'... ',.... nrtrto1-:ll:.-:l U I"'\.LI I ""v-VUU J vvv ,., Zl4t2003 3.G 0.' 1.1 2.' M"t with M, HI.'!kv 10 ~the F'JeIMJrra' model, ,.S 0.' 0.5 ."""'"' 2Z111200:i 3.1 "."","" 211:.'1n01tJ 2113.1'2003 •• e,:;' '0 """,)(" 1,!!j " '.0 Analyz& Pllllntllh' motlet "''''''''' 2.• .., An:!Iy.!e!PiIlirffiff$'IfIodr:l. 2f19120!l3 2f2Of2ODl ",,""'" 2.' 1.->' I.' ,., ."" BRDFINC-0001354 15 i.v 212412003 2/2512D03 1.' , ••..t '"'J''''' 2m/21m ',7 ."'. ...... '" 21412003 t.' ,''',,'''' .., '17",.,. ••• !11m" 4.' "s ReadaClldfJmlllllrtlt:les. '''',.,,'' "S ." 1 ,," DDnClro...r" nf"'lno1 -:>t::.c U I '\.LJ I II ... v-VUU J VVV Lancaster Consulting 1,1'C Litigation and Management Consulting 5130 North Central Ay,;nui: Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Teiephone 602-241-3300 Facsimile 602-241-3303 info@lancastcrconsnlting.com April 9, 2003 Dennis I'v1. Gingold, Esq. 1275 Pennsyivania A venue, 9th Fioor Washington, D.C. 20004 Re: 11M Matter Enciosed is the flrm's bill for services rendered in the above referenced matter for the month ofMarch 2003. Sincerely, Dwight J. Duncan For the firm Dm/ml DDne..... ,.... nf"'lno1")!:.7 UI'\.LJI II"'\J-VUU J "';-,,)1 Lancaster Consultinl! LLC ~ Utigation and Management Consulting 5130 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone 602-241-3300 Facsimile 602-241-3303 info@lancasterconsulting.com Taxpayer ID #86-0909173 April 9, 2003 Invoice Number 4371 Invoice tor Professional Services He: 11M Matter For Professional Services (1'-.'larch 1,2003 tlltOugh. r",1arch 31, 2003): Consulta..'1t Hours Dwight 1. Duncan's Travel Expenses: ,A,irfarc: Phx -DC -Phx -311 0/03 -3/i2'/03 2,264.00 Taxi To hotd -3/j Of03 15.00 Twd To airport -3ii2i03 16.00 Hotei 3/10/03 -3/12/03 797.36 Parking Pbx Airport -3/10 -3/12/03 44.00 Dwight J. Duncan 145.3 $250 $36,325.00 (~ee attached summary for details oftime and tasks) Randall R. Smith 72.9 $160 11,664.00 (See attached summary for details oftime and tasks) ctl1(\ A ,,)l:'7 An Melissa J. Hulke 38.7 4'~ 'v 'T,"'..1I.VV (Sec attached summary for details oftime and tash) Total amount due for th.is invoice $55,382.36 To ensure pj'(jper credit to your account please write our invoice number on your check, Oi send a copy ofthis page with your payment. DDnel... I"" nrtrto1-:ll:.0 U I '\.LJ I II ... v-vuu J , ..h.JU Summary ofEngagement Time and Tasks Hours 15.2 3f712003 '.6 Read 001 experts' report$. 31812003 Road DOl oxpcrts' reports. " 68 R~ewDO! P!~n, DO! !;.rit.iqlJ€! oj P!ai!"l~!I's PI~r>. Dr \-:l':ller Report and wpporting materials 3I1OJ2003 " Outline Dr. Lasater dBpllsitilln tIlpk:o:i. 311012003 Di$CUSS 001 experts' IlIport!l with R. Smith. " 3!10!2!l03 311112003 5.7 PrepafU for Dr. Lasater depDsition -Mth D. Gingold, G. Rempel, R. Fawld. 311212003 12 Prepare for Or. Lasater deposltfon with D. Gingold, G. Rempel, R. Fasold. 4.15 311212003 '.7 Attend Dr. Lasater depO$i~(ln. 3/13/2003 " Outline rebuttal to Dr. Lasater report. 0.5 3114/2003 '.3 Review PPS sampling applications. 311412003 Q.' Call with D. GII"lgold, M. Brown, R. fasold. G. Rempel to discuss tntelTogatort!l5. 2.$ 3/1512003 " Prepare lor depo!l~i()n (review Laneastar i"fItloft I review Morgan Angel report). 311612003 3.' Review Dr. Lasater depoe"ioA. 3.'i6i2003 5.5 311712003 Prep.nll" for daposiliol1 (tev"r"j..tiU(1 312012003 55 Prepare for deposition (review staji$iical samPlIng \OxIs. review lancaster report with $lIIlportmg documen\$) 3n112003 3' Prepare for deposlbon (review Dr. Las;;ter deposition transcript. review 001 Plan). 312212003 Draft rellut1allO Dr. LaS9terrepon. " 312312003 " Prepare lor deposition (review E&Y report. review statis~~ sampling [elliS). 312412003 m;;c,,~.. d~lllontopi"'" with R. Smith 312412003 Prepare lor deposition irevi9W D. Dunean deposition transcript review R. Fasolllllaposibon tnmscnpt). " ~lo'2 DDne'.... ,.... nf"'lf"'lo1-:ll:.0 U."\.LJI lI"'v-VUU J v>.JCI Summary ofEngagement Time and Tasks Conauttant: DwigM J, DuncZlln 3I26J2003 4.5 Draft rebutlal to Dr. Lasater report. 3"Z€.'Z{)03 2.3 Di~u;:;~ df~n 0; feWil>li of Dr. Lasater report with R. Sm~hand M. Hulka. 3127f7.01J3 52 Oran rebUtlillto Dr. Lasater ropprt 3'2712003 3.3 Discuss draft 01 rebu~1 o1Dr. Lasater report WI\f1 R. Smilh and M. Hulk" (part lime) 3lZ8.lZCC3 5.5 Df.,it ;.,i>uWo; io Dr.l.asaierrepof"l 3f261201}3 2.' Di$Cuss draft of rebuttal 01 Dr. Lasater report with R Smith 312912003 5.9 Draft rebuttal \p Dr. La~aler report. 6.2: Dm., f..uuii~; ju Dr. La5aier report. 313112003 '2 D.. 3/1012003 0.• Meet with D. Duncan to discuss 001 expert reports. 3/1312003 4.2 Roview D. Lasater expert report. deposition, tnai testimony. 311412003 0.3 Review 001 expert reports 311412003 3.5 Assist with D. Duncan testimony preparation. 3ilii2003 7.5 Assist with D. Duncan testimony preparation 3/1812003 2.2 Review and t;lnt;lIY<1:e D LM«ter expert report, depo.sit:ion, t!ia! testimony. 3/2312003 3.' Review and analyze D. Lasater expert report, deposition, trial testimony. 512412003 2.1 Review and analyze D. Duncan depOSition transcript. 31?412003 1.1 Assist in !he preparation of the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 3/24/2003 1.7 Meet with D. Duncan to discuss his tesUmony and statistical sampling methods in the 001 Plan. ;JIZt>12U03 1.1 Meet With M. Hullte to discuss tile D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 3125/2003 6.? .1I..ssist in the preparntion of the O. Lasa.ter rebuttal analysis and report. 312512003 5.8 Assist in the preparation of the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 3/2512003 2.3 Meet wlth D. Duncan and M. Hulke to discuss the D, Lasater rebuttal analysis. 312712003 6.7 Assist in the preiia;a'Jon of the D. lasatei reb...-r..al analysis and report. 3/27/2003 3.3 Meet with D. Duncan and M. Hulke (part-lime) to discuss the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis. 3/2812003 4.7 Assist in the preparation of the D. Lasater rebuttal <:Inalysis and report. 3123/2003 2.8 Meet Wltll D. Duncan to UISWSS i.i"le D. Lasaier rebuiiai anaiysis. 313112003 4.7 Assist in the preparation of lhe D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 313112003 3.2 Meet with D. Duncan to diSCUSS the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis. n.s Page 1 of 1 D Dnel.... ,.... nrtrt-1-:>~-1 UJ"\.LJJ lI"'v-VUU J..JU J SummalY of Engagement Time ami Tasks Consultant: Me!issa J. Hu!!<.e Date HOUr5 3116/201}3 3.4 3'2412003 3.' 3lZ4lZ0()3 3.3 3125/2003 1.5 3.5 3'2512003 1.1 312512003 0.' 312612003 4.0 3,12612003 2.3 3i26i2003 i.B 212712003 7.1 2J2712CC3 2.9 2J27f2OC3 3.2 38.7 Descriptions Review and summariz& Tribal Trust Reconciliation ProjeC1 Report. Read and summarize Richard E. Fasold's depos~ion taken March 21, 2003 Review documeni$ indudJng ihe DOi Pian. D. Duncan Expen Repon, and legal IlOCI.Iments. Analyze Export Report of David B. lasater and dIan r:teliminary oulline 01 L;.mtastcr rcbutlill report Meet with It Sm~h 10 disCu~ outline for lan!:aSler rebuttal report. hsisl in preparing Iho lancaster rebuttal rep<:>rt Review iilnd anaiyzll David B. lasater's deposiljon. Meet with D. Duncan al"ld R Smith to discuss Laneasw,r rebuttal roport. Assist in preparing 1MB i RIlCSster retluttal report. Assist in preparing Ihe lancaster rebuttal report. AssiS1 in preparing the Lancaster rebuttal report 1011 Done'.... ',...., "f"\"-I0C'1 U ".Llt "" v-uvu t tJVL Lancaster Consulting 1,1'C Litigation and Management Consulting 5130 North Central Ay,;nui: Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Teiephone 602-241-3300 Facsimile 602-241-3303 info@lancastcrconsnlting.com April 9, 2003 Dennis I'v1. Gingold, Esq. 1275 Pennsyivania A venue, 9th Fioor Washington, D.C. 20004 Re: 11M Matter Enciosed is the flrm's bill for services rendered in the above referenced matter for the month ofMarch 2003. Sincerely, Dwight J. Duncan For the firm Dm/ml DDne..... ,.... nf"'lno1")!:.7 UI'\.LJI II"'\J-VUU J "';-,,)1 Lancaster Consultinl! LLC ~ Utigation and Management Consulting 5130 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone 602-241-3300 Facsimile 602-241-3303 info@lancasterconsulting.com Taxpayer ID #86-0909173 April 9, 2003 Invoice Number 4371 Invoice tor Professional Services He: 11M Matter For Professional Services (1'-.'larch 1,2003 tlltOugh. r",1arch 31, 2003): Consulta..'1t Hours Dwight 1. Duncan's Travel Expenses: ,A,irfarc: Phx -DC -Phx -311 0/03 -3/i2'/03 2,264.00 Taxi To hotd -3/j Of03 15.00 Twd To airport -3ii2i03 16.00 Hotei 3/10/03 -3/12/03 797.36 Parking Pbx Airport -3/10 -3/12/03 44.00 Dwight J. Duncan 145.3 $250 $36,325.00 (~ee attached summary for details oftime and tasks) Randall R. Smith 72.9 $160 11,664.00 (See attached summary for details oftime and tasks) ctl1(\ A ,,)l:'7 An Melissa J. Hulke 38.7 4'~ 'v 'T,"'..1I.VV (Sec attached summary for details oftime and tash) Total amount due for th.is invoice $55,382.36 To ensure pj'(jper credit to your account please write our invoice number on your check, Oi send a copy ofthis page with your payment. DDnel... I"" nrtrto1-:ll:.0 U I '\.LJ I II ... v-vuu J , ..h.JU Summary ofEngagement Time and Tasks Hours 15.2 3f712003 '.6 Read 001 experts' report$. 31812003 Road DOl oxpcrts' reports. " 68 R~ewDO! P!~n, DO! !;.rit.iqlJ€! oj P!ai!"l~!I's PI~r>. Dr \-:l':ller Report and wpporting materials 3I1OJ2003 " Outline Dr. Lasater dBpllsitilln tIlpk:o:i. 311012003 Di$CUSS 001 experts' IlIport!l with R. Smith. " 3!10!2!l03 311112003 5.7 PrepafU for Dr. Lasater depDsition -Mth D. Gingold, G. Rempel, R. Fawld. 311212003 12 Prepare for Or. Lasater deposltfon with D. Gingold, G. Rempel, R. Fasold. 4.15 311212003 '.7 Attend Dr. Lasater depO$i~(ln. 3/13/2003 " Outline rebuttal to Dr. Lasater report. 0.5 3114/2003 '.3 Review PPS sampling applications. 311412003 Q.' Call with D. GII"lgold, M. Brown, R. fasold. G. Rempel to discuss tntelTogatort!l5. 2.$ 3/1512003 " Prepare lor depo!l~i()n (review Laneastar i"fItloft I review Morgan Angel report). 311612003 3.' Review Dr. Lasater depoe"ioA. 3.'i6i2003 5.5 311712003 Prep.nll" for daposiliol1 (tev"r"j..tiU(1 312012003 55 Prepare for deposition (review staji$iical samPlIng \OxIs. review lancaster report with $lIIlportmg documen\$) 3n112003 3' Prepare for deposlbon (review Dr. Las;;ter deposition transcript. review 001 Plan). 312212003 Draft rellut1allO Dr. LaS9terrepon. " 312312003 " Prepare lor deposition (review E&Y report. review statis~~ sampling [elliS). 312412003 m;;c,,~.. d~lllontopi"'" with R. Smith 312412003 Prepare lor deposition irevi9W D. Dunean deposition transcript review R. Fasolllllaposibon tnmscnpt). " ~lo'2 DDne'.... ,.... nf"'lf"'lo1-:ll:.0 U."\.LJI lI"'v-VUU J v>.JCI Summary ofEngagement Time and Tasks Conauttant: DwigM J, DuncZlln 3I26J2003 4.5 Draft rebutlal to Dr. Lasater report. 3"Z€.'Z{)03 2.3 Di~u;:;~ df~n 0; feWil>li of Dr. Lasater report with R. Sm~hand M. Hulka. 3127f7.01J3 52 Oran rebUtlillto Dr. Lasater ropprt 3'2712003 3.3 Discuss draft 01 rebu~1 o1Dr. Lasater report WI\f1 R. Smilh and M. Hulk" (part lime) 3lZ8.lZCC3 5.5 Df.,it ;.,i>uWo; io Dr.l.asaierrepof"l 3f261201}3 2.' Di$Cuss draft of rebuttal 01 Dr. Lasater report with R Smith 312912003 5.9 Draft rebuttal \p Dr. La~aler report. 6.2: Dm., f..uuii~; ju Dr. La5aier report. 313112003 '2 D.. 3/1012003 0.• Meet with D. Duncan to discuss 001 expert reports. 3/1312003 4.2 Roview D. Lasater expert report. deposition, tnai testimony. 311412003 0.3 Review 001 expert reports 311412003 3.5 Assist with D. Duncan testimony preparation. 3ilii2003 7.5 Assist with D. Duncan testimony preparation 3/1812003 2.2 Review and t;lnt;lIY<1:e D LM«ter expert report, depo.sit:ion, t!ia! testimony. 3/2312003 3.' Review and analyze D. Lasater expert report, deposition, trial testimony. 512412003 2.1 Review and analyze D. Duncan depOSition transcript. 31?412003 1.1 Assist in !he preparation of the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 3/24/2003 1.7 Meet with D. Duncan to discuss his tesUmony and statistical sampling methods in the 001 Plan. ;JIZt>12U03 1.1 Meet With M. Hullte to discuss tile D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 3125/2003 6.? .1I..ssist in the preparntion of the O. Lasa.ter rebuttal analysis and report. 312512003 5.8 Assist in the preparation of the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 3/2512003 2.3 Meet wlth D. Duncan and M. Hulke to discuss the D, Lasater rebuttal analysis. 312712003 6.7 Assist in the preiia;a'Jon of the D. lasatei reb...-r..al analysis and report. 3/27/2003 3.3 Meet with D. Duncan and M. Hulke (part-lime) to discuss the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis. 3/2812003 4.7 Assist in the preparation of the D. Lasater rebuttal <:Inalysis and report. 3123/2003 2.8 Meet Wltll D. Duncan to UISWSS i.i"le D. Lasaier rebuiiai anaiysis. 313112003 4.7 Assist in the preparation of lhe D. Lasater rebuttal analysis and report. 313112003 3.2 Meet with D. Duncan to diSCUSS the D. Lasater rebuttal analysis. n.s Page 1 of 1 D Dnel.... ,.... nrtrt-1-:>~-1 UJ"\.LJJ lI"'v-VUU J..JU J SummalY of Engagement Time ami Tasks Consultant: Me!issa J. Hu!!<.e Date HOUr5 3116/201}3 3.4 3'2412003 3.' 3lZ4lZ0()3 3.3 3125/2003 1.5 3.5 3'2512003 1.1 312512003 0.' 312612003 4.0 3,12612003 2.3 3i26i2003 i.B 212712003 7.1 2J2712CC3 2.9 2J27f2OC3 3.2 38.7 Descriptions Review and summariz& Tribal Trust Reconciliation ProjeC1 Report. Read and summarize Richard E. Fasold's depos~ion taken March 21, 2003 Review documeni$ indudJng ihe DOi Pian. D. Duncan Expen Repon, and legal IlOCI.Iments. Analyze Export Report of David B. lasater and dIan r:teliminary oulline 01 L;.mtastcr rcbutlill report Meet with It Sm~h 10 disCu~ outline for lan!:aSler rebuttal report. hsisl in preparing Iho lancaster rebuttal rep<:>rt Review iilnd anaiyzll David B. lasater's deposiljon. Meet with D. Duncan al"ld R Smith to discuss Laneasw,r rebuttal roport. Assist in preparing 1MB i RIlCSster retluttal report. Assist in preparing Ihe lancaster rebuttal report. AssiS1 in preparing the Lancaster rebuttal report 1011 Done'.... ',...., "f"\"-I0C'1 U ".Llt "" v-uvu t tJVL Lancaster Consulting LLC Litigation and Management Crmsuiting 5130 North Cellt..a; Avenue Phveiih, Ai'b;umi 85012 Tdeplmr.: 602-241-3300 F2£simile 602-24J-3303 Taxpayer ID #86-0909173 July 7, 2003 Invoice Number 4445 VIA E-MAILIPDF Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 607 14th Street, Dox 6 Washington, D,C, 20005 Re: iiM rviatter Invoice POi Professional Services ( 6/1/2003 through 6/30/2(03): Ccnsulta.11t Hours R~t('; Amollnt Dwight 1. Duncan (See attached summary for details oftime and tasks) 153,5 $250 $38,375.00 David R. Perry (See attached summary for details of time and tasks) IO,S $220 2,376.00 Randali R. Smith (See attached slimmruy for details oftime and tasks) '0 ,':'0.1 01'.£" .pIUU " C{'I.'''J 1\/\"'-,.J,....vv Peter S, Davis (See attached summary for details of time and tasks) 15.1 $150 2,265.00 Peggy Smookler (~"l" ..tt3 2."1 Re1liew dm:umilnt3 am: F8parc ali;;.!y::;;::; jor J, Rostoniiaulli vjriu~i ledger amj supporting dala, 6116120()3 5.2 Analy.z:e J. Rosenbaum's virlualledger and supportrng data. 611612003 0.7 fill6J2003 0.2 Prepare and send to G. Rempel rererel"lC8 materi!!1 from Guy textbook 10 supporllasater Rebutlal. 611712003 33 Analyze J. Rosenbaum's virt ... all&dgBr and supporfing data 6ii712003 0.4 Lsii wiih G. Rempai !rid O. Duncan regarding the J. Rosenbaum vl!1uall&dger and supporting data, 6f1712003 1.1 Meel wllh D. Gallow to disaJss J. Rosenbaum's virlualledgl!f' and supporting data. 0,$ Call with D. DU~C';ifi regarding ihe J. R~nilO"1 U I '\.LI I II ... v-VUU J ";U£ Summery of Engagement Time and Tasks Coo~!.!!tmt: Peter S. Davis Date Descriptions 612712003 2.1 Analyzed D. Pepion virtlJalledger account. 612812003 3.1 Analyzed D. Pepion vlrtlJalledger accolJnl. Anaiyzed D. Pepion ViMlJar reager account_ 4.5 612912003 2.1 AnalyZed F. Pepian virtual lodger account. 612912003 3.3 15.1 Page 1 of 1 Donel... l,..... ,,""-1000 UI"\.LlI II"v-UVU I UU"'; Summary ofEngagement Time and Tasks Consuitant: Peggy Smookier Hours Descriptions """ 6J26J2003 4.2 Organize and review backup dala regarding vlrtualledger. 612612003 3.0 Ent(!r data from virtual ledger into worksllcet 612712003 4.1 Organiz.e and review backllp data regarding virtual ledger. 612712003 4.2 Enter data from virtllalledger into worKsheet. Pagelof1 BRDFINC-0001384 Summary of Engagement Time and Tasks Consultant: Oal. Hours Descriptions 6il£!uuuJUt Summary ofEngagement Time and Tasks CQ!,,!SLJlt.'Int: Dale 612512003 6125J2003 £lZlilZiJ03 612612003 131213.'2003 6/26/2003 612712003 612712003 612112003 (;,'27,';2003 812712003 6/28.12003 612B!2003 612612003 6/29/2003 61290'2003 6129i2:003 0129i2003 N!eo!e Manos Hours 0.4 1.3 3,2 3.' D.7 1.2 2.6 3.7 1.1 1.4 1.3 3.3 1.' 3.6 1.7 0.' 3.6 0.3 35.4 DeSCriptions Reviewed report of J. Rosenbaum. Reviewed N. Harmea virtual Icd!!Cf account Reviewed N. Harmes virtual ledger account. Reviewed N. Hannes virtual ledger account. Met with M. HulJ;~ and D. Duncan iv revIew MEMO jiM Matter-viriuai ledger. Reviewed N. Hannes vir!ul:Il ledger account Reviewed EVCDD001disks of working papers. Reviewed J. RosenbFlum's &xhlbil of unsupported 8eeDunts "'g<,im;.t \I!ro~a! ledger queries_ Reviewed N. HalTnp.s virtual ledger account. Discussions with M. Hulke on data base queries, stalUs of vlrtllalledger accounts, and memo summary for issues foond on virtual ledger accounls. Re~iewed BtARCH coded transactlons in virtual ledger, Drafted Data Base exhibit. Drafted vlrtuatledger File/Folder exhibil Reviewed F. Pepion ~irtualledger account. Updated m;;merwofk paperfilewilh completed vir!:ualledger a«:ounts. Palle 1 of 1 DDnel"'-I"" nrtrto1-:>OO U I '\.LJ I " ... v-VUU J ";UU Para Prof.: Mishelie Lowrey Hours Descriptions 612412003 0.9 Located and flrinted R.lmach virtual ledger aeeounts from COmputer Di!Jk archives 6124!2Cro 2,1 612412003 0.4 Located Other Date Description 06i19i03 yarking in t'hx airport 06i22i03 Parking in Ph" airpon .• II oral $ 5,413.50 Amount $ 1,142.00 $ 65.00 $ 9.00 $ iO.OO $ ,oR7_50 $ 2,324.00 • 14.00 • • 11\ ,\(\ IV.VV • ,n" I.\/V • • 1 {\ 1'1(1 IV.V'~ • 75.00 • ",UO/.O,l; Amount J,J:1O.U"t • , • ~n,t ...'" J •..>;;;O",/':' • 1 ..... .,..,. nL J,"'I.')V $ 256.90 Amount $ 61.63 ,$ IOLl7 $ 94.10 $ 203.00 Amount $ i44.00 $ 59.00 $ 9,941.22 BRDFINC-0001392 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOvERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 8/7/03 AMOUNT$~--,7,-".-,-7",63,-,.--,4-,-0~~_ ACCOUNT#~30~O~O~48~6~___ CHECK#_______________ L~,~!TE~1____Expe_r_t W_i_t_n_e_ss__ NW.A. LANNAN #2 '\.,.l .. ..-,-. j"if\.:VIC: ____________..oAu.l.aallu..JG"-.J:Mu:cJ.lQJil1l~j.L]1./J3WU'--______________________________ 7190 Upper Miller Creek ADDRESS: ________~M1~-·~S~s~ou~1~a~.~M-~I~5~9~~-O~3~____________________________ I DATE I DISCRlPTION I AMOUNT 1 8il/03 -I x ..... lfflfJITiX 1 $ .., -,,c.., I.n 1;o,UJ.-.U I ----'­ , .~ . BRDFINC-00012S1 ?Of)3-Q8-1}6 1'1:5S:56 (GMT) 1£023182372 From: Geoffrey Rempel STATEMENT f9~r·~.___ Bining Period: Dr. Alan G. ~AcQui!!an 5/1/03 ihrough 5/31/03 7190 MiHer Creek Rd. Missoula, f\.J1T 59803 To: Re:--c__'___' ___ Dennis Gingo!d Esq. Individuai indians Monies rrust 9th Floor Correction & Recovery Project 1275 PennsylvBnia Ave NVV P.O. Box 730 Washington, D.C. 20004 Browning, NiT 59417Trial 1.5 eXRense~ Alan G. Mcquillan: 33.4 hours @ 175.00 (see time sheet attached) 5,84-5.00 Travel Expenses:Plane fare MissoulalWashington D.C. 1,422.48Taxis 50.00 Hotel (2 nights) 409.92 Airport parking ~A_OQ Total 1,918.40 1,918.40 Total due: '1:.7 7f::":t Ali ~.~ A. G. A1cQ::i!J,J;; PhiJ. ~ ~ P'Ji,.:5iiy.t'tfmmgenlCmiflld Emnomi!s BRDFINC-0001252 To Page 25 of 77 2003-08-06 14:55:56 (GMT) !7lfan (j. 1M c ~u i rran 7.19t? 'Uj!!Jty Miller C.rei}k~ 'M!~\__'-(J{fk!) '1v!rS..9803. 1.f.S~11.. -VuiCi':-(4(;6) S43-S11'h F:".LiX-(40(i) 251-72S_i.} e-mail; amcq(~forestT1J-1L1nt.edu July 8,2UU3 Denllis Gringold Esq 607 i 41h Street, Box #6 V{ashiugi:oJl, D.C. 20005 Bye-mail to Ueofli-cy Rempel Dear Dennis: Please find the enclo<;t::d bi.ll and tin1.c sheet covering H1Y time lli1d -expenscs for May 2003 in COtHlectiol1 with trial 1.5 of the CobeH case. The total is S7,763.40. I will send copies ofreceipts by surface nIaiL Thank you. Sincerely. Alan G. McQuilian End. !Jl[an C qy[ c Q..,u ( [ [a n !1' 7190 1!Pyer 1vtiUer Creek, tJvtfssouta) 1vtrTS9803J US.1L VOlee: (406) 543-5115, T!/lX: (406) 251-7259 Ivlarch 10, 2003 Dennis Gringold Esq 9th Floor 1275 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D,C. 20004 Bye-mail to Geoffrey Rempe! Dear Denn.is: Please frna the enclosed bili for my iime ror February 2003 in conneciion with forestry research and report writing for the Cabell case. The total is $10,395 (59.4 hours at $175). My only expenses are for Fed-Ex and will be billed next month. Thank you. Sincerely, i",..1an G, ~vicQui1lan EneL BRDFINC-00012S4 TTT\A T1"I1c.>'t J ~t; ...."'t;.......... ......U.L .L ~ .... .,~ ..... ~U6""~lV.L.L Detailed Time Sheet for Al~,;~-i~'~'~'~'_ Ford Qan~ NAAfE:____ AIan Mcquillan Mcquillan Consulting AJ)1)RE~~"'-----------'3~3~JTI'H",O~Inlr,1~S~S~trre~e~t.­ .. ¥...issoul;::J In: 59801 AMOUNT Isee attach~~'!CR1PTlON $ 33,005.3] ...--, $ 11M TRUST 194to/lci CORRECTION 8< RECOVERY PROJECT I' f>.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 : 93--16U~Ll Jt'ifJl!!J: 1f !0 I 00 (\[113lJ(JIy,U, I $ 33.005.31 i~~~31"W!h<>"""""'''=='~~c:.~~'~_~~;';z'=~·~;~_.3~)=... = ": II! = ..:./~(j~~?~ 1'1"&'" ':0'1 ,gO.1; 25': OOD-;OC"':~b,,·!gL(!!!fj/·-c-cfi~-'·' )I ~~~~~~~~--~-.. .. '­ .. BRDFINC-0000596 Geoffrey Rempel, CPA 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20004 202.662.6776 (office) 509.275.5748 (fax) Septemher 19, 2000 Elouise Cobell Blackfeet Reselvation Development Fund, Inc. 12S N Public Square Browning, MT 59417 De::! r Elollise: Attached you will find invoices for three of our contractors/vendors: Farragut, National Capital Archives and Alan McQuillan. I have reviewed these invoices and recommend we pay them in the following amounts: Fatragut: $5,961.00 Nation's Capital Archives: $63.00 Alan McQuillan: $33,005.31 Farragut's invoice amounts to $17,961.00 in fees for the final two weeks of August. Please note that Farragut has agreed to apply $12,000 of the $20,000 retainer against this bill in light of Ule decreased workload. The net amount to be paid is $5,961.00. Alan McQuillan submitted an invoice on behalf of his assistant, Minnie and himself for the month of Augus~ $2,985.85 and $32,464.46, respectively. I have deducted $2,445.00 from Alan's invoice to reflect the fact that a subcontractor has not provided sufficient detail at this point. Please note that I have attached Alan and Minnie's detail invoices since May, per our agreement with him, Please contact me with any questions and have a great day! Sincerely, Geoffrey Rempel, CPA Attachment BRDFINC-0000597 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 8/7/03 AMOUNT$ 24,229.94 CHECK#_______________ ACCOUNT #""'30""-00""4""'86"--__ LNE lTEM__Exp_e_r_t_W_i_t_n_e_s_s__ NWA LANNAN #2 NAME: ____~P~illnc~o~c~k~A~]~l~elln=&~H~o~]~t__________________ 274 Union Blvd. ADDRESS: ____~La==ke~w~oo~o~d~,~C~0~8~0~2=28~-~1~8~3~5____________ DATE D1SCRlPTION AMOUNT $ Invoice # 307179 16,668.50 817103 $ Invoice ,306lt22 5,127.69 $ Invoice I 305387 1,693.75 $ Invoice ., 304326 740.00 i , .. I , TOTAL ~, ~ ~" ~ ~ 11M TRUST 93-162/929 EXPLAIN YO 2313 CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT 0003000485 PH. 4()6..336-2992 P.O. BOX 3029 ~ BROWNING, MT 59417 ~ PAYTOTHE Pincock Allen &. Holt . ­ ; ORD""OF_________ ---------___-.-J $ 24,229.94 ' ~ Twenty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Nine d 94/1 o~--·-" ,--".­ , an DO~ E::.,;::­ . : ~S~~=,".:,~':i,:;:;:~ /J .MhM:A;~::~;~~~Cl~9:~~~4:~, 3:)~~~:;~§.,~~.~~~{.&d: ij. c, r:r-H'c:;ClJ ?Si: noc' 11,.::\,[' ,'(' j . :;:-~ 'r BRDFINC·0001030 To! . ~g~ 39 of 77 2003-08 06 14:55:56 (GMT) 12023182372 From: Geoffrey Rempel .RUG 05 2003 2:41PM p. 12 /'/ • . PAGE NO: 2 A DMskm rdH-: ~hK. INVOICE NO: 307179 PWcoacA"PI&Hoa 1>.0. t-.~HIJ DATE: 71912003 " ...f&,. WUAl'''''''"'ilI.U4_tJO rAX30U'7...Da7 PROJECT: 928600 ~.NOrtn JO.U~6.fQ D.n....... hneyCity-u,...-. Slm1t.go • SNttI&> • VeIlCOuwer;. S.C DIRECT LABOR Hcr.m; Ra~. Amount Christopher L Easton 41.50 135.00 5,602.50 Heather C. RObinson 0.50 65.00 32.50 42.00 5,635.00 Rate Schedu'~bor DIRECT EXPENSES VendorName . Cost Mllltip/itff Amount OutsIde DIrect Expenses • Christopher L Easton 55.50 1.00 55.50 Associates LaDOr Landy A. .Stinnett 10,036.9S 1.00 10,036.89 66.50 Hours@ 150.00Ihr '" 9,975.00 Expenses ~ 61.88 Travel and SubSistence • .-American Express 90s.00 1.00 ges.00 Mileage Easton.92 Miles .36/Mile 33.12 LaDOr: 6,635.00 Expense 11,033.50 Total Project: 928600 16,668.50 tERMS: ~Y"Mntdl,l. upon. f«eipt. A 5e1"Yk9 dwge of 1-lfl-" (t..-,. per annUlTl) WIll be madean all unpaid ~vDlce530 (or more) day,. after "the d.l!t!=of this Invoice. Aft msts and upell:iH In!;:uned by us In amneCtlon wlth UM «IllectIon Of overaue .mounu (lnCllIdlng. withoUt Itrnltatlon COIlealon dlargeS end at:torney's fees) shall be mmediate-~duo and-paYable to I.Dby the (1IeDt. PI.,.. ,.., from thII-Invt>ke (htum .,... COW with p.,....."'!" BRDFINC-0001031 . ,. • INDIVIDUAL INDIANMONIES TRUST CORRECTION &RECOVERYPROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 7/13/00 AMOUNT: $ 28,016.70 ACCOUNT # 3000486 CHECK: # ADDRESS: _______ __ 18_8_0_R~e~d~C~lo~u~d~~~.______________________ Longmont. CO 80501 DA1E DISCRJPTION A.M:OUNT 7/13/00 Services for 6/16/00 to 6/30/00 , $ Invoice 2274 "­ $ 28.016.70 $ - _.__.­ $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL $ TOTAL $ EXPLAIN VOUCHER: BRDFINC-0000347 TO: Eloui~ ClIJell @ 486-338-2751 FrOll: Geoffrey Rempel (509)275-:>748 Via eff".COiI P9 4/23 87-1HJ0 88:5311:1 ~SOs!ph N. Ignat Tel" Getlffre), Rempel Date: 7110100 lime: Page 2 of27 Invoice Date IInvoice til 717100 2274 BILL FROM: Farragut Systems. Inc. 1650 Red Cloud Rd. longmont CO 80501 BILL TO; Blackfeet Reservauon Development Fund Attn: Elouise Gobel P.O. Box 730 Browning. MT 59417 DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT Data Gathering and Interpretation servICes 229.40 25,513.50 6/16/00-6/30100 Misc. Expenses (oetail): NIA $2,503.20 Airfare to Washington DC $1.582.00 MHeage-(104@ .325ImHe) $ :'13.80 '. Meals $ 132.40 Taxi $ 50.00 " Telephone $ 5.70 Hotel $ 603.33 Copies $ 10.00 Map (Art Source) $ 65.97 Ie­ 11M TRUst CORREctiON & RECOVERY PROJECT 528,016.70 0 1"\ ,,y1 P.o. BOX 730 BROWNING. -MT 59411 :.' BRDFINC-0000348 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: _~7/,-,!3~/0~3,-----____ AMOUNT$ 72,876.99 CHECK#_______ ACCOUNT #",30",0",-042.>8=6___ LINE ITEM ~ExJlert Witness NWA LANNAN #2 _ _______Qu~e~s~t~a~E;n*g~l·n~e~e~r~i~n~g~Gior~p~o;r~a~t~i~o~ntIng-------------------­ NA~: InternatlonaI Petroleum Consult1ng 1010 Tenth Street ADDRESS: ___~Gu~l~dceel~I~'~e;O'-;8~6i44;O;'1=----------------­ DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT $ 7/3/03 Professional Service~ $ -~ Invoice # 2775 72,876.99 $ S .­ I I , 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT ,:J.O, BOX 730 BROWNING MT 59417 93-162/929 I J~,l---J-/-31-O-3 _ 0003000485 I,cfk{~~~r!'[-~a Engineerin~Ol::P_'1_ratio~ ___ --_____ . : $ 72,876.99 I Sevent:Lrw~l'housand_llight Hundred ~tl~t-Y=S.ix and 99Lilloxx•••• '7"" 8"'-5/,0 ~ and submll_tywllh"".. n_ rOOI\L...;.....,...lHJ\lm ••I'I........ ~ 101"", 0'VEI1 JFNa rlll'EftSES ""*'''1 .....: TMVD. NWNfCF.. TOfM.OUF.EMrtO'V8EI..:tkllo • 0 0 ~ 0 en w N IIART CROWSEIl, INC. PROJECT-RELA TED CHARGES EXPENSE REPORT ~ ~ Week nnding &1P.q -M.0Iati­ 0. Name LMJIy -fTI,c./St:7[ 1!lIIpl"y~ Nil. @.f/!f I.OCloo rfll r.... IfF.r..~ ACCINR 1 lJOIiotLY eIMIt", IM.lOWED .......... SECTION II: TRAVEL-RELATED LODGING & MEAL EXPENSES r-"'lllH. I Ji........ .......t"RI LaME. n. 1..001....""..... . ....... Cod, ......... ParNi ......... Cod, .nne__ -..-...... ..... ...­ ...­ . . t t • • , • , , • ........ ........ rtdt.... OF• GtlHtilf F1ft USEOHt,'I SECTION B: mAVEL EXPENSES ....-. ft'. _... -·..... 1......-1 ... ' T.... 1F.NI ....... ..... FTftc...• ..... ..... - - o ,o .. , N • '" .... • W ..., '" SECTION C: OTHEn EXPENSES W "­ I........ rm. nn.tp__...,... ..........~Q~~Lfar~.~~. Colo r~" a: "' ~S/(l J£.1-h a.. ..J ",-m·«dt.-l1'· 111?lpfJAr/SILL • :c • . z: a: .. ~ o ~ .. ..0 J 7F"ar') , -=< " . '" ~ .. n M o o .. III N • ;;0 ,.""",, tJt/gIrnJI ..,.~Irx1111_ "' ."'!fr1ut••, ...... ,.,.... ..... 101H.rtnIalf.N:..AtEDl:~S~ o o I , () IIcn~Uan., _. T ... 6 o ~-::-;-'..' .'-"\S~~.=· ", t{"~; ,..,'. o ~ "­ §l ./:>. \' \:-\6. INDIVIDUAL INDI/fNMONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERYPROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 12/8/00 AMOUNT $ 101,456.44 ACCOUNT # 3000486 CHECK#~19~7~9~_________ -i-·' LINE ITEM Lead Testifing FORD LANNAN ~~--~ ~--~ NAME: Nei11 Freeman ----­ ADDRESS: _____y"'re"'c""m!O'au"--".Ii--'Hi""·=l"'ls"---____________-----,-,--,----___________ ____-----:;350 Sout:h Figueroa Street: Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DATE DlSCRIPTION AMOUNT $ 12/8/00 Professional Serives for the period , I, of 10/2/200 to 10/23/0(1 $ 101,456.4/, ----,--~ ,,---------------------~-----"---_._---_._-_. ---~-----------_., --_. -. --,--------_! -~,,----.-­ .-_._-----_.--... .-.-~.. --~--.-­ I ITUTAL EXPLAIN VOUCHER BRDFINC-0000681 11M TRUST 197 CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 5:H17 01,456.44 BRDFINC-0000682 Freeman & Mills In"""""""" 350 South Figueroa Street S"ite 900 Los Angeles, California 90071 TIN # 95-4R0731l Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 1275 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Ninth Floor Washingto", D.C., 20004 Re: Cobell Y. Babbit For professional services rendered in the above referenced matter during Octoh:or 2000, per attached. Less Cfernt fOT 50% oftravd time: Expenses: Travel $3,634.00 Lodging 981.00 Meals 43gJB Printing & Reproduction 243.33 Courier / Messenger 46.28 ~'Iis'[,!:.dl~l'~...r:ur: 42.00 213-62P-9535 votee 2'13-620"·9564 facrlmiJe; $101,723.50 96,071.00 5.385.44 $i{!J4S6.44 Rd'.. * 2Q41..oool BRDFINC-0000683 IIM~NOWACCOUNT P.O. Box 3029 Dale 101 Pata SL I I Browning, MT 59417 [ 10129/2008 PAY TO: Heather Manner, Ph.D. 246 West Upsal Street Apt. A-202 Philadephia, PA 19119 AmountDescription 2.250.00 Expert invoice . . Consultant regarding the Courts's August 7 memorand~mOpInIOn 15 hours@S150.00perhour , --....,--------------------~-,-------::-.=----------.,--------~ ---,----....,-------------­ - 93-162/929 . ... ~ QATE~1""O"'/r...31..)'"'luQJj8L._ Fift:y apd 00I100xxxxxxnxxx'86i'fil.lls ~,~,~,,, ,...,,,..,,,, ~.Blt)Wnlng.Mr~11:{J130 i. NATIVE AMERICAN BANK, NA MEMO statistical CDusulting .~---,--.--J Total $2,250.00 I ------_.•..-----~ BRDFINC-0001509 Heather Hammer, Ph.D. 246 West Upsal Street, Apt. A·202 Philadelphia, PA 19119 (215) 849·1078 October 7, 2008 Geoffrey Rempel Re: CObell INVOICE Dear Geoffrey: This invoice covers my time for statistical consulting and document review related to the CObell case. The invoice total, $2,250 = 15 hours at $150 per hour. Payable upon receipt. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~}Yk.D. Heather Hammer, Ph.D. BRDFINC-0001510 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT59417 DATE: 4/18/03 AMOUNT$~2~2~.~00~_______ CHECK#______________ ACCOUNT #"'30""0""04""8""6_____ LINE ITEM Adm. Support NWA LANNAN 12 NAME: Elouise C. Cobell ----------------~~-----------------------------­ ADDRESS: _____________________________________________ . DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT 4/18/03 Airport parking $ March 11-14, 2003 $ 22.00 $ $ 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P,o. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 93~ 16U929 4/18/0=3__ OOJ30004B6 Elouise C. Cabell 22.00 I , ) BRDFINC-0006905 ~-~ / ..",~.-~ ~-­ ft::":"_ I"'r:. GHr.~,', .;,:!$ \;\';1 GR(M FALLS, M. , l -I "PAW" 211 A, ••.• ·6No. ---I 03-03· '"50T --II 014-23: 15EX 011-07:59f.N ------I E···22.00$ .. '22.00$ 1----: I I1 I r I--.17.rm .--~.--., t r-------­ . .;~. BRDFINC-0006906 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 5/15/03 AMOUNT$ ACCOUNT #3000486 CHECK #____~~-=-__ LINE ITEM Adm. Support travel NWA Rlouise c. Cobel1 NAlvIE ----~--------~--~--­ ADDRESS DATE DlSCRlPTION Alv10UNT $ 5/15/03 3/13/03 Dinner 195.14 $ 4/13/03 Hotel 241.116 $ 4/10/01 C-ah 24.00 .­ $ , 4/30/03 PerDiem 69.00 1--. -----­ ..~ ........., I ·1 ~~. ~~#, 2251 ..~~ I( 11M TRUST I CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P,O. BOX 730 BROWNING, \AT 59417 93-1621929 0003000486 BRDFINC-0006907 I 'j ii I lii=DFF 'S : ; I I I I liN U ~) , Ii I , It I I ,I Ii !.jljl:~.' !~.i: b Hk~ i-n-d, II j' .J L HIIU I f'I'~ j G I ilf'l'lilNO ;'IJ \ Li IAIACHIILA :;4 .j,! " I b~RfSSO ~L;b 1 CHICKHI PllZA L ,:J!i 2 DUCK 31.9() 1 TUNA ,',: ,95 1 SALMON 16 ,~15 1 ~;HRII~P SOUP 6 . 9~) fOOD & BEV lT7.40 TAX 11.74 TOTAL l~Jb. 14 C GEOFF'S ", Nu"',JtR OF GUESTS 5 SECTION ~ 5 Cill.! I :;ErVICE BY BHENIIA RECEIPT 10[AL " . " . i, THANK 'lOll FOR DINING IHiH ,. PLEASE. VISIT OliR IjEBSm EN,JOY [)INNER BFlV' li1i :;HIM BRDFINC-0006908 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: ____Jl~QL/~16~/uOu3L________ AMOUNT$,__-<8"'5"'3-..-JC_______ 780­ ACCOUNT#~30~O~04TI8~6~~_ CHI:;CK # LINE ITEM Adm. Support NWA LANNAN #2 Travel Elouise C. Cobell NAMF:~~~~~ ADDRESS: __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__ ----~-" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­ --'-' DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT $ 10/15/03 Travel for the following dates: $ _July_6.::-_!l.. 2003,W:ashington DC 430.41 $ July 14-15, Seattle,Washington 353.37 $ July 14-15 Seattle, Cabfare 70.00 - --. -_.. -----­ I I TOTAL I -----~--.-~ ,-----------.--<-,----------.-,---------------.. ---_...._-_... ---...., .. -,[ - 11M TRUST 93-152/9'CI 2340 000300048ti EXPl.. CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT PH. 406-338-2992 P.o. BOX 3029 DATE 10/16/03BROWNrNG, MT 59417 ~ i ~ ,II l'AYTOTHE Elouise C. ~b!oll I $: 853~78 1!~ OR:)'ER OF __________ ,__~____________~, I! H~ht Hundred Fifty-Three and 18/100=" , ~ __ _, __ DOLLA~S l!J \11 "'1AIl ',0,""'" "%,",,m"jQ/J ',/J~ , -~"".,"" "",''''''" /;L/L! ::' M,.,:A~~~~:x:~:~:_'C_'A_N_B_A_,N-'"' ?,tAi m"~~;:~~_____~__ ._. ,-, g ~! ~-iO \b [I Sl~ r n' -';' "7,:'". <,----'--":. '--/ "n ~.­ BRDFINC-0006925 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 11/4/03 AMOUNT$ 487.94 CHECK #________ ACCOUNT#~30~OO~4~86L-___ LINE ITEM Adm. Support NWA LANNAN #2 Travel NAME: _________E_l_o_u_i_s_e_C__._C_o_b~e~l~l~___________________________________ ADDRESS: ___________________________________ DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT $ 11/4/03 Travel re·i.m.bursement $ Tuls811 Ok, Oct 30 to NoV:. 2. 2003 487.94 $ $ .. --._-­ TOTAL -" -­------.".-. -----,.-.---­ .-----"..,'--. ----~--,--­ 2355 11M TRUST" EXP1­ CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT, , PH. 406-33B-2992 ' DAIE ---'I.lIj.{!>4.t,{Ou3-'-----:­ P.O. BOX 3029 BROWN\~G, MT 59417 BRDFINC-0006932 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: ___7~/_2~8~/0~3~_________ AM0 UNT$__-,2~5~8,,"1OC"0"'5'--___ ACCOUNT#£30~O~04~8~6_____ CHECK #________ LINE ITEM Adm. Support NWA LANNAN #2 NAME: Mastercard PO Box 30131 ADDRESS: Tampa, FL 33630-3131 DATE D1SCIUPTION AMOUNT $ 1--"7..--/",28;:..:/-,0c:.3__-+_ 5472 5054 9015 2382 $ see attached 2581.05 $ ~----'--c------+-$~-------~ ----+---------------~---_______1--------_____j ,--------------------I CORR'ECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT - - , -;'>7 _ :s;:__ ITOTAL r 11M TRUST 93-167/929 OOn00048b 2302 PH_ 406-338-2992 POBOX 3029 DATE 7/28/03 BROWNING, MT 59417 < EXPLAIN . 2581.05 i$ BRDFINC-0006946 7-12-10; 16:42 ; 1'1063382751 # 10/ 16 ....( 8/13/2003 ~. , DOLLAR. ~ECUAlrv FEATURES, MCAO PRINT TOP & 1l0TTOM BOMfRS. COIMED F'AnI:FlW MTlF!C1/lL WATeRMARK ON REVERSE SIDE· MISSINC". FEATURt" INDlCATESA COPy ( CASH ""~"'QlI"""" Checking Deposit i1:1..:< ~_ ,;)./ 'a:Y Date '6-1 ')"-0) Use Olher SIdII For tOTAl"""'" AddllionaJ lisrlng ()TII~"~Dt" TOTAL t..E$.5CAo.1tIlECEII'!O Acknowledg& AeC61pt·o-l Cash Relurroed By SfgnSng Ab~. • NET DEPOSiT C)./ OS Che~k$II1dOlhG' It~",s a«l.~ lor def'9llls;lbjecl to me ~ma;rnj ccondjtJOn$ col till' bBllI('8 collioc1lcon '"g'ftlllelll.=\~'*"':ltr:::~r::.ru~~e IN Account Titl. T..:r-fl'\..~?oA~:::( Street £tiry" Grantee agrees to immediately nQtify" in writing, if 1) Grantee's federal tax status is revoked or altered; 2) Grantee has reasonable grounds to believe that its tax exempt status may be revoked or altered; or 3) Grantee has'reason to believe that the grant monies cannot be or continue to be expended for the specified purposes. t Grantee understands that there is no commitment byby._ to supply any further support for this program. _ considers each request on an individual basis, and that this grant is not to be construed as establishing a precedent for further ;;upport. >. Grantee in supplying additional infonnation or in complying with any procedures 'Grantee will cooperate with _ which might be required by any governmental agency in order for. to establish the fact that it has observed all requirements of the law with respect to this grant ).>. Grantee agrees to submit a Progress Report(s) based on the date(s) set forth herein. If the Grantee has been approved for subsequent years' funding, payments are continge~n .. receiving and approving a Progress Report rio later than the aforementioned date(s). Because_ reviews a large number of reports each year, the Progress Report must be 3 or less pages and prepared in accordance with _ Follow-up Reporting Guidelines. In order for us to review the Report in a fair and timely manner, any report not in accordance with these guidelines will have to be returned. P000473 ,........ ~' I GRANT CONTRACT, p.2 7. ~tegorized The report should be c::ategorized in the following three sections and address each item within the section: A. OBJECTIVES - PROPOSED TO ACfUAL Referring to the objectives and methods for"to evaluate results set forth in your proposal, have the objectives ofthe project been realized? Why or why not? Specify and Compare proposed time frame to actual time frame. Explain any milestones that have been achieved. B. ' IMPACT - PROPOSED TO ACTUAL What ,developments or implementations of solutions to the problems addressed by this grant have occurred because of your organization? What, if anything haslis occurring in the field that has changed the climate. C. BUDGETIFINANCIAL - PROPOSED TO ACfUAL How the funds from this grant were actually ,used - include a line item comparison of the budget that appears in your proposal to the actual expenses and revenues. Include a revised budget if necessary. If unexpended amount. the entire grant has not been expended, please explain proposed usage of the W1expended amoW1t. will If the grant was for an on-going program or activity, how wiIl funding be secured for contin~tion? othersciurces? Did this grant assist your organization in leveraging funds from other sources? Why or why not? both Please send two copies 'of tbe Progress Report on recycled paper using botb sides of each page witbout folders or covers. 8. TIus grant is conditional upon Grantee's acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth herein. The signature on tltis tile authorized tllls docwnent of tlle person autllorized to make legal contracts for Grantee will represent Grantee's oftlus of tile acceptance ofthis award and agreement to comply with all oftlle terms and conditions staled herein. TIle undersigned official of BLACKFEET RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT FUND, INC. hereby agrees to the tenns and conditions expressed herein. The BLACKFEET RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT FUND, INC. P000474 GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement C'Agreement") is made between (hereinafter the "Foundation") and Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc. (hereinafter the "Grantee"). The Foundation awards the following grant, and the Grantee agrees to accept the grant, in accordance with the following tenns and provisions. A.. Purpose and Terms of the Grant 1. Am~unt. Subject to the following tenns and conditions, will make a refundable grant in an amount equaj to or less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). As set out below, this grant shall be repaid, in part as set out below, if certain payments that were originally paid with funds from the grant are recovered, through successful litigation or negotiation. 2. Purpose. The grant funds shall be used solely to assist the plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 96-01285 in the ofColumbia United States District Court for the District ofColwnbia ("the Litigation") by funding services perfonnedperformed by Price Waterhouse LLP in support of the Litigation. expende~ Funds shall be expended, solely for that pwpose and in the manner described in this Agreement. The Grantee will notify the Foundation in advance of, and obtain its written consent to, deviations from these grant . tenns and provisions. pUlJ>Ose B. Payment Schedule of$500,000 The Foundation shall make four payments to the Grantee, in the amount of$500,000 (five-hundred thousand dollars) each, according to the following schedule. The Foundation shall make the first payment within thirty days of the execution of this Agreement by both Foundation and Grantee. The payments shall be applied to pay for services perfonned and expenses incurred by Price Waterhouse beginning on August 1, 1997. The Foundation shall make each. succeeding payment within thirty days after it receives notice that the total fees for which Price Waterhouse has submitted invoices, covering the period beginning August 1,I, 1997, has exceeded the amount of total grant payments made by the Foundation. C. Grant Conditions 1. Internal Revenue Code: The grants will be made in accordance with current and applicable laws and the Internal Revenue Service Code, as amended, and its regUlations. The Foundation and the Grantee understand and agree that the Foundation is to characterize this grant as a program-related investment for federal tax purposes. P000475 . ~: •••••••• Grant Agreement 2. Limitation on expenditure of funds: Funds will not be used for (i) attempting to influence legislation within the meaning of Section 4945(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, (ii)influencing the outcome of any public election, (iii) carrying on, directly or indirectly, any voter registration drive, within the meaning of Section 4945 (d)(2) of the Code; (iv) making any grant that does not comply with the provisions of Sections 4945 (d)(3) or (4) of the Code; or (v) undertaking any activity for a noncharitable pwpose. 3. Recordkeeping; information to be provided to the Foundation: a. The Grantee will maintain records consistent with generally accepted accounting practices . to account for the funds received under this grant and to identify how the funds have been expended. b. The Grantee will maintain its records of grant expenditures, as well as reports to the tennination Fqundation regarding the grant, for at least four years after completion or termination of the grant. The Grantee will make its records of grant expenditures available to the Foundation at reasonable times and upon request. ' c. shall The Grantee shaH provide the following items or information to the Foundation .. Existing items are to be provided within thirty days of the signing of this Agreement by both parties, and Grantee will take reasonable efforts to ensure that other items will be provided to the Foundation within thirty days of their receipt by plaintiffs' counsel in the litigation: All budgets received from Price Waterhouse since the beginning of the litigation, and any budgets created in the future; All invoices received from Price Waterhouse since the beginning of the litigation, and any invoices received in the future; • All reports, including interim reports, provided by Price Waterhouse since the beginning of the litigation, and any reports created in the future; and other All otner information about the Litigation requested by the Foundation. 4. Reversion of grant funds: The Grantee will return unexpended funds upon termination.ofthe Litigation unless other arrangements have been made with the Foundation. • terminationofthe notify The Grantee will notifY the Foundation immediately of any changes in its status as an organization that is exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 509(a)(1),(2) Grant and a nonprivate foundation described in Section 509(a)(I),(2) or (3) of the Code. 2 P000476 •••••••• Grant Agreement funds must be promptly returned if (where applicable) the Grantee loses its exemption for federal income taxation under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Code. 501(c)(3) • Foundation The Grantees will notify the FOWldation of any lawsuit, or any proceeding before any federal, state, or local administrative agency, that may be initiated against it. • If, pursuant to judgment or settlement, Plaintiffs in the Litigation or their attorneys recover from the United States (including any agency or department thereof) any attorney's fees andlor andlor Litigation, and/or costs and/or expenses of the Litigation. the Grantee shall take all appropriate action paJIllent Foundation to ensure prompt pa)'l11ent to the FOWldation of one-half of all such amounts recovered, until the grant is repaid in full. In the event that one or more other non-profit entities contributed or have contributed funds toward the Litigation, the Grantee will share the one­ amounts half of the amoWlts recovered, pro rata, in proportion to amounts advanced by the other non-profit entities. • By his signature, Dennis M. Gingold, their lead counsel, acknowledges that one-half of any attorney's fees and/or costs and/or expenses of the Litigation recovered from the United shaIl States, by judgment or settlement, shall be paid to the Grantee, until the grant is repaid in full. By separate assignments to the Blackfeet Reservation Development FWld, Elouise Pepion Cobell, Earl Old Person, Thomas Maulson, and James Louis Larose, beneficiaries of this Agreement, have agreed to pay to the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund all amounts that any or all of them recover from the United States (including any agency or department thereof) related to attorney's fees and/or costs and/or • Fund, andlor expenses of the Litigation. 5. Copyrights and patents: Any materials resulting from the grant my be copyrighted by the Grantee and shall become the property of the Grantee. Appropriate steps should be taken to make.the material available tl) the public at no charge or at a reasonable charge. 6. Material change in the Litigation It is the understanding of the Foundation and the Grantee that the size and scope of the Litigation, including the identity of the named defendants, shall remain substantially as set out in the Complaint dated June 10, 1996 and in the Order Certifying Class Action entered by the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth on February 4, 1997. In the event of any substantial change in the size and scope of the Litigation, including the naming of additional defendants, the 3 P000477 i"'''~, ,~"\ . l ••••••••Grant Agreement FOWldation shall retain the right to discontinue payments under this Agreement, and shall have no further obligation under this Agreement. FOWldation In the event that the Foundation invokes its right to discontinue payments under this Agreement, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force. In the event that the Foundation invokes its right to discontinue payments ofthis under this Agreement, all other provisions ofthis Agreement shall remain in force. 7. Termination of Agreement: In the event that the Grantee fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement, the , Foundation may terminate the Agreement. tenninate tennination,Upon termination, and at the request of the FOWldation, the Grantee will promptly repay all unexpended grant funds, and the Grantee will not be entitled to any further funds under this grant. In the event that the Foundation invokes tenninate its right to terminate this Agreement, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force. FOUNDAnON: GRANTEE: FOUNDATION: Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc. By: _____________ Elouise Pepi~n Cobell Secretary Post Office Box 730 59417-0730 Browning, MT 59417·0730 Date By:--".L--=:....-­ By:--".L--=:......--__ --'----r. ___ _ Dennis M. Gingold Aukamp & Ging ~ 1201 Pennsylvania Av:enue, N.W. /1l-. Il, (17Y Suite 821 Washington, D,C, 20004 D.C. 4 P000478 ASSIGNMENT This assignment is made between the Blackfeet Resenration Development Fund ("Fund") OldPerson, Maulson, and Elouise Pepion Cobell, Earl OldPerson, Thomas Mauison, and James Louis Larose. In consideration of payment by the Fund of certain fees and expenses incurred in relation to Civil Action 96-01285 in the United States District Court for The District of Columbia ("the Litigation"), an action in which each of the undersigned is a plaintiff, each of the undersigned . assigns to the Fund all rights to any attorney's fees and/or costs and/or expenses of the Litigation, recovered from the United States, whether pursuant to judgment or to settlement, that the undersigned recovers as a result of the Litigation. Blackfeet Reservati n Dev~I~'pmentDev~l~pment und -.- /;/ / By~" · .... ,L. Elouise Pepion Cobell j Date J .I Date ~-:?:--. By: ____ ~~~~~~r_~~------------ Earl Old Person Date ~.": P000479 .. ' 't t '." I .. , GRANT AGREEMENT This agreement is made between the (hereinafter the "Foundation") and Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc. (hereinafter the "Grantee"). The Foundation awards the following grant, and the Grantee agrees to accept the grant. in accordance with the following terms and provisions. I. PURPOSE AND TERMS OF THE GRANT The grant funds shall be used solely for the purposes described in the grant application dated March 21, 1996 and subsequent correspondence, the activities noted below, and the line items specified in the Grant Expenditure Budget (Attachment A). Funds shall be expended in the manner and over the period of time described in this agreement. The Grantee will notify the Foundation in advance of. and obtain its written consent to, deviations from these grant terms and provisions. Award date: May 5, 1996 Grant title nndand number: Individual Indian Trust Correction and Recovery Project - Grant No. 96-33 To support steps leading to corrective measures in the trust relationship between the United States and individual Indians. Grant period: Threeyears-]une I. 1996 through May 31, 1999 Amount granted: $1,000,000, conditional. Threeyears-June May31, Grant Condition: This grant is considered a recoverable grant in that any professional fees recovered through successful litigation or negotiation that were originally covered with Foundation funds would be repaid to the Foundation. The grant is further conditioned in that Foundation funds are not to nOI be used for attorney fees related to litigation. Release of funds and submission of reports: of funds The release offunds in accordance with the following schedule is contingent on the timely return of this countersigned Grant Agreement. Periodic grant reports will be submitted according to the schedule noted below. Grant payments will be released on or about the dates listed. Payment 1: $1,000,000 June I. 1996 Interim Narrative and Expendit~re Reports December I1.. I ~96 . ..1 Year I Narrative and Expenditure Reports May I. 1997./ Year 2 Workpland and Project Budget 1991."-/-­ May I, 1991............. Interim Narrative and Expenditure Reports December I. 1997 Year 2 Narrative and Expenditure Reports I, 1998 May 1,1998 Year 3 Workplan and Project Budget May I.I, 1998 Interim Narrative and Expenditure Reports January I. 1999 Final Narrative and Expenditure Reports August I, 1999 . . ... , ... P000480 .,....". . , . ~ ' •. ."t II. SPECIAL PROVISIONS All grants are made in accordance with current and applicable laws and the Internal Revenue Service amended. Code, as amended, and its regulations. Expenditure of funds: • Funds must be expended in accordance with the Grant Expenditure Budget (Attachment A). • Expenses charged against this grant may not be incurred prior to the date on which the grant period begins or after its termination date, and may be incurred only to carry out the approved program. • Funds will not be used for: (i) attempting to influence legislation within the meaning of 1) Section 4945( d)( I) of the Internal Revenue Code; (ii) influencing the outcome of any public election; (iii) carrying on, directly or indirectly, any voter registration drive. within the meaning of Section 4945(d)(2) of the Code; (iv) making any grant that does not comply with the provisions of 494S(d)(3) Sections 4945(d)(3) or (4) of the Code; or (v) undertaking any activity for a noncharitable purpose. Recordlieeping: • The Grantee will maintain records consistent with generally accepted accounting practices to account for the funds received under this grant and to identifY how the funds have been expended. • The Grantee will maintain its records of grant expenditures, as well as repons to the Foundation . the The Grantee regarding the grant, for at least four years after completion or termination of the grant. will make its records of grant expenditures available to the Foundation at reasonabl«! times and upon request. gnmtReversion of grnnt funds: • grant period. The Grantee will return unexpended funds at the close of the grimt period, unless other arrangements have been made with the Foundation. • The Grantee will notifY the Foundation immediately of any changes in its status as an organization SOI(c)(3) Internal that is exempt from tax under Section 50 I(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and a nonprivate foundation described in Sections 509(a)(I), (2), or (3) of the code. Grant funds must be promptly applicable) taxation returned if (where appljcable) the Grantee loses its exemption from federal income ta.xation LInder tile Section 50) (c)(3) of the Code. • federal, The Grantee will notify the Foundation of any lawsuit, or any proceeding before any federal. state. or local administrative agency, that may be initi.lIed against it. agency. initiated Copyrights nnd patents: copyrighted Any materials resulting from the grant may be copyrigllted by the Grantee and shall become the property of the Grantee. Appropriate steps should be taken to make the material available to the public at no charge or at a reasonable charge. 2 P000481 ...... ' ... .-.. ,; >J' 0- . 'J' .~~ ':. 10, ..... ;.) Termination of agreement: This agreement may be tenninated at any time by either party in writing. Upon termination and at the request of the Foundation, the Grantee will promptly repay all unexpended grant funds, and the Grantee will not be entitled to any further funds under this grant. Minnesota law: This agreement is governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota. GRANTEE: Blackfeet Senior Program Officer Secretary Post Office Box 730 Browning, Montana 59417-0730 Date Date/ 7 i Budget Attachment A: Grant Expenditure /Judger 3 P000482 Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. CA 96-1285 May 14, 2007 Department of the Interior, et al. Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Civil Action 96-1285 Plaintiffs v. Washington, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Monday, May 14, 2007 et al. Defendants 3:00 p.m. ---------x TRANSCRIPT OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES ROBERTSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: DENNIS GINGOLD, ESQUIRE LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS GINGOLD 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-6775 ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, ESQUIRE WILLIAM E. DORRIS, ESQUIRE KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P. 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 (404) 815-6450 WILLIAM AUSTIN, III, ESQUIRE KEITH HARPER, ESQUIRE KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P. 607 14th Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 585-0053 DAVID C. SMITH, ESQUIRE KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P. 1001 West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 (336) 607-7392 United States District Courtkingreporter2@verizon.net Rebecca Stonestreet, CRR For the District of Columbia (202) 354-3249 Official Court Reporter OOf3d835-3adf-4204-9d67 -adc214a49178 Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. CA 96-1285 May 14, 2007 Department of the Interior, et al. Page 2 For the Defendants: ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., ESQUIRE JOHN WARSHAWSKY, ESQUIRE MICHAEL QUINN, ESQUIRE J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN, ESQUIRE U.S. Department of Justice II 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 1 , t (202) 307-0010 ~ ! JOHN STEMPLEWICZ, ESQUIRE Ii Senior Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division I: II Ben Franklin Station II P.O. Box 975 Washington, D.C. 20044 Ii (202) 307-1104 I: GLENN D. GILLETT, ESQUIRE Ii U.S. Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 II Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202 ) 514-7162 Court Reporter: REBECCA STONESTREET Official Court Reporter Room 6415, U.S. Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 354-3249 Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript produced by computer-aided transcription. united States District Courtkingreporter2@verizon.net Rebecca Stonestreet, CRR For the District of Columbia (202) 354-3249 Official Court Reporter OOf3d835-3adf-4204-9d67 -adc214a49178 Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. CA 96-1285 May 14, 2007 Department of the Interior, et al. Page 13 1 vacated by the Court of Appeals, matters that were raised in 2 other issues. And the Master said, "I don't know where this is 3 going to come out. Put them in and I will decide how to resolve 4 it." 5 We explicitly had that discussion with the Master, and 6 he said he wasn't going to make any decisions on it. He said it 7 was appropriate to put it in, and we did, Your Honor. How he 8 was going to come out with it, we have no idea. If we were paid 9 for it, we wouldn't have submitted it. But we ha.d that specific 10 discussion before even filing that, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: All right, look. I said I want to talk a 12 lot about it, but actually it won't bear a lot of discussion. 13 Here's the ruling on that point: 14 I'm not going to go back and undo what ~Tudge Lamberth 15 has said about your rewriting time records, not in the past. 16 But from this point forward, a time record is a time record. 17 It's not something that is embroidered, added to, subtracted 18 from, categorized, et cetera, later on. A time record is a time 19 record. If it's sufficiently clear, you may collect on it. If 20 it's not, you won't. But there's not going to be any -­from 21 this point forward, don't come to me with any ed:_ted time 22 records. 23 Second: With respect to any time that you have 24 previously asked to be reimbursed and have been rejected, take 25 it out of this bill. I don't care whether you can re-categorize United States District Courtkingreporter2@verizon.net Rebecca Stonestreet, CRR For the District of Columbia (202) 354-3249 Official Court Reporter OOf3d835-3adf-4204-9d67-adc214a49178 Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. CA 96-1285 May 14, 2007 Department of the Interior, et al. Page 14 1 it or not; take it out of this bill. 2 MR. GINGOLD: Your Honor? 3 THE COURT: Yes. 4 MR. GINGOLD: One of the bills that we submitted and 5 were paid, for example, was the interim fee award for equal 6 access to justice. The Court denied time, not because it was 7 denied on the merits, but because it didn't fit within the scope 8 of that fee award. And he explicitly stated that: time could be 9 resubmitted in other matters. 10 THE COURT: If you're going to resubmit that time, flag 11 it carefully so that we can all understand which hours you're 12 talking about. 13 MR. GINGOLD: But we had situations like that. For 14 example, in each fee award, the Court indicated t:hat time did 15 not fit within that category, it wasn't within the scope of that 16 award. Because sometimes the orders weren't as clear as we 17 would have liked. And we submitted the fees, and decisions were 18 made not on the merits, but with respect to what the Court felt 19 were the scope of the particular award. 20 Therefore, what the Court said is, within his scope it 21 wasn't appropriate. He did not say it wasn't appropriate to 22 otherwise submit. And Your Honor, that is a situation in every 23 one of the contentions made by the government. 24 THE COURT: All I'm saying is, if you're going to 25 resubmit time that has previously been submitted and rejected, united States District Courtkingreporter2@verizon.net Rebecca Stonestreet, CRR For the District of Columbia (202) 354-3249 Official Court Reporter OOf3d835-3adf-4204-9d67 -adc214a49178 ExhibitAC Date Toiai Hours Total Feas .,.""n.ten 112 o1)LU,lUU June 1996 305 $54,900 July 1996 193 $34,740 October 1996 November 1996 117 $21,060 85 $15,300 December 1996 417 $75,060 January 1997 556 $100,080 Februarj1997 366 $65,880 Maich 1997 288 $51,840 April 1997 $116,280 v~v May 1997 "'" A f'ln~ Cl'o171. ann I,U;:J.,J ..," ,,""' ..... 0.1 CI'.t.In "'':Jon June 1997 .p lOot .... , .... ..., July 1997 944 ... ,...., ....nn 551 'Pt:l/,£:::Ju August 1997 $131,220 September 1997 785 260 $39,240 October 1997 November 1997 727 $79,305 574 $73,500 December 1997 January 1998 351 $53,730 February 1998 809 $140,160 .. A ......... h iQa~ $113,595 IVla,,",,. , .......,v 669 529 $105,800 Apiil1998 315 $63,000 May 199a 285 $54,000 june 1998 "nA 1t1~" 17t:;. v;;.r~ '11"' ........ , ...... Juiy 1998 Nr It' >1 ,)'l nnn Vlv '\l' 1"-... , ........ 1..1 August 1998 Il"An-, onn 539 OPIU/,UVU September 1998 ..... ,.., ... """7""7 t= October 1998 647 ~1,£O,"v 907 $"18-1,400 November 1998 804 $i60,800 December 1998 $173,975 January 1999 903 February 1999 1,029 $196,035 944 $188,800 March 1999 1,280 $256,000 ,.b..pri! 1999 k ....... ., aaQ 923 $184,600 IVIOJ ,-.#...,.... 1,230 $232,980 June 1999 1,102 $202,970 july 1999 A~" $87,315 ~~~ Augusi 1999 ,e, ¢:'l":l 071=\ September 1999 ,... , ""........ ,.... , .... nM d".e'l QQQ ,,",VL,VVU October 1999 "OU "'A""1 .... eo 76 ~] (. IUU November 1999 32 $7,088 December 1999 17 $3,825 January 2000 23,607 $4,311,738Total Reimbursed Through Contempt Citation Total Relrnburseable L..............___ c:v............... a.c. Cl'''lJlO o,j.I"""'TU ..... ~ .. ".., ~v, ':1..:> $1,325 $7,102 $3,306 $7,498 $9,448 $3,198 $2,556 $10,685 ot?n ORR .... -... ,... _­ ¢.J:; ..,~~ ....... ,"-....>.1 c!'a 1"\001 .... u,vu I """'.., ~~n ~ Iv,'-JOU $2,033 $3,658 $2,608 $1,940 $4,873 $7,341 $4,766 $1,771 $3,082 $6,402 $5,574 ¢:') t\e::~ ...."-, ......,..., d'A ")"')1::: ","'t,LL-V ....... 004"'7 ~o,o"+, $4,710 $6,765 $7,003 $7,990 $9,769 $8,866 $15,123 $12,466 $5,772 $2,901 ¢') ?':tf'l ......... -...... ~h7') ""oJ,,," "''''''"7 ,p"t"+1 $541 $240,894 Confidential Tota! Fees and Expenses $20,508 $60,093 $36,065 $28,162 $18,606 $82,558 $109,528 $69,078 $54,396 $126,965 $192,888 $154,396 $103,371 4l'o1AA7Qr\ '11 1"1'''',' v,,", .,. A,oj ,."..,.., ~"t I,£/..J $82,963 $76, i08 $55,670 $145,033 $120,936 $110,566 $64,771 $57.082 $141,577 $128,574 $109,865 $133,001 CI':",on .., ... 7 .... , .... v,"'-"""T, I!-A t:'1:: t:A .... .., IV""', ...... u "" .. n .... ,,,1\ \J) IOU,''''U $203,038 $196,790 $265,769 $193,466 $248,103 $215,436 $93,087 $36,876 $65,117 $17,739 ct:7 &;'''lJl .... ' , ........'"T "'A "ll:!O -+,"t,..Jvv $4,552,632 $23,948 $4,528,684 Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3679-13 Filed 01/25/11 Page 6 of 60 Exhibit AC Total Fees Date Total Hours Total Fees Expenses and Expenses June 1996 116 $20,880 $348 $21,228 July 1996 307 $55,260 $5,193 $60,453 October 1996 216 $38,880 $1,325 $40,205 November 1996 118 $21,240 $7,102 $28,342 December 1996 98 $17,640 $3,306 $20,946 January 1997 427 $76,860 $7,498 $84,358 February 1997 559 $100,620 $9,448 $110,068 March 1997 366 $65,880 $3,198 $69,078 April 1997 288 $51,840 $2,556 $54,396 May 1997 646 $116,280 $10,685 $126,965 June 1997 1,095 $171,900 $20,988 $192,888 July 1997 944 $149,130 $5,266 $154,396 August 1997 551 $97,290 $6,081 $103,371 September 1997 785 $131,220 $13,560 $144,780 October 1997 260 $39,240 $2,033 $41,273 November 1997 746 $82,725 $3,658 $86,383 December 1997 611 $80,160 $2,608 $82,768 January 1998 357 $54,810 $1,940 $56,750 February 1998 809 $140,160 $4,873 $145,033 March 1998 753 $128,295 $7,341 $135,636 April 1998 564 $107,300 $4,766 $112,066 May 1998 317 $63,400 $1,771 $65,171 June 1998 285 $54,000 $3,082 $57,082 July 1998 694 $135,175 $6,402 $141,577 August 1998 615 $123,000 $5,574 $128,574 September 1998 539 $107,800 $2,065 $109,865 October 1998 648 $128,975 $4,226 $133,201 November 1998 907 $181,400 $8,847 $190,247 December 1998 820 $164,000 $4,710 $168,710 January 1999 907 $174,775 $6,765 $181,540 February 1999 1,029 $196,035 $7,003 $203,038 March 1999 979 $195,800 $7,990 $203,790 April 1999 1,291 $258,200 $9,769 $267,969 May 1999 927 $185,400 $8,866 $194,266 June 1999 1,230 $232,980 $15,123 $248,103 July 1999 1,102 $202,970 $12,466 $215,436 August 1999 542 $104,515 $5,772 $110,287 September 1999 367 $82,575 $2,901 $85,476 October 1999 457 $102,825 $2,230 $105,055 November 1999 115 $25,943 $572 $26,514 December 1999 96 $21,488 $447 $21,934 January 2000 99 $22,275 $541 $22,816 Total 24,582 $4,511,140 $240,894 $4,752,034 Confidential Indians Gain a Slim Victory in Suit Against Government -NYTimes.com Page 1 of 2 August 8, 2008 Indians Gain a Slim Victory in Suit Against Government By KIRK JOHNSON DENVER — For decades, American Indians have argued that the federal government swindled them under a trust account system created in the closing days of the American frontier more than 120 years ago. On Thursday, a federal judge agreed, up to a point. The judge, James Robertson of Federal District Court in Washington, ruled that the plaintiffs, however much they had prevailed in proving government failure, were entitled to only a fraction of the billions of dollars they sought. Judge Robertson said that trust law is applied differently to government trustees than it would be to private citizens, and that instead of the $48 billion that the descendants of the original trust holders claimed, the government was only liable for about $455 million. “He basically accepted the government’s argument that not that much money is missing,” said Bill McAllister, a spokesman for the plaintiffs, who are led by a member of the Blackfoot tribe in Montana, Elouise Pepion Cobell. “He rejected our methodology and our theory of the case.” Ms. Cobell said in a statement that lawyers were studying whether to appeal. Lawyers representing the Interior Department, the defendant, did not return a telephone call. Judge Robertson did not actually order the government to pay; hearings on that question are scheduled for later this month. And he was scathing at times in describing how the case had illuminated government mismanagement, including a long trail of lost or destroyed records about money owed to Indians for timber leases, oil leases and other activities. “Historical wrongs,” the judge wrote, “could have been — and should have been — settled by the same political branches in recognition of their own failure.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/us/08indian.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print 2/24/2011 Indians Gain a Slim Victory in Suit Against Government -NYTimes.com Page 2 of 2 But the judge disagreed with the argument by lawyers for an estimated 500,000 descendants of the original trust holders, who argued that the accounting should factor in how much the government improperly gained — by using the Indian money for its own benefit, in lower borrowing costs or interest earned, for example — over decades. The class-action suit was filed in 1996 after other suits by Indian descendants were dismissed. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy Search Corrections First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/us/08indian.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print 2/24/2011 iOf}j;esta Engineering Corporation ~International Petroleum Con.lulling 1010 'lenlh Stll'fl • Golden, roo l'SA 80401 INVOICE DATE 313112003 INVOICE 2729 Blackburn COI1.ulting LLOC 13720 Rampart PROJECT 12201 Blackfeet Reservation Dev. Fund Conifer, CO 80433 FEESlEXPENSES HOURS RATE AMOUNT Petroleum Engineering Consulting provided in March 2003 Deposition March 13, 2003 in Washington D.C. CONSULTING FEES 1.0. Wright -deposition 5.4 500.00 2,700.00 1.0. Wright -travel time 13.3 250.00 3,325.00 Total Fees 6,025.00 EXPENSES Travel Exponse -J.D. Wright 2,823,23 2,823.23 TOTAL DUE $8,848.23 TonllS 30 Days PhonoN 303-277-1629 Fad 303-277-0119 E-mail questa@questa.eom WebSito www.questa.oom BRDFINC-0001137 Questa Engineering Corporation 101 0 10th Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303·277-1629 Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund CIO Blackburn Consultllflts LLOC JI9B MtEvansBlvd Pine.. Colomdo For professionnl services. by John D. Wright: Date Dt:scription Houl'8 Rat< Dollars 11·Mar-03 Tmvel tu Wushinglon, D.C. for depo rotEll 6.5 6.5 $250.00 $1,625.00 $1,615.00 I3·Mar·O] Depo Total 5,4 5.4 $500.00 S2,700.()O $2,700.00 14-MIIl-()3 Travel to Goldeo Office TOtB1 6.8 6.8 $250.00 11,700.00 $1,700.00 Total Professional Fees 18.7 $ 6,025.00 Br1tintl :aheetJDW MAR DEPO.xls 4/312003 Plge i ofl BRDFINC-0001138 ~iErCiHT/....iCJHN D 1'-1Ar.::: 07 20(1::;: INVOICE / ITINERARY ";";:iC _. 0(: .o::l.;-) " un ~::;Ub '1' urAl," ':/J:::::,oe) CFa~';:IJlT CF)HD 1·-",;.;Yt'iE),iI ~'~MOt'!i\lT f:;!..JI: BRDFINC-0001139 l"lAR 07' 200:.3 INVOICE / ITINERARY J. (: r1l\R O:~! _. M;"JI\Jn{~iV r"":p.,TFir"IFLC J NN:.·:; 01 NTIS -OGl llMAR CU!"-.lF Ihl'1l~.1.' r:(,:,lF~F.tEUJ !!I.-j!\l IJE".Nvt::... r·~: 1 r;:I)OI"i /S', C!.HiHAI\tTE,E'-'C:RE D.T. T Cl·'-lRD 6::::~j 1 rlJv.~ER HU(.:,[.l ~::·i··tOf,tC.-~~O:::';: ~:r 7(:.··.. 91.!:·4-0 nENvEF~ CtJ ;30'::~4~) COI'-lF 1 ~~MAT J f)N·~·g2~;309:1. 9:.~: HOTEL FP,X-<303 ~i74--'i}6:3U WITH P('~Ri<:rN(i ~;:3S;" 00 PC::H NJ(3Hr fUJS rt1X 11 MAR (Ie,: -TU[,SD~\y UN 1: Tf::":D 1!.:i:l () COACH CLA::,S I .. V: DENVER S'(\OI~ P)R~ ·WAS:H/DUL.LES 213P EQUIPI'lENT: BOEING 737 .)ET S~NACI(-AUD r I) :.3E:.Al-!:iF FREGl F~'t_YER UA 0001078793S~ MILES' !4l~7 INTERCONTINENTAL o:~ I'I"i-;8 -(JUT 1:;:MAli C()NF rnt"lED THE WIl.,L~)RD INTEn-·CO ! nocl/~/:,' GUAF(AI\llEE··"CF ••.. Tote 1 .. x___...__.__ ___._._. ".__ ' Cardmember agrees to pay tot41 if' accordance with agreement gover, ,n9 use of such card. *** Ctlstomer Copy *** (j) 0091 Server: JOHN S Rec: 37 03/12/03 13:27, Swiped Terooinal: 4 GORDON BIERSCH 900 F STREET, NW WASHINGTON. D,C. 20004 (202)783-5454 MERCHANT #: CARD TYPE ACCOUNT NUMBER ~jP VISA XXXXXXXXXXXX1205 0505 Name: JOHN DWRIGHT 00 TRANSACTION APPROVED AUTHORIZATION #: 012141 Batch_#:_476_Sequence_#:~7 Reference: 031210091 CHECK: 17.33 TIP: TOTAL: x__ *'''*Dup 1 i cat e Copy*** CARDHOLDER WILL PAY CARD ISSUER ABOVE AMOUNT PURSUANT TO CARDHOLDER AGREEMENT AS!( ABOUT OUR BANQUET ROOM duplicate copy -) customer BRDFINC-0001143 John Wright us Date Charge Description 03111103 Round Robin Beverage 03111103 Room Charge 03111103 Room Tax 03112103 Round Robin Beverage 03112103 Room Charge 03112103 Room Tax 03113103 Cafe 1401 Breakfast Food 03113103 Round Robin Beverage 03113103 Room Charge 03113103 Room Tax 03114103 Visa 0505 Tolal WILLARD INTERCONTINENTAL• ..... ASHINGTON D.C. Room Number: Additlonallnformallon #906 ; CHECK #1892 #906 : CHECK #1010 #906 : CHECK #1870 #900 : CHECK #1087 XXXXXXXXXXXX1205 Balance Due: Guest Signature: Arrival Date: 03/11/03 Departure Date: 03/14103 Guests: 1 Cashier: 23 Room Rate: $ 325,00 Page Number: 1 011 Charges Payments 52,20 325,00 47,13 11,95 325,00 47,13 23.85 43,95 325,00 47,13 1,248,34 1,248.34 1,248.34 .00 I ogtVa that my lIf}bllily for this bllt J.s not walVed and agf9& to b9 held p9fSOflsUy lisbleln the event that the Jndlcated pe1'$rm, company, InlV&l ag&nt or association falll] to pay for anyparl or Ih9 fuff amount ofthas9 chsr'!1Ds. (}ljE KNOW WHAT IT TAKES:­ 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W" Wa!hington, D.C. 20004-1010 Tel: (202) 628.9100 Fax: (202) 637.7326 www.iIHetCnntinenraLcom·washingtoll@interconti.com INTERCoNfINENTAL HOTT:I..S AND RE.SORTIi • J\MP.RlCJ\..'i· EtmDPE' MIDDLE E;sr. AFRICA· NJA PACU:!C BRDFINC-0001142 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNI'lG, MT 59417 DATE 4{21{03 AMOUNUs] 4]0 ]2 t ')000 ~5'6143,O ,32­ACCOUKT #3000486 CHECK #J~_* Z-'2../1-Z­LINE ITEM_________. __ ':-:WA LANNAN #2 N:\jVIE Blackburn Consultants ----= AD9RESS ____ , I D{\TE DlSCRIPTlON ---~·r--AMOUNT , 4/21/03 Invoice $ $ March F;x'Penses - 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o. sox 730 anOWNING, MT 5041{ ~~-1fi2l929 0003:lO048(; 11M TRUST COR"ECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o. BOX TJO BROWNING, MT 59417 f!3.ISU929 0003000dSG i 71IJ~-:~~~~r.,j)'J!IllV; _Blackbu:r:n......Consultant.s. __ ------..----------.---_____--.l $ 53~430.32 , .J:'L.t.I:3..-Three Tho.usand_ Four _Hund red_Thir.ty _and_32L100:xx:x • • .....~ XXx' • g 8 8 •••• ,~mE~-~~n --BLACKFEET "" NATIONAL BANK ~ ~t PO 00. 110 I'-U~I )J8·'OC e''>'''''''''J.MT''''','-iI/;C ~Marc!I_ .f.!2.03 Exp.t!J~__ _. ____ ,,'DO II~ 211' ':09290 U; 251: ..,'­ BRDFINC-0000961 BladwUi"ll Consultants I.LC 13720 Rampart Drive Conifer, CO 80433 March 28, 2003 Invoice submitted to: Geoffrey Rempel Blackfeet Resen/ation Development Fund 1275 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 9th Floor Washington DC 20004 Invoice # 10027 Professional Sen/ices Hours Amount 3/4/2003 JNI Review process and plans for use of lega I description data to derive latitude and longitude data. 1,20 420,00 31612003 REF Telephone conference call with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel and Mark Brown to discuss availability and schedule of expert witnesses for deposition. 0.60 300.00 REF Telephone call with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel and Mark Brown to discuss deposition scheduling. Conference calls with Alan McQuillan and Matt Gabriel. 0.90 450.00 REF Telephone call wtth Landy Stinnett to discuss deposition schedule and requirements. 0.20 100.00 REF Telephone call with John Wright to discuss deposition schedule and requirements. 0.20 100.00 31712003 REF Telephone calls with Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown (part-time), and Keith Harper (part-time) regarding subpoena sen/ed on Alan McQuillan. Calls to Landy Stinnett, Matt Gabriel, and John Wright 2.10 1,050.00 BRDFINC-0000962 Geoffrey Rempel March 28, 2003 Page 2 Hours Amount 3/10/2003 REF Review Newell's expert report. 0.60 300.00 REF Meeting with Alan McQuillan to review his testimony with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel, Mark Brown and Keith Harper (part-time). 3.00 1,500.00 REF Meeting with Matt Gabriel to discuss his testimony with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel, Mark Brown (part-time) and Keith Harper (part-time). 2.30 1,150.00 REF Review the expert reports of Edward Angel, John Langbein and Joseph Rosenbaum. 1.20 600.00 REF Prepare questions for the Newell depos~ion. 0.60 300.00 3/11/2003 REF Attend deposition of Alan McQuillan. 2.60 1,300.00 REF Attend deposition of Matt Gabriel. 3.50 1,750.00 3/12/2003 REF Attend deposition of Lasiter. 6.50 3,250.00 REF Meeting with Dennis Gingold and Mark Brown (part-time) to discuss John's Wrighfs testimony. Discuss document prod uction w~h Dennis Gingold and Keith Harper. 3.00 1,500.00 3/13/2003 REF Revise model. 0.80 400.00 REF Attend deposition of John Wrig hI. 4.90 2,450.00 REF Revise model. 2.90 1,450.00 3/14/2003 REF Review Angel and Newell expert reports and note criticisms of Blackburn's methodology. 0.70 350.00 REF Interrogatories submitted by defendants. 0.30 150.00 REF Telephone call w~h Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown and Dwight Duncan to discuss the interrogatories submitted by defendants. 0.30 150.00 BRDFINC-0000963 Geoffrey Rempel March 2B, 2003 Page 3 Hours Amount 3/1512003 REF Prepare questions for Angel depositions. 0.70 350.00 REF Research cadasteral survey pilot program conducted by 001. 0.30 150.00 REF Research the Newell expert report comment on the land alienation question. 0040 200.00 REF Prepare a schedule for interrogatories for individual responsible and estimated time to gather documents. 1.50 750.00 REF Revise model. 1.30 650.00 3/16/2003 REF Review plaintiffs' historical accounting pian. 1.40 700.00 REF Revise model. 1.00 500.00 3117/2003 REF Attend Angel deposition. 5.50 2,750.00 REF Meeting with Dennis Gingold (part-time), Geoffrey Rempel (part-time) and Landy Stinnett to review his testimony. 1.50 750.00 REF Discussion w~h Mark Brown, Dennis Gingold and Geoffrey Rempel regarding providing defendants a copy of the Blackburn Model. 1.20 600.00 REF Prepare model with zero fields and copy to . pdf format. 1.80 900.00 3/18/2003 REF Attend Stinnett deposition. 4.10 2,050.00 REF Preparation for depOSition with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel and Mark Brown (part-time). 1.10 550.00 REF Discuss Dwight Duncan's testimony with Dw"ght, Dennis Gingold (part-time), Geoffrey Rempel (part-time) and Mark Brown (part-lime). 3.00 I,SOO.OO 3119/2003 REF Attend Dwight Duncan's deposition. 4.30 2,150.00 BRDFINC-0000964 Geoffrey Rempel March 26, 2003 Page 4 3/1912003 REF Discuss upcoming deposition testimony with Dennis Gingold and Geoffrey Rempel. 3/2012003 REF Attend Newell Deposition. REF Discuss defendants misuse of settlement documents and deposition preparation with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel and Mark Bmwn. 312412003 REF Telephone calls with Joe Ignat and John Wright regarding their estimate of time required to respond to defendants' interrogatories and documents request. REF Draft affidavit in support for plaintiffs' motion for protective order. REF Telephone conversation with Keith Harper, Mark Bmwn and Dennis Gingold regarding affidavit. REF Draft affidavR with more specificRy. REF Telephone conversation with Keith Harper, Mark Brown and Dennis Gingold regarding affidavit. For profesSional services rendered Add itional Charges: 319/2003 REF Airfare Denver to DC REF Lodging in DC for expert depositions (prepaid). REF Taxi Dulles airport to hotel. REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold and Mark Brown. 3/1012003 REF Breakfast Hours Amount 2.30 1,150.00 6.90 3.450.00 2.00 1,000.00 OAO 200.00 0.30 150.00 0.20 100.00 0.30 150.00 0.10 50.00 80.00 $39,820.00 1,270.00 731.00 60.00 39.93 4.46 REF Lunch with Dennis Gingold, Geoffrey Rempel, Mark Brown, Alan 82.90 McQuillan and Matt Gabriel. REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold and Mark Brown 119.55 3/11/2003 REF Dinner with Dwight Duncan. 108.01 3/1212003 REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold 39.88 3/13/2003 REF Taxi from Dennis Gingold's office to 1100 L Street for deposition of 10.00 John Wright. BRDFINC-0000965 Geoffrey Rempel March 28, 2003 Page 5 3/1412003 REF Additional night lodging and telephone charges. REF Taxi from hotel to Dulles airport. REF Airfare -change in ticket fee. REF Airport parking 3/16/2003 REF Dinner. 3/17/2003 REF Taxi from Dennis Gingold's office to NARF to attend Angel deposition, REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold. 3/18/2003 REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown and Dwight Duncan. 3/19/2003 REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold. 3/2012003 REF Dinner. REF Taxi from hotel to Dennis Gingold's office. REF Taxi from Dennis Gingold's office to NARF to attend depOSition of Newell. REF Taxi from NARF to Dennis Gingold's office with Mark Brown. 3/21/2003 REF Dinner with Dennis Gingold (one-half paid by government) 312212003 REF Lodging, REF Parking at airport. 3/24/2003 REF Telephone conference call charges, Total costs Total amount of this bill Previous balance 3/2512003 Payment -Thank You. Check No. 2219 Total payments and adjustments Balance due Amount 199.21 60.00 100.00 75,00 38,98 10,00 37.79 148.04 40,98 63.90 8.00 8,00 9.00 50.40 759.08 30,00 89.44 $4,193,55 $44,013.55 $59,286,77 ($44,870.00) ($44,870.00) $58,430.32 BRDFINC-0000966 ,/rIjDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TR~ VJRRECTJON & RECOVERY PRO.l P.O. BOX 730 125 NORTH PUBLIC SQUARE BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338-1991 (406) 338-1751 FAX DATE: AUGUST 18, 1997 CHECK #:~1:!.:36~7_____ AMOUNT::[,$5~4~1.:..28~3_____ NAME: HR. ROBERT A. HOOORE ADDRESS:,_____________________ , DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 8/18/97 TRAVE TO TASK FORCE MEETING AUGUST 2-6, 1997 $ 541.83 $ $ ----­ $ ----­---­ - $ ,­ $ .---,-­ $ ---­ $ $ REASON:_______________________________ BRDFINC-0006432 • Robert A. Moore 941 Grove Drive Louisville, CO 80027 303-665-2651 INVOICE (BRDF) Date: To: From: l,Iubject: August 13, 1997 Elouise C. Cobell Blackfeet Reservation PevelojJmenRobert A. Moore Invoice for Travel Reimbursement t Fund, Inc. . Period ofTrayeJ' August 2-6, 1997· Pnrpose ofTraye} " Traveled to Browning, MT from Louisville, CO to attend meeting ofAdvisory Board to Special Trustee Task Force on improving trust resource management. Attendance was related to the capacity building and community education component ofthe IIM Project. Rental Car $230.16 Hotels 167.32 Fuel for Car X66.35 Per Diem @ $26 x 3 7800 Total Travel $541.83 BRDFINC-0006433 liH 1",,1 , :.~ ON EXPRESS P ,. " If PUMP TOlHf' 18TH AilE 5 t 1'; ." FALLS MT 59481 ..,11 " . t KJ 'S.I \" .• .42 759-66486: OA"ll.: ~ti ...... 1tI ! ... \ ROOFRT MUO •• I . '18Za88.8.,55114 t.ONOCO 84.1 j j k' .L. .... ~-;; ,RT A MOORE XX XXX 8248 88'1 PUM"" 4 ... 1 T I _.__ 1172661 PL.lJ 3 89/85/97 19:48:3 SEL~ PUMP 4 PLU" PRICE/GAL CALLONS 18.223 PRICE/CAL: FUEL TOTAL ~ TOTAL FUEL ~ .. -'~"'It 888434 ·436PR 'OU iA IN ~D~:(jCD_ 1f~G.­ CONOCD INC' f. :J :.' COMJCO mVf'S SKYWAY ClJNJC[ I~;~5-AT WAy' :(t 7BIl 10TIi ffJE S BUFFALO 4Y 82j3l! nm, FRLLi NT 59435 I. tflUKCHriSfJ CHASEt ! ST[!RE ,i~U}1BER~ ~l(6~01..0> J. £ NUrfBfR: 97&.l11v~5~i SUN[iAt~ HUBf,3" .~ v;'? ~Y, fillF},j3, 1~97 '(';14 r-t'i '-Nr10~; --:K!jt~2tt '[~{;D~E' .\ ROBEn MOiM A(:CTj±~ Zb::;12B24B~9?-1 '4; 26ij 2@248§691 . @4/~ cn TIT> Cut~OCD' :; 8359 fHJTH~: ;6::f1~~ ;.,n,;~ 'G~~ i~'liCH1F -,:t-,B'A.:.! ~ :"ZE RAht !mJk' :i~-,'.r fl. i1~~ 0.<,;)' fDTfiL 16~ T? 0. ?!.-; :"i). ;' . 1 .. -, . . -',:J~/, ({J! '"~ I BRDFINC·0006434 Get-IceD J.i~C, ~'HERliJ~N ;~·o,j,iGCn Tr~fl¥Ft '~mHf f1~}~B:·i~; 9t,'ie9!:~01" 1l'ti!GE6, 1~)~./ -\ ~ :::2 f~; !trT#: 2!'Jl?fJ2:~2!M!91 UY.; f+4/99 CD TYPE l CiJtmcoREF¥,: q~4L RUTH~! 35¥4PR pmCE OIY ""', ':-' 7C. 12 ~!OGHHDE 1.22g 12BROWNING>GPI)---";-_. 18 $11,50 '-TrartspOrbitionGratuity ------_.-..... "is' -" $207.00 SWiEtClUlelltcrulse .-'-' ----: '''" .-6-'" $1.15 520_70 TotalActt-'-vitie&'-"--..-'-----'j. -" .-. SO.OO $0.00 S2ZZlll ---r--­ ""."'_•.___. .__. __ .---L __ -,j ." TOTAL COST OF TOUR -"'-"'--_..-----i ___, .._1 __ 5227.70 "~---'---'-'--.1.­ J ..---. _. 1-­ BALANCE DUE '-'-I iI Mail check to: GPI -Acctg Dept. P.O. Box 147East Glacier, Mt 59434 -0147 BRDFINC-0006383 .'­ • '''WIYIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRU~T)~JRRECTION& RECOVERYPROIa• P.O. BOX 730 125 NORTH PUBLIC SQUARE . ' .' BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338-2992 (406) 338-2751 FAX DATE:__Q"'Cl:.lt,--~?7L.r-'J...9",,9L7___ CHECK #: J#)5 / AMOUNT:...:$[!2;::60~.",,5:..:5_____ NAME: Elouise c; Cobe] 1 ADDRESS:________________...,....._ DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 10/27/97 Rental Car to be used while on business $ in Billings, liT and was a guest speaker for the $ -­Rocky Mountain College (topic was Vision of $ .. Community) spoke on trust funds and· other topices $ . eoncerning our c~nity and people. $ 260.55 -. -------, (see folder with notes) $ $ . $ $ REASON:_________________...,.....___________________________________ APPROVEDBY:~ C~ BRDFINC-0006369 lIM -ACCOUNT nLACKFC 'i RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT, ~yND, INC . P.O. BOX 730 ·. BROWNING, MT 59417-0730 TRAVEl, EXPENSE VOUCHER NAME: ______~E=l~ou~i=s~e~C=-_C~o=b~el~l~_______________________________ MAILING ADDRESS:____BoX_7_3_0________ ___ __:c---__ __ B_rown-=-,-in_g_,_MT 59_4_1_7_-=~____ _ BOX/STREET CITY STATE ZIP PERIOD OF TRAVEL: ________TO:____________ PURPOSE OF TRAVEL:_________________________________________ DATE OF TRAVEL:_____________ FROM: TIME (AM/PM) LEFT RESIDENCE:__________ TIME LEFT AIRPORT/CITY OF ORGIN: ________ CITY/STATE:________________ TO: TIME (AM/PM) OF ARRIVAL: ___________ CITY/STATE:________________ MILEAGE FROM RESIDENCE TO AIRPORT: __________ DATE OF RETURN TRIP: ________________ FROM: TIME (AM/PM) OF DEPARTURE:, _________-­CITY/STATE:_______________________________ TO: TIME (AM/PM) OF ARRIVAL AT AIRPORT:________ TIME OF ARRIVAL AT RESIDENCE: _________ CITY/STATE:________________ MILEAGE FROM AIRPORT TO RESIDENCE:__________ EXPENSES; TOTAL MILES TRAVELED: X PERMILE= $,____ PER DIEM DAYS @ PER DAY= $____ OTHER (ITEMIZE RECEIPTS & EXPLAIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES) HOTELIMOTEL $______ TAXI FARE $_______ _Re_n_~_al__C_ar__________________________ $_26_0_._55____ ---~--------------$-----­ TOTAL OTHER $_--­ $ 260.55 =~­ DATE: --~-------------------------------­ BRDFINC-0006370 ~ ~ DAIS 3 I 11;.61 C08ElLiEl,OUl5E II, Q02393~la2 COP, 1653Q5 EXHOU~S ~ .0" Overland W..t lot. . EX DilY, ; ,0') .,rt, Sy.le. lj,en... fT: HG, XD~Y HRS $ .0·) mEA6E ells I .00 ! OWNIVEH: 951211069.147 39 CONTOUR FORD 4DR WI liT oF7834M VEH CLI1SS, C SUBTOTAL I 149.,1 : LDW ACCEPTED AT 11D.S9 PER DAY "ILEAGE IN, ~332Z SUBTOTAL I 14~.f.! 'LIS ACCEPTED AI I B.SS PER DAV "ILEASE OUI, 9301 • PAl PEe ACCEPTED AT I 4.95 PER DAY HILES IlltIVEN, 34021 AIRPORT GONCE.5!OIWLt I 1&,27 i FPO' DECLINED ~ FUEL! SVC APPLIED IR-l HILES DR IVEo: 0 lflll (iiTi I le.97 I 3.09 Gl TK CAP, 1 •. 50 HILES ALLOWED. 0 US (NT! I 26.B5 FUEL OUT, BIB fUEL IN, 818 HILES CHARGED: 0 PAIiPEe (NTI I 14.85 fUEL ~ 5VC INll I .00 RDDITIONAL CHARGES, PLAM IN: CRIi ~ H.87 I flAT fAXABLE SUBTOTAL i .M PLAN OUT: CI(Ii • 1).00 i a HOUR lAI .QOOOO I .00 RATE CLASS: C I 49.67! EX OAf TOTAL CHARGES ! 2i.Q.55 I 0.0&! El WEEK I 11.QO I lDAl ~K CHA.6ED ON A"l • 0.00 I MILE I REPRESENT THAT I AM SPEClfIC~llY AUTHORIZED TU ~ECEIVE THE BENEfITS EITENDfD TO EMPLOYEES/MENBERS OF DflTA A~l FF D1SCOUNT • I!UTH: I 3113.:i2Im5~7 m RESERVATION INFuRMATION, '1")0'40J'5 PREPARED BY:;S COMPlETEfr $\, MK DR~: 101251'17 bTATEKENl OF CHARGES ~ NOT VALID FOR REHT'l 3 , , -~-------------------------------. ---~--~---------==---'"'---"--,-j BRDFINC~0006371 '. 11M TRUST 141~ CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 93·162/929 &!'B OCTOBER. 28. 1997~e:~hi~~~mu.J: X .31 PERMILE~ $ 39'.06' PERDlEM DAYS@ PERDAY~ $,____ OTHER (ITEMIZE RECEIPTS & EXPLAIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES) HOTELIMOTEL 'See attached $---"'8S"-""';()=.2-"',''--__ TAXIFARE______________$______ ----------------_$_----­-----------------------------$,-------­ TOTAL OTIIER $_--- TOTAl, EXPENSES: $ 124.08 .S1GNATI!RE 1:Ji e.,tk.fL DATE: ~'37J 7 BRDFINC-0006398 MRR-13 97 14: 11 FROM:HOLIDRY PORTLAND RIR 5032574742 TO:406 338 7008 PRGE:01 ~ .4ti­ c~c~c________ __ I ~~ido9~~ E" I /Yl GuEST 1.0. _________ PORTLAND AIRPORT c---V 'TT EMP _______ 8439 NE; Columbia BOUl.;iIlo':ilrd Portland, OR 97220 1503) 256-5000 FAX 1503)257,'7<2 >:ICiUno -~t_~! D.M""O>l1C ':I~\,O:.:r~ ~fll'!: fOl ',(, ~·~H·ING IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY. I WILL A.OUIRE o SPECIAL EVACUATION ASSISTANCE. L~£~;:t~ !~ ~1{: .TL~ /IT. !~:~: •. PLEASE MARK BOX ABOVE' • '=~E~:£D IJ~T ~\": L:6::t' ~!: 1".10:; nl<> '''...l;it)o;(''....'t Is flU: ,","""Jr>tlblo; 101 "I<10'" II; ''''' lion! "hlr.o I • ....,;mf> m.:Il rny "",,,,111), lOr II.., <,;'_g,,~ i~ , .... w"i1t\lU /mil IOtl<"&fr K! I,.;,I""IJ L"'":>,"[lOj..,~ (lf~;"oo;>n 1:,,'-. K1 (1-A;t\ TIME OF ARRIVAL AT RESIDENCE: I: 0 () f/T\. CITY/STATE: L·","" S",(../..C C t) MILEAGE FROM AIRPORT TO RESIDENCE:_-2"414h-~-----­ EXPENSES: TOTAL MILES TRAVELED: X PER MILE= $ 'f "10. "1 ( PER DIEM .s-DAYS@ ,-Co PERDAY= S 130,DO OTHER (ITEMIZE RECEIPTS & EXPLAIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES) HOTELIMOTEL $ v4. ,D TAXIFARE.______________$______ (L~,tIJ;o.L-C NL- __ $__..LI_Q______ on-fMC..Ml) $ /) --'-=----­ $ 43"150 TOTAL OTHER $ (o(Pf)·'f1 TOTAL EXPENSES: , BRDFINC-0006337 58~1338 07/97 elf --­ ~.. ROBERT A HOORE (I T1+-1/.1-')>( 'Ii) J~\~!~~:rtJ$P\ -k'. , ~ : I 1 1_, I p i.'l\O I;l;fT lOlle!: ,­ , 11 PU ' <,6','U~DO . '.I .-;.: vL-:(,,{....-~rt ,-,""COpy .' ~! " ILJ:iX'J~1­ a",o~'. ~OTo"l , • ""'..01,0; f.p'".~:."2r-! . -" 'n~....n THIS .'r~n:. . ~;.' , BRDFINC-0006338 RECEIVING STATION SEND INOUIRIES TO: 'oAVIS SYSTEM LICENSEE. 1'1 Renters "d~OT reQuired to purch,se lDss D,m,g' W.i,er (lDW). It is NOT mandat(Jry. Belore purchasing LOW, renter should check If Dwn insurance covers damale and loss of the car, limit of coverage and deduc· tible. If renter DECLINES tOW, rentef may be liable for up to the retail fair market value {Jess salvagei of the car regardless of fault, unless ordinary negligence is excluoed by law. RepailS are at Avis' cost. Read lOW terms on the rental document jacket terms and conditions, includingEXCWSIONS from LOW. I acknowledge this Noti" hJ mJ sign,lure in Box 23 below. ~ RfNTAL lOC BRDFINC-0006339 ,c' INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUI"~T ( -/ORRECTIQN & I?fiCOVERY PROJ-T P. O. BOX 730 ' 125 NORTH PUBLIC SQUARE BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338-2992 (406) 338-2751 FAX DATE: Nov. 18 1997 CHECK #:,......!.:14~2:.:l4______ AMOUNT:__..:.$.;..92;;..4;..;.•.;.OO.;.....___ NA~E:,________~J~u2s~t1~·n~Le~e~___________________________ I" ADDRESS:,_____5~2~8~!~S~o~u~t~h_5~t~h~S~t~re~e~t~W~es~t~_________ Missoula, KT 59801 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 11/18/97 Per Diem, airlines ticket, shuttle $ to attend meeting (Indian Trust Asset Curriculum $ Development Meeting) $ Missoula to Denver round trip . $ 924.00 $ $ $ $ $ REASON:,__________________________________________________________________________________________________________' ____________ BRDFII'JC-0006495 I ~. 11/1BI97 TUE 14:38 FAX 406 BLACKFEET BANK TRAVELEXPENSEVOUCBER NAME: _________J_us_t_U!__Le__e ______________________--------______ r·:!AILtNG ADDRESS:___...:.5..::,28:......:1.:.../2=---=Sou::·:.:t=-h...:5:..::t=-h...:S:..::tr:,:c:.:c:..::t..:W:.:C=.;st=---=Hi.s==.8=-:ou:..::=:la::..!.:...,..=J!lT:..,-=:S.:;,;980::.::::1______ IJOXISlREET CIlY STAn: m PERIOD OF TRAVEL' 11/15/97 TO: 11/11/97 PURPOSE OF ~~: Attend Indian Trust Asset Curriculum DevelopDent Keet~ug ~ in Denver DATEOFTRAVEL·__~R~ov~.~1~5~.~1~99~7_____________ FROM: TIME (AM/PM) LEFT RESIDENCE:_________ TIME LEFT AIRPORT/CITY OF ORGIN:.___~~---­ CITY~TA1E_·_____________________________ TO: ~(~NQOFAruUVAL:,____________--~---­ CITY~TATE_;______________________________ MlLEAGE FROM RESIDENCE TO AIRPORT:_____________ DA1EOFRETURN~~:______________________------­ FROM: . TIME(AMIP~OFDEPARn.JRE,-·_________ OITYfflTATE_'__~__________________ TO: TJME(AM/PM) OF ARRIVAL AT AlRPORT:_________ TIME OF ARRIVAL AT RESIDENCE~"_____________ CITYfflTATE_'__~_____________~___________ MII..EAGEFROM AIRPORT TO RESlDENCE:_____________ . EXPENSES: TOTALMJLES TRAVELED·_____---'X____. PERNrnLE=$________ PERDlEM J.15;,I)(J DAYS@ ..:: J ?Ef\"DAY: ~ __ 3',S:.0~: omEll(DEMIZERECEIPTS &; EXPLAIN MIS~USEXPENSES) HO~OTEL S~~_______ TAXI FARE see auached $ 25:00; ~·~~d~~~!o/~~~~c~h~t(~~~e~e~a~tt~~==he=d~}_____________ S~~~.~.~~~ ______~--__--__--~--------__----S,------____-­ TOTAL()1lIER $___-..,..­ ]DTALEXPENSES; S 924,00 ::_.11JRE_.___~'~~_-_~-.L..-_~. ____ _;;zs.::-:r':-:.g.....:...#:::/<~7'~%~..:.....r:~.L'-_-_-_-_-_~-_-_-_-_-­ @002 BRDFII\JC-0006496 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION AND RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT59417 (406) 338-2992 (406) 338-2751 DATE: 6-17-97 CHECK#: 1316 ~OUNT':-~5~53~.~50~-------­ N~E: Intertribal Agriculture Council ADDRESS: ' ___________________________ DAlE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $ $ 6-17-97 Greg Smitman travel $553.50 $ $ $ $ $ $ 131~ 11M TRUST 'lI CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT PN,OIN' G~X;:,~~"'-t.:o.z,Q,.c::~,c..,e~ c. ~)~, -, '0 Q ".ll 'f'~'~;~;b.ao. 7' .. BROW,--'MID~>-I' ~ "~ " -~ ~ J. ----93-162/929 "_"J _J J .... June 17.' 199'1 ' $ 553.50 BRDFII\J C-0006502 TTVDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRU"T JRRECTION & RECOVERYPROli . l P.O. BOX 730 125 NORTH PUBLIC SQUARE BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338-2992 (406) 338-2751 FAX DATE: JUNE 10, 1997 CHECK #:______1.......3......1""""'ln"---___ AMOUNT:---:II$~55""'3"".~50,--___ NAME: INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL ADDRESS:__________________ DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 6/10/97 TRAVEL FOR GREG :'1'1 ,]'1AN TO TTM TW $553.50 $ PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ REASON:____________________________________ APPROVEDBY~L~ Ii' / . BRDFII\J C-0006503 RECE:IV£D Intertribal Agriculture Council .iBN q .. 1997 100 N 27th St., Suite 500 Billings, MT 59101 (406) 259-3525 5/19/96 Bill to: Invoice No. 97-02M Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc. lIM Trust Correction & Recovery Project POBox 730 125 North Public Square Browning, MT 59417 Attn: Elouise Cobell Expenses for Greg Smitman to participate in meeting on IIM/frust Funds in Palm Springs. Airfare to Palm Springs (1/2 of ticket cost.. ....................................... $ 303.50 Travel Per Diem 5/15 -5/16 (2 days @ $125./day) .............................. 250.00 $ 553.50 TOTAL DUE ....................................................................................... $553.50 (Payable upon receipt) Please make check payable to : Intertribal Agriculture Council BRDFII\JC-0006504 " i f' 1316'ir~, 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 93-1621929 Jf~tCt June 17, 1997 ~ a!fi2')'~"" ~ "lLcordcro[JI~~ ... /( c-' "Intertribal Agriculture Council .. I $ 553.50 F':rVi-HmmRED FIFlY-THREE DOLLARS AND 50/100"""" x x x"""" " " " x ..fI(f"!f/t!Ilf!1 m~;.:: 9 BLACKFEET NAnONAI.. BANK p,O, _ 730 14061 3*'7000 --.g. MT 59417.0730 'lfiI!E Greg Smitman Travel BRD FII\J C-0006505 INDl--TIDUAL INDIAN MONIES("-"'l.UST CORRECTION& RECOVERYPROJECT P.O. BOX 730 125 NORTH PUBLIC SQUARE BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338-2992 (406) 338-2751 FAX June 18, 1997 Intertribal Agriculture Council 100 n 27th St., Suite 500 Billings, MT 59101 Dear Sir: Enclosed you will find Check # 1316 in the amount of$553.50 for travel expenses incurred by Greg Smitman. Sincerely, '/} /i ~ /J(j ~ ~.l-e~ ~ louise C. Co~ Ot.f.u~ Proj ect Director ., BRDFII\JC-0006506 BRDF BILLINGS FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM AMOUNT Bill McAllister-Public Affairs Consulting $507,277.57 James Hagerty-The PR Consulting Group $339,661.54 McCarthy Communications $194,918.15 Noble Savage Media $19,623.01 Policy Impact $556,209.00 Powell Tate/Weber Shandwick $265,476.13 RSH Consulting, LLC $30,000.00 The PR Consulting Group $170,872.00 $2,084,037.40 Page1 of 1 Beneficiary Outreach 2001 Policy Impact $556,209.55 Total $556,209.55 BRDFINC-0005568 7 ; 14068882751 # A­ 6-29-10; 9:53 , ' POLICY IMPACT strategic communications ocr -921il11 ,--------------------, iBILLTO I I Blackfeet Reservation Developriient "J'-und I Altn: Ms. Elouise C. Cohell P.O. Box 730 Browning, MT 59417-0730 ! I I DESCRIPTION Consulting (October 1-31, ZOOI) ; Consulting (October 1-31, 2001) -Deferred Fee I I, I I-------------~' I , ! ! I I i . \\, i) . \ I . , \ , .... i I DATE INVOICE # 10/112001 1844 PRomCT AMOUNT 50,000.00 -37,500,00 Total $12,500.00 1275 Pellll'ylvaniaAvenue, NW ·Tenth Floor Washington, DC 20004 2027375339 ph.., . 2027375417 r"" BRDFINC-0005592 • ­ INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERYPROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT .59417 DATE. 319/00 AMOUNT: $ 776.56 ACCOUNT II 3000486 LINE ITEM Office Expenses CHECK # 1841___ Grant 1000 0804 Ford Foundation NAME: __ Eva Cobell ADDRESS -----------------------._­ ~ DATF0 .~­ - DISCRIPTION - AMOUNT ~oo , - Wages for the period of $ May 8 to May 19, 2000 $ 776.56 - - F I $ $ $ - I - i - $ $ -I SUBTOTAL $ -.. -~ TOTAL $ EXPLAIN VOUCHER: ....--54/·' / '/ APPROVEDB,(~~ (~ BRDFINC-0004630 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 5/9/00 ___ ~~L-"-'-=­ 1'llil0UNT $ 776.56 ACCOUNT # 3000486 LINE ITEM Office Expenses Grant 1000 0804 CHECK: # 1841 ~---­ Ford Foundation NAME: _~~~~E",v",a"-,C",o,-"b",el",l,--­ ADDRESS: ~~~_ DATE +-~~~~~D~I~SC~rup~~T~IO~N~~_~~~~$~~AM~OUNT I 5/9/00 Wages for the period of r-~~~~-+~_Ma_Y~8_t_O_Ma~Y_1_9_>_2_0_0_0~~~~~~~:~7_~__ ..• '." $-i $ 1$ SUBTOTAL------if------I L'l"-O'-''l='.A.L=-__--'---__________~·-~,~~~._,_~._L.t$'---___~ EXPLAIN VOUCHER ----------'.-,--­ BRDFINC-0004631 ~=======~===='~=--2.=====-~O=~==~===~~~====~l"'8'"~4~"1'S-.c·cI· 11M TRUST •.,. CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 J'4, a BROWNING, MT 59417 c13-182/C129 GOiJ~')J.:'S5 ---------------------_J $ 776.56 ---'-'­ '., . Supervisors/ IllH"',,"~~y__ _ Total HOUfS;________ Per HOUf_______ 960.00 Gross lncome: ___________~~~-----­ 59.52 FICA Withholding: ________~:..::.::...._____ 13.92 FICA Medicare:---------~ll~O~.O~O-----­Federal Withholding: __--'-____--=~______ State Withholding:. .00 Montana 183;44 Total Deductions:----------:7:76~.~5~6------­ Net Wage to Employee:______________ BRDFINC-0004632 INDIVIDUAL INDUN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 6/1/0,,-,,0__ Al'vIOUNT: $ 776.56 '~------­ ACCOUNT # 3000486 LINE TTEM CHECK # ) ';f'-l 'f , NAME: Eva Cobe11 DATE I DISCRIPTION AMOUNT [-----$ 6/1/00 Wages for the period of I I $ May 22_2000 t:o June 2_ 2000 776.56 $ -------_... $ 1$ _. 1$ - , $ - SlIDTOTAL $ TOTAL $ --~--­ .. EXPLAIN VOUCHER: APPROVEDB BRDFINC-0004633 BRDFINC-0004634 INDIVIDUAL IND14N MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 6/15/00 AM01JNT: $,----'7'-"7~6--=.5c-:6____ ACCOUNT # 3000486 LINE ITEM Office Exp. Ford CHECK # 1857 NAME: Eva CobelI -----------_..... _­ ADDRESS: _____________ ._____.__________ __ --DATE---T~-­ DISCRTPTTON AMOUN~l'----i , $ 6/15/00 Wages for the period of --~--­ $ JUne 5 2000 to June 16 2000 776.56 $ $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL $ TOTAL $ EXPLAIN VOUCHER: .----------------~------­ -, 7 L+-7~ --.,..... ':iyj /L / APPROYEDB~( Lf/d( BRDFINC-0004635 • 11M TRUST CORRECTION $< RECOVERY PROJECT ,. P.O. 'BOX 730. ~,BFlOWNING, MT 59417 8 y~six !lIllL56! 'BLACKFEET ·'illAnoNALBANK • ,r.-o."1!Oic-7;lO i~06) 33a-7000 8rliwnng. MTS9417-£lnO 11'00185 \'11',':09 290 1 OJ :::0 o "T1 Z o , o o o .I>. (J) W (J) -"'~,~,~ INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 6/29/00 AMOUNT $,'_7_7_6._5_6_____ ACCOUNT # 3000486 LINE lTEM ________ CHECK: #_18_6_0___ NAME: _------"'E~va~Cu~b~e~ll'__________________ ADDRESS: _____________________ DATE DlSCRlPTION I ----,------AMOUNT_~I $ 6/29/00 Wages for the period of I June 19 2000 to June 30 2000 $ 776.56 I $ $ ! r- $ $ , " -­ $ -,---,-------------­! SUBTOTAL $ ! TOTAL $ - EXPLAIN VOUCHER ~~' / //~ "~ APPROVED B ." / ~(!£d/ ,,-'-'" I BRDFINC-0004637 .> • , " " "'.ii,',: ~ ',,~ " '," ,,11M TI'l;OST,~,:; "'coRKeCTION"lkal:¢:OVEIW !>RDJECT , ,p,b.BOX 730 BROWNING. MT 59417 93~1€21929 '~ 00[l3C'00466 J'fl!R!ILLI5l. (J)W 00 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERYPROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 7/13/00 ~O~T: $ 776.56 ACCOUNT # 3000486 CHECK # /.()(# 7 NAME: _---...tE"'vaa.....Cmoh"'e..uU'--__ ADDRESS: -----------------_.._­ ._-, DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT $ 7/13/00 Wa~es for the ueriod of Jnlv 1 ?OOO r.!L.,Tnlv 14 7000 $ 77 .. _" $ $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL $ TOTAL $ EXPLAIN VOUCHER: ' .,·1 C..-/ . 7;....-­ f " ! ( . ./9·, m APPROVEDBY~~ -M( / BRDFINC-0004639 • • ~. 11M TRUST \l3-162/~29 OlO3l):)I}\B6 CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o, BOX 730 1Jll/J.llL-­ BROWNING, MT 59417 ~ Sev~n5!u!J.a-,,~a 5"y"nt'y--"'1~-:.,,"d .!i6Llll!l)!lt' 'I'.: rs ,,"" I UPt'"" ~ ". I In" I ' .J'.~ <, ::\.,:~/ ..... .• ..i:ET .' "..•......:u.LAL··.KF .:.N}l.TIONALBANK pD.a.730 1406)33EI-7ro:.l 0 .' " "~oMT 59'10-073 _'wag'es. ' ' 11' 00 l.B b 711' .·:·,:0'1 . '?2 o INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 7/27/00 !\MOUNT: $ 821.92 '--.::.==::.:::...---­ ACCOUNT # 3000486 LINE ITEM Office Expenses. CHECK II ! ~'it0 Ford Grant Eva Cohell ~AME ________________________________________ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________ r, DATE 7/27/00 ! Wages for DISCRIPTION the period of $ AMOUNT , -------1 i -.---.~-~---­ July 17. 2008 to July 28. 2000 $ 821.92 - $ ----­ $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL $ TOTAL $ I ..... EXPLAlN VOUC-HER: BRDFINC-0004641 • • • \ ____._._. _.-1. <, .~---~~-.--~-­__,-__• ____0 ~_=~__= ___=,___~~_.____~_ .___-~~~,~__~~___A __ I 18801 --r--­ ,, 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT b 93~1'2"m 10 119 oO'~:JO(.. ~6 4 5 r.o. BO'''''' 7 8 ,BROWNING, MY 59417 7/27/00 2 1 : 821,92 Eva Cobeil Eight Thwdre-d T\lenty--nne and 92/10~r.::OQ::r.:IC'COXD,;:x~-=rJ!r~ BLACKFEET . I l NATIONAL BANK PO.lh, #I INDIVIDUAL INDIAN,MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 9/18/00 AMOUNT: $ 821.92 ACCOUNT If 3000486 UNEl1EM Office Exp .•._ ....__ CHECK#__~1~9~23~_ Ford Foundation NAIVIE Eva Cobe""l",l___ ADDRESS ~­ I DATE DISCRlPTION AMOUNT -. --,­ $ f'l./18/00 Wages for ~he period of 20 10$ Sep t e1llber 11. 2000 ~o September 22. $ _. 821.92 . $ f------­ ._­$ $ --l $ ! --~­ SUBTOTAL $ .. i TOTAL S EXPLAIN VOUCHER --;(7t1b/ Al'PROVED Bf____~ ..( , BRDFINC-0004649 • • • ___ L I ". -~-~--~~~~-"=-==--=--~~----~---~---.-~-------­ -~-,--.-.~ --~~------~~-----­ 1880 1 ---t-----­ , , , 11M TRUST ,, CORRECTSON & RECOVERY PROJECT 93-1,2:928 10 11 8 9 C:lc.:m466 4 _BR00~N~~~~9417 7 7/27/00 2 ~ 1 821. 92 Eva Cobeil Rigllt Ru,.,drec Twenty-one and 92/10Ox;r-.JCY~QCD;:T_~~o:L"C"..x:b:xrx:.;~~ .~BLACKFEET ~, NATIONAl BANK _\~ p.o.fID>:730 14()6IUS-100) 821.92 // :' VI B"""",-g.1. (J) (J1 o INDIVIDUAL INDIAN,MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 _ BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE 10/5100 AMOUNT $_-,8;u2~1,-,.9u2____ ACCOUNT # 3000486 UNElTEM ___ CHECK # /93={ NAME: Eva Cobell ,\DDRESS: - ------------­ .-------­ I I, DATE 10/5/00 Wages DISCRIPTION for the period of 5: AMOUJ\'T _.._­--------~­ $ . ---~-,-._­ September 25 to October 6, 2000 821.92 $ "--. $ -".­ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL $ ~ TOTAL $ "~ ~ EXPLAIN VOUCHER: BRDFINC-0004651 TIMESHEETS NAME: EVA A. COBELL PAY PERIOD DATES: September 75 to October 6, 2000 .:-:---c---,-----,--­Monday Tuesday -r "T i Wednesday! Thursday I i hv"1CCo-n-dC-a-y--+T=-u-e-s"C::da-v---+"CCWednesday IThursday , ___ --' $ 82.1 .92 ~~~JtlLlLOC,~:xk~c':r'cx~t-;-'~-m-mr.;.;= FICA Withholding: ________-.---:6:c:4.:::.o"-'o'--_______ FICA Medicare: _________----'15.08 Federal Withholding: 139.00 Montana State Withholding: ________~____ Total Deductions: Net Wage to Employee:---------i8~l±l.:-'l9Cl"2--------­ BRDFINC-0004652 r/ • • INDIVIDUAL lNIJlAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O_ BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 10/19/00 AMOUNT.'_----'S""2"'1..:...9"-'2'--___ ACCOUNT: 3000486 CHECK # 1950 LlNEITEM,_______ Ford Lannan NA~R.-_____~Ev~a~C~ob~e~l~l_________________ ADDRESS-____________________________________________ DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT - 10/19/00 Wages for the period ~f $ Oct 9 to Oct. 20, 2000 $ 8Z1.92 1---­ $ $ -­ f­ _. I 1--­ -~ .. -._­ EXPLAIN VOUCHER:____________________________________ APPROYED~~~~~'~~~~~~-­ o Ise C CobelllbyEva BRDFINC-0004653 !I il~ 111 0;'" El ! ~ .,N • ~l01 '" ~l II I­ () ~ IIJ .., ... 0 ~ It 0 IT >­ • It "-, IIJ ,; t»g$ ~Ol'--.... _o:UX;l< t-_Ulgci" It .Z ~~~~ ~ • • BRDFINC-0004654 ,------_. INDWIDUAL INDIANMONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE"'___~10~/~321/~0~O~__________ AMOUNT: 821. 92 ACCOUNT: 3000486 CIIECK#____1_96_0__________ LINEITEM,_____________ Ford Lannan NAME:__~E~v~a~C~o~be~l~l~______________________________________ ADDRESS:_____________________________________________ f)ATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT 10/31/00 WaRes for the neriod of $ October 23 to November J, 2000 $ 821.92 - $ - $ .. I, - I _. - -, ~ EXPLAIN VOUCHER:____________ APPROVED Hi":"....·~-~~"'--==----=---=-~.:::.r BRDFINC-0004655 A 196 • 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o. 80X 730 6f10WNING., !.IT 59411 \:1tfJQ~~~~",,__~COh..e.lL------·--­---­9 BLACKFEET NATIONAL BANK ~ P,O 1Io.]lO 14061338.]1)00 Brown/n. (J) (J1 (J) lNDWIJ)UAL lNDIAJX MONIES TRUST C01rRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING. MT 59417 DATE: _~IL!lLf...,16",f-,,0,,-0______ AA10UNT:-282~1~'29£2_____ ACCOUNT: 3000486 CHECK #_1_9_6_4______ LINEITEA1 Lannan NAA1E:___--=Ev.:.:a=--:C:.:o:.::b:.::e=l=l_____________________ ADDRESS:______________________ , DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT -------­ 11/16/00 WaKes for the Deriod of $ 11/6/00 to 11/17/00 $ 821.92 S 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 9~-1521929 !lilt."._ .. 0003J00486 )JI!6/00 ~ -___-------'1 $ 821. 92 8 Eight HundLe_d_ Twenty-one and 92/100u!!,.. Kg ... " _xxxx gX!Ij 8 8 8. j,. 8 ... g:o< 8 >:"".!Ij 8,..,.,. •• W""J!1~:= BLACKFEET .. -NATIONAL BANK ~ P.O. Box 130 1406) 338-7000 _ BrO'M'linQ. MT 59'H7-07:l1l Wages ApnO~DB~? ~~ lOUise C CobelllbyEva .. , BRDFINC-0004657 • INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: H/28/00 AMOUNT $~1.92 > ACCOUNT # 3000486 LINE lTEM _______ NAME: Eva Cobell ADDRESS: _____~_________________________ DATE DISCRIPTION AMOUNT 11/30/00 Wages for th e period of $ NOvember 20 to December 1, 2000 $ 821.92 197 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o. BOX 730 BROWNING., MT 59417 !:1'J-162/929 0003000486 ~_ll13O/O,,-o__ __ > $821.92 BLACKFEET NATIONAL BANK p.o. 13v~ 730 !406) 33a-7()O(1 ArrnMlif"NJ. M rS9417-0730 >APPROVEDB6?X 1/ 'I. " ElOl1ise C. CobeU/by Eva BRDFINC-0004658 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 12/14/00 AMOUNT$~8=2~1.~9~2________ ACCOUNT # 3000486 ,'-, LINE ITEM 0 !j:( &.-)"" i('-<.£) LANNAN i fjF' NAME: Eva Cobcl1 ADDRESS: ____________ DATE DISCRIPTION --,­ AMOUNT 12/14/00 Wages for the period of $ .­ : December 4 to December 15, 2000 $ 821.92 . , $ I i $ $ $ I --' .. $ $ .~ , TOTAL . $ ---. . EXPLAIN VOUCHER / .;::f-7 1.7/' e ( \. APPROVED BY: ~~'--_ ~. -Elouise C. Cobelliby Eva BRDFINC-0004659 • 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 ~12/1",4"-,/O",,O~~ .~". ;;-::;~"-'~-;:~~ -_._----­ ".--,.",', -" ~--. ~ .--:? ,. JnnJ-:-:"")jl;--:v. " _~,_r?"::~~:-:·C'--:""""':~=,,:~~~ i;: t::,,-~,X "j;__A:&:::lLL'!.X:'\;ik}8!.'"_·:m-~,.~­ ",. "·Wages BRDFINC-0004660 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DA TE 12/27/00 AMOlJNT $ 821. 92 ~-~-~~--~-.~ ~~­ ~----'---­ ACCOUNT # 3000486 CHECK # ]986 P.P. 26 LINE ITEM Office Exp. FORD LANNAN NAME: ~_j:y""a,--",Co",b""el""l,----_______________ ADDRESS ~--~-~-----------------~ F­ ~.DATE ---- DISCRTPTlON AMOUNT $ 12/27/00 Wages for the peFi'?d of -,-----~. --.-.~--_._. $ - December 18 to December 29 2000 821.92 $ $ ._-_._-­ $ $ $ ~~ $ --.•.,-----,,-­TOTAL $ EXPLAIN VOUCHER: --.~.-.--­ ~-~ --~ ~------------------~~-------~ 3:7/ . ---~ -1. / APPROVED B~=;L_~~ . EJ~~lse c. Cobell or Eva BRDFINC-0004661 • ·-·to 100 0) M N '" ...; N co l1'{DlfTIDUAL Il{D/Allly[Ol"{IES TRUST CORRECTION & RJ<;COVERY PRORJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 12/2/98 787.56 GRANT # Ford ~--------­ CHECK: # / &,;;l ,­ LINE ITEM~~~~~~~_ Eva Cabe.ll NAME: ADDRESS: --­ -~~~~~~~~~~­ -I DiSCRIPTION I AlvfOlrNT ! Wa:e:es for the veriod of i S I",:;~E 1--~~v: ~;. 19-9-8~t-~-D-e-C-.-4-.~I-_9-98~~~~--1I~s~-7-87-.-5-6~~-i 1----1-------­ 1$ I-TOTAL----+---­ , 1$ EXPLi~,,.IN VOUCHER: BRDFINC-0004540 ,~ ... _"' ...... ~ .1.0':::0 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PF'1DJEC-T P.O. Box.no BROWNINGj MT· 59417 93-162/929 $" 787.56 eighty-seven dolJ,a_I:s ~d 56ilOO)(& ... gik'''xKxX''~l&' ffi~::' TIJ1ESHEET lVAA1E:·______~E~v=a~A~._~L~o~b~e~ll=______________ PAYpn~IOD:______________________TO____________~______ _ I~EE¥OND~Y I ,UI:.::iuAY Iwl:.uNE.....s.... U-'--R:.::S O-'--A~y'--·+I--=F--,Kt.::.·.::.Oc..:A:":'Y+1~.~'o:~:::Uc;;1~:::-~::--4o.:..cA:..:.y_If-'-=-T~H.... .... I I 1/ I ,I ' I I I 0It (ljn 71 4IV' I IL( d ~ 1 I I ··1-1---.f-I-T-O-T~A-L~I I WO IiViONOp,Y ITUESDAY I WEDNE!>DAY I .THi.JRS=Dc..:I-\·:..:.Y---J-I--'F--'R.::.I.... D.:..A:..:.Y-+-I--'h:..:.-IO~U:.:.R'-'S"--j y II ",(1 Ifl I ~ ",--1 '-Iu 1 I ~ I I 1 1 II I 1 I I I I . SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE uA1r. CHECK i'HJMHER:__________________ qo GROSS PAY:---'$l?!9'.!!.60!L•..!O!!lO~_______ TOTAL HOURS ) ,., 6 a--­ FICA WITHH OLDING:_----.:.$_59:...._5_2_____ , ~ ,:"--PER HOUR ----'---=----=----- FlCA MEDICARE::_____...:$:..,:l,;:':,:.9:.:2 ________ FEDERAL WITHHOLDING:.,,2$.:..99::,:.:..::O.::.O_______ STATE W!THHOLDLNG:__...:-::!!O~-________ -0­ uFLT WiTHHOLDIr~G~:______________ TOTALDEDUCTIONS:;_----'l:$~17~2'_'..:!44"--_____ AMOUNT OF CTIECK:_----.:.$_78,;,,7_._56____ BRDFINC-0004542 P.O. Box 3029 iOI Pata St ,'rawning, MT 59417 PAY TO: Mountain Star Enterprise Description January 2009 Rent Small Business Office NACDC reimbursement _,RDF Office II' Track Your Elcpenses ... TAli OEDUCTIBLE ITtM _ D~IRII!fIt OTranspor1aIlon DEmert.inrrMInI& Travel DO NOT USE Oeas', EIec:Iric· DCredit Card OMoodicBII DemaI FOR REORDERING 3097 OTeiaphone OT..,... D~c.. DFood O!m~.AuIo)· DSavngs&"II'JvesIment" 1/7/0~ DCIothIng O~~~ID~---­ ~Dr-~________~ Mountain Scar Enterprise PAJ.t't~NT 850.00 Eight Hundred 00 ~~~K~~~~UC~__~ Fifty ,,,-nd ! lOiJ-=xxxxxxxxxxxPOtx·A. •.. Hen', ttoow: • Carl)' baIara forward • Chuck type d __ IW. -AddRlllll8011I11ern1:JIIn& • fleIK> IfI.IpIicatee in DftJxa Chook b:>x fOR'D-,===== NOT N·EGOTIABLE -~-.-, .~.--.-'---','-...,"--.,.-.---­ _ .•••• _ •.•••'•..••_" . 1---, ___· ___ " ____________________ \ I------~i---­ I Total__ -AI~t.V ACCOUNT Date I 1/6/2009 I Amount 350.00 500.00 ..1 $850.00 --' '--, -------' BRDFINC·0006285 ;~"':::,j 0'·"'·' ~~" 111\1-NOW ACCOUN P.O. Box 3029 101 Pata St. Coate I Browning, MT 59417 I-~I 112712009 . i PAY TO: I Mountain Starr Enterprise I Description Amount Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc. February 2009 Rent 500.()( -.---.-~ ---.~----.-.--"---.---------..,.~---.--..,.--~--------.. -""'-"-.-----_._----_..----.--~..-.~-----------,­ "MT~t· '. !I3c''''''''' 3112 <. DOO:I\lIX>IB6 CORRECTlO~.a' ag OV.ERY PROJ5CT . . ." . H. 4OIi'ii;!1!'$ . . P.O.~OX~Q;19 DATE 2/2109 BROWNING. MJ' 59417 I I PAYTI) THE MOllp.taiIl Starr EnterpJ;'ise I $(5{)O.OO ORoJiROP ! I Five Hl1ndJ;'ed "l'd OO/lOOxx:kXxx:K=xx==xXxxx~~~ ; ~"800"" ,....,...."'" ' -_ . ~ ~irlg.wt$90411-073C1 .! : i'lATlVEAMUICAN BANK, NA i ~(2 MEMO Februa.r)': 2009 rent -_. "" .f!:0 q 2"10 ~B ~ 51: 000 lOoOI,8E."· W2 Total $500.00 BRDFINC-0006286 IIM-NOW ACCOUNT P.O. Box 3029 101 Pata 8t. Browning, MT 59417 I Date I I 9/12/2007 I PAY TO: Glacier Electric DeSCription Amount Billing Period August 2007 170,00 ~=t===-~~~~~~~~~~_~---=~:~~~ .• ~--:._-~~l~~=_~~~=== -",,=--;.::::::::::,~~:~~·c:;::~,:--:::::::::'=-~;raCkY~~~ns;~.~~::'-=.::::'::'--.-. --. ----. ---=';"-~'~T~X DEJ5Dctl if[1:,rtM~":El DMort~~g./Aent.bT,an'PQrta,"n DEnlertainmenl&T",vel DO NOT USE' '-' . '> DGa,' Electri,' DCred;1 C"d IJMedK:a11 Denial FOR. REO R D ER-I·N G ;:~. 8 ~jf) ..... ---BTelephOne-........ -D:ra,es--C~-'---~. ·:"',.E1Dependenl.CO",. --- DFood 0 i~~:~.Auto) , [jSavings & Investment D HOnie,mprovemen,' "Dbih ----9J13JR.l . OC.I.Othing . '." . _ (~ainte:nance. Repairs) er , !;OR'D·;..' --'-_____-'--,. THIS .; Glacier Electric PAYMENT 1-.,...·.:::J.;::..7.=:O.:.•.::O.::();......_~ BALANCE One Hundred"Seventy and OO/lOIOxXlCCCI::XX:XlCIXXxX:CCI~~W-'--~­ OTHER ••• Hen!'s How: • Cany balance forward • Check typ8 of "expense • Add derails on memo line • Retain duplicates in Deluxe Check box Memo __~ NOT NEGOTIABLE WO·(lUPjJI. Total $170.00 BRD FII\J C-0003597 INDIVJI>UAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST iilRRE(~TION& RECOVERY . cuo' P.O. BOX730 125 dORTH PUBLIC SQUARE BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338..'2992 (406) 338-2751 FAX DATEl:17!...::..!./..::..9.::::.,8---;--:-;-:7--:f---­ CHECK. #:---L.!---"'~"-._5..;;,...7_·__ AMOUNT:_1=..::9~.=.:38~____ NAME: 3 _. Rivers ADDRESS:__________________________ DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1/7/98 Int:ernet billing for December $ 19.38 $ $ $ $ $ ~ 145~ Ob oon'''3'';'', '1 ' 93-162/929 IJiIIIl JANUARL 1209~_8 _.~__i $19.38/00 t/ BRDFINC-0002006 INDIVIDUAL INDIANMONIES TRUST ORRECTION& RECOVERYPRO T P.O. BOX 730 125NORTHPUBLICSQUARE BROWNING, MT 59417 (406) 338-2992 (406) 338-2751 FAX DATE: 1/6/98 CHECK #:_-L)_~L---=5===----..!?~___ __ =­ AMOUNT:__~5=62~.~2~3_______ N~E:_________3_R_i_v_e_r_s~---------------------------­ADDRESS:,_____________________________________ DATE -2999 DESCRIPTION II AMOUf',II_ 1/6/98 1338 1.$1.91.97 1338-2992 $ 371.16 !338-2751 £ax $ 94.36 '--'­ ~.-----------~--------------------------------------------_4~~~~----­ 338-7447 int:ernet: $ 25.06 I-------------+-----------------------------------------------l----~::...::..:-.--.-...-.­ Darcy's call~ check i 1091 $20.32 $ 1--------------+----------------------------------------_.--.-----+--------..--..... i $ 1--------+----------------------------------------+----------.. ! ~ ; ~ ~ 1452 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 93-162/929 ~ANUARY 12', 1998 }:l '".l. Co ()"0~..().-9::5 ~~:::.~: ~~~I;~~~~~!illff~~~~--....:........~~ $'562.23/00 / ..-' BLACKFEET I ~ NATIONAL BANK I ~-P.O.Box730 14061338-7000 Browning. MT 594.1-{)730 ~ l~ "" TELEPHOllli::B1LL FOR DECEMBER f997 ~ 11100 ~ L, 5 2 III I:0'1 2'1 0 ~ b 2 51: l APPROVED BY:----'~~·~~V::...)_(2~J;~)~~--t:~?~Ld.~_______ BRDFINC-0002007 INDIVIDU4L lNDIAl'{.MONIES TRUST CORRECTION.& RECJ)VERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 5/3,1/01 AMOUNT$ 30,000,.00 ACCOUNT #=c3OO=04--"8eo6'--____ CHECK # 2050 LINE ITEM'--r-______ 'FORD . 'i:ANNAN N~: Otto Bremer ADDRESS:___________________________ I DATE DISCRIPTION ' AM0UNT. 5/31/01 Interest Payment made $ on PRI $ 30,000.00 $ $ TOTAL EXPLAIN V9UCHER: . " APPROVED By:~6ffl / BRDFINC-0004389 .' cO! 2050 [ 11M TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.o. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 93-162/929 0003000486 ~5/31/01 ~­ BRDFINC-0004390 Accounting 2002 Douglas Wilson & Company I $3,250.00 Total i $3,250.00 BRDFINC-0000027 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE: 713/02 . AMOUNH 3,250:00,_' __ CHECK # ____ '--'--- ___ _ FORD LANNAN N~: ______ ~D~o~4gl~·~a~s~W~i~ls~on~~&~C~~~a~n~y~,~P~C~ __ ~~--~~~~--~--- ADDRESS: 1000 First Avenue South . PO Box c:2:.c8:=4=-5 __________ ---, Great Falls,MT 5'1403-- ------=-=-- DATE DISCRlPTION AMOUNT $ 7/3/02 Audit of financial statement for $ the year 2002 3,250,00 $ Invoice # 00113063 $ .-: . -:-: .. -c. A 2136 11M TRUST CORRECTION &: RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 730 . . BROWNING. MT 59417 .. 93-162192!l 0000000486 a.-7/-J!C;S3/-l.l0n2 __ _ cf)a!1;o( Douglas Wjlson & Company I $3,250,00 7f~h a _-.l'hree._Thollsand- ~. Hl"Ddred Fifty and P0l100S88 8 8 888. gs 8. a & g K H i j 8' 8i ¥ it1fg)mU 1!1S',;,":: 88.18 i • . BLACKFEET . . NATIONALBANK . ~ P.O.Bo.I(731) 14061338-700(]. ~ ~ Il~ MT 59411-0730 __ . ,. -. ' . .. Inv, # OOlll063 .' . ~ • ---..:.. , - _______________ }'. .. , _ ___ ___ NP 11'00 2'~:I bll'+ ':0"12 qO U;~51:' 000 30001,81;11"'-- ~. BRDFINC-0000028 ,cd Dcuglas N. Wilson, CPA I )jxie L. SW3nson, CPA 1000 first Avenue South Telephone 4C'G/7f, I '1645 /~ic Bruce H. Game, CPA RUldalJ- Boysun, CPA rc. Box 2845 Fax 406/761-46] 9 Gerard K SchmiLz, CPA Great Falls, NIT 59403 email: dwcpa@mn.net ~ecouutants Invoice nate: June 21, 2002 Invoice Number: 00113063 BLACKFEET RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT FUND INC. P.O. BOX 3029 Client Number: 05104 001 BROWNING, MT 59417-0730 F)r professional services rendered for the period ending June 25, 2002 Audit of financial statements for the year ended December 31. 2001. Prepare Audit Reports. $ 3,250.00 Prepare 2001 Fonn 990. Total Invoice Amount $ 3,250.00 - Do~nson .. ~, .,;v Com~PC Established 1913 BRDFINC-0000029 INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONIES TRUST CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT P.O. BOX 3029 BROWNING, MT 59417 DATE __~I~I~/2~2~/~02~~______ ."MOUNH 13.520.00 ACCOUNT #3000486 L~ITEM_______________ N~:__~G~SL~S~o~l~u~t~i~on~s~____ ADDRESS: 1411 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 102 Tampa, FL 33607 --_.------------­ DATE DISCRIPTlON AMOUNT $ I 11/22/02 Invoice 651 910.00 $ , Invoice 679 610.00 $ Invoice 688 12,OOQ,()Q $ - 1------­ - --~~M~~~~~~~~ ,11)"" (" 11M TRUST 21 ?ii'f CORRECTION & RECOVERY PROJECT 1 P.o. BOX 7S(l BROWNING. MT 59417 91-1611S<9 ~-.JlI,1f'222,2/'00L2___ 0003000485 "~'. : Qj05~~~~({~ -.SQ.JJ.u:.i.tulL ________ t ~_/~) -------------------______--"I $ 13,520.00 Thirteen ThrJJJsand Five Rund.r..e~ ]Umd·OlIl1OUxxxxxxx x~!ile:=_ 8 BLACKFEET ~ NATIONAL BANK ~ p.o.!IO.Ui(l OC,_Card DMedle..,.tro..",,,, FOR REO·.RD-ERING DTeIolphone. DT_ D~nlCare -..Qf~ D~~Auto), ~~&In...-ent UI:l.~~~~=IISJ'OOlhe.'-'-___ •• Har,,·s How: • Carry balance_1'd • Cheoktypecol ""'P"1'I!!" • AtkI <.Ii!lais<)l'l "",roo lIhe • Htliain dUp\1cates In Del\Jl<" Ct/tll.:k box I NOT NEGOTIABLE I $1()75 RECEIPT TOTAl: $10.15 I Pi:lyntent .$ ;0.75 Chdnge 00.00 Ch"ge~. "'5 i I Signature -. --'--.---­ I ---'-.-- Tank youl -=:--____ .l J --, --------. I .. __ . ~~ejl& Sanchez I TO~__' ___________$I_O._75~1 BRDFINC-0003227 IIM~NOWACCOUNT P.O. Box 3029 101 Pata St. ~ate.=:J Browning, MT 59417 I 111712005._J , . ------------­ .. ~-.-. i PAY TO: IBlackfeet Procurement !L___ Description Amount Supplies Receipt # 8637 58.35 ,~-------.------+-~.---------'---~--"--~ -------,------------,-------------~ 11M TElVST CORRECTION & RE;j;;OVE;RY flROJE;CT .PH. 406-338-2992 ~ ~ P.O. BOX 3029 '.. ,,-­BROWNING, MT 59417 IPA'"TDTHE Blackfeat Procurement I " ORDEROF_____ ' 93-162/929 2503 IlOO3oo04a6 DATIl--'1"'1.!..'~91!.:O~5'____ I $r-5"6JS,"-·"oooi ----------------' !_,m<_"''','~~-~~'B"•. '''_ _ __''''"'''=' I Fifty-Eight and 35/100XXXXXXXXXXXxxXX>CXX:XX1o~ O~~e,Alto) OSavinl,lB &. Investment 1 OCIQ"t/'U'!1 E12f!Jl5 Ot=~~~~JtJot.er;~___ 'AL roRTI r--;;;:::;--=:'-------, .•• He.e's HOW:: ~Carry bDI..,ce lorwHnl • Chack ~of ~p~nSil "Md:dftlBib ""memo lin" "I'le\aln dup~ca\e.q in DelmA Cho.:~ bo" .-'" '.'-.' . ~,-, NOT NEGOTIABLE IL_ Total BRDFINC-D003231 --------~1:-"'-"".,.' :I:""B--'" --------­ -~..o.....:..:z::::.:::t=....... :r.l:.£ -F...~,-:.:-.::..:....:..:..:....:....::::~-_': PROCUREMENTPEPARTM~Nl PURCHASING REQUISITION 'TO: ---------------------TACCOUNTNUi';'IBER: LI""B",LA=C=Kc::-F'=E=Ec:T-"P,-R=Oc:C",U=-:R",E=M::E:::N-=-T-=-=O=E:::P:cAc:::RT=M::cE=N:...:.;cT__I'--__ ____ ,________ _ [-~~~~-=----------.-J~~~-~~Ld~~:-~ fOR REFERENCE CALL: -------IPHoNE NUMBER (EXT~NSION): VENDOR', QUANTITY UNIT To SrocK#: DESC~ION: REQUIRED COST C - //0-' / --"7 ::7.. /, --' /,--­ ~ 1.A.<'K f\r-; v-L ~ --...." I ". __-!_I .. ____...... _________.__._____ . ..~_J__._ _ _ ____.-+! ______ . I ,, i ---~ -1 C---------.---.---+----.-..".--"-_._ ........-., .... -J--, .._.__ .. __.. ------..---1-. ._---.­ 1 I !' f--·--------...-"-. ----.... ---.-----...----------t--. ; ,=-=--~:C__~==~___=::~~=--F=-~tL=--j f-------+------------------.--.---... -.. -j ---. -.. --.---~ ["---------j----.--.---------------.-,--. I------+·-..j1-'---!---..._"_.. I-------J--~I 1____ ____L __.__________ ..-----.... _-----.--.---._+-­ ,1 ; .--__L ____._____ -,-.----, ---1­ RECEiVING OFFiClAL .--! CERTIf"Y U-i.ii.;' };-', MONITOR SIGNATURE DATE QUANTffiES lNDIGATED IN THE QUANTfT'';' .1,1·;' HAVE BEEN RECEiVED IN TOTAL OR AS ANNOTI'T DIRECTOR SIGNAl URE BRDFINC-0003232