DOCSLIB.ORG

USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 275 of 572

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 275 of 572 Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 537-1 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 89 USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 275 of 572 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiffs' Exhibit ) DL, et al., on behalf 1 ) of themselves and all others Civ. No. 05-1437 (RCL) ) similarly situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 05-1437 (RCL) ) v. ) ) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) et al., ) Defendants. ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF BRUCE J. TERRIS 1. I am a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (hereafter “Terris, Pravlik & Millian” or “TPM”). Since 2005, the firm has served as lead counsel in this class action. 2. I offer this affidavit in support of plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Litigation Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses, filed contemporaneously with this affidavit. In that motion, plaintiffs request fees and expenses for work up to and including June 22, 2016, and have separated that work into two periods: Period 1 and Period 2. 3. Period 1 refers to work performed through November 16, 2011, the date of the Court’s decision after the first trial (ECF No. 294). On April 30, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Motion for an Award of Litigation Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses (ECF No. 325), requesting payment for work performed during Period 1. That motion was fully briefed. On reply, plaintiffs made certain concessions in response to the arguments of defendants (“the District”) and therefore requested a smaller award than they had requested in their initial motion. See Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Litigation Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses, dated October 5, 2012 (ECF No. 348), JA 263 Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 537-1 Filed 09/28/16 Page 79 of 89 USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 353 of 572 (e) Documents and Reference Materials. These were the costs to obtain reference material related to hourly rates in the District. (f) Local Travel. These were the costs of taxi travel in Washington, D.C. (g) Messenger Delivery Fees. These were the costs for local delivery of documents. (h) PACER Court Docket System. These were the fees charged for use of the Court’s PACER docket system. (i) Postage. These were the postage costs. (j) Transcript/Reporting Fees. These were the costs for deposition and trial transcripts. (k) Westlaw. These were the costs for Westlaw computerized legal research. (l) Witness Fees. This was the cost that plaintiffs’ counsel paid defendants, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i), for time by their expert related to her deposition. Having prevailed, plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of that expense. HOURLY RATES 82. As discussed more fully in plaintiffs’ memorandum (Section I), plaintiffs request that this Court award them fees based on the reasonable hourly rates from the Laffey Matrix updated to the present using the Legal Services Index (“LSI”). To obtain hourly rates for the work on this case, plaintiffs applied the following methodology. First, plaintiffs began with the Laffey Matrix, as it was updated through May 31, 1989, in Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Second, plaintiffs obtained data for the legal services component (“LSI”) of the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. Pl. Ex. 22. Third, plaintiffs applied the LSI to the Laffey matrix rates for each experience level in order to produce a current hourly rate for 79 JA 341 Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 537-1 Filed 09/28/16 Page 80 of 89 USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 354 of 572 each experience level.12 These calculations are set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 23. This is the same methodology used to produce the LSI Laffey Matrix affirmed in Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58, 64-65 (D.C. Cir. 2015)(“Salazar V”). Under this methodology, the rates applicable to this application are: Years Out of Law School Hourly Rate 20th + $826 11th-19th $686 8th-10th $608 4th-7th $421 1st-3rd $342 Paralegals/Law Clerks $187 83. Plaintiffs are requesting the hourly rate applicable to the experience level of each attorney at the time that he or she performed the work in question. Plaintiffs’ summaries of time by category (Pl. Exs. 5 and 11) show the lodestar amounts computed on the basis of these hourly rates. 84. Although plaintiffs seek compensation at the hourly rate applicable to the experience level of each attorney at the time the work was performed, they seek compensation based on current hourly rates for the applicable experience level to account for the delay in payment. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283-284 (1989). 12 Specifically, the LSI for June of each year, starting with 1989, was divided by the LSI for the preceding June. This results in the adjustment factor. The matrix rates from the preceding year are multiplied by the adjustment factor to get the next year’s rates. See Pl. Ex. 23. For example, the LSI for June 1989 (114.6) is divided by the LSI for June 1988 (107.1). The result (1.070028) is the adjustment factor for updating rates from the year from June 1, 1988, to May 31, 1989, to the year from June 1, 1989, to May 31, 1990. Each rate in the year from June 1, 1988, to May 31, 1989, is multiplied by the adjustment factor to produce the rate for that experience level for the next year. Multiplication of the 20+ experience level rate ($265) by the adjustment factor (1.070028) gives the rate of $284 for the next year. The adjustment factor for each period and the Laffey rates for each year from 1989 to the present are set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 23. The LSI for each of the years from 1988 to the present is set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22. 80 JA 342 Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 537-1 Filed 09/28/16 Page 81 of 89 USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 355 of 572 85. Our firm bills paralegal and law clerk time to its paying clients in the same manner as attorneys’ time. As a result, we have included such time in the lodestar calculations. See Missouri v. Jenkins, supra, 491 U.S. at 284-288. 86. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Litigation Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses (p. 23, n. 26), references the law firms of Harmon & Weiss, now known as Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP and Galloway & Greenberg. Both firms are small, public interest law firms. 87. The District informed plaintiffs that it intends to argue that the applicable prevailing market rates are those in the USAO Matrix 2015-2017. Plaintiffs have tried unsuccessfully to obtain both of the rates surveys that underlie the matrix. See Affidavit of Carolyn Smith Pravlik (Pl. Ex. 26). Even though plaintiffs were not able to obtain both surveys or to confirm whether the USAO Matrix 2015-2017 presents rates for complex federal litigation, plaintiffs have incorporated the USAO Matrix 2015-2017 rates in their comparison to market data described below. 88. Under my direction, we collected and analyzed Washington, D.C., market rates data for complex federal litigation for the period from January 1, 2015, to the present.13 These rates are presented in tables as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 47 to 49, based on data from the following sources: (a) Westlaw Legal Billing Reports. Three times a year, Westlaw compiles a report of fee applications filed in bankruptcy cases by firms located in several regions across the United 13 We attempted to compile data on market rates as close as possible to the filing of plaintiffs’ fee application. As described in paragraph 88(b) below, we searched for fee applications from the time period between January 1, 2015, and August 25, 2016. As described in paragraph 88(c) below, we obtained affidavits from law firm partners setting forth current rates. The affidavit most recently obtained for this purpose is dated September 26, 2016. See Pl. Ex. 68. 81 JA 343 Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 537-1 Filed 09/28/16 Page 82 of 89 USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 356 of 572 States, including the District of Columbia. See Pl. Exs. 43-45. These reports list, inter alia, the law school graduation year, rate billed for attorneys practicing in Washington, D.C., that are covered by the fee applications, and the time period covered by the fee applications. See ibid. Exhibits 43 to 45 are excerpts of the Westlaw Billing Reports that apply to Washington, D.C., from 2015 through 2016. (i) We reviewed the data underlying the Westlaw Billing Reports for errors in each attorney’s experience level and geographic location by comparing the information listed in the Westlaw Billing Reports with the information listed in the website biography of the attorney’s firm or the attorney’s LinkedIn profile. Under the assumption that these online biographies would contain more accurate information than the Westlaw Billing Reports, we excluded data if an attorney’s biography showed that the attorney was based in a jurisdiction outside of Washington, D.C.14 We categorized the experience level of an attorney based on the graduation date in the attorney’s online biography.15 14 We excluded the billing rate information from the Westlaw Billing Reports based on the location of the following attorneys: a New York-based attorney from Bracewell LLP (John G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP., Aka TXU Corp.; Aka TXU Corp; Aka Texas Utilities, Et Al., Debtors
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 19-3492 __________ IN RE: ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP., aka TXU Corp.; aka TXU Corp; aka Texas Utilities, et al., Debtors NextEra Energy, Inc., Appellant __________ On Appeal from the District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. No. 1-18-cv-01253) District Judge: Hon. Richard G. Andrews __________ Argued July 2, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, Circuit Judges, and BEETLESTONE,* District Judge. (Filed: March 15, 2021) * Honorable Wendy Beetlestone, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. __________ OPINION __________ James P. Bonner [ARGUED] Joshua D. Glatter Fleischman Bonner & Rocco 447 Springfield Avenue 2nd Floor Summit, NJ 07901 Keith M. Fleischman Fleischman Bonner & Rocco 81 Main Street Suite 515 White Plains, NY 10601 Matthew B. McGuire Landis Rath & Cobb 919 Market Street Suite 1800, P.O. Box 2087 Wilmington, DE 19801 Counsel for Appellant NextEra Energy Inc. Daniel G. Egan Gregg M. Galardi [ARGUED] Ropes & Gray 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Jonathan R. Ference-Burke Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier 2 Ropes & Gray 2009 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Appellees Elliott Associates LP, Elliott International LP, Liverpool Limited Partnership, UMB Bank NA Daniel J. DeFranceschi Jason M. Madron Richards Layton & Finger 920 North King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Mark E. McKane [ARGUED] Kirkland & Ellis 555 California Street Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Counsel for Appellee EFH Plan Administrator Board BEETLESTONE, District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Energy Future Holdings and its affiliates (“EFH” or “Debtors”).
    [Show full text]
  • Download 2015 Annual Report
    A Decade of Providing Excellence in Health Care for the Communities We Serve. In this report, which spans a decade from 2006 through 2015, you will learn of ways United Regional has elevated the quality of health care for the communities we serve. Our programs and services have been awarded nationally-recognized certifications for meeting or exceeding the most stringent quality standards. Our safety and quality initiatives have resulted in achieving the highest benchmarking levels. Our highly skilled physicians and staff have the expertise to treat complex medical conditions and perform the latest surgical procedures. Our financial strength has allowed us to reinvest in the most advanced technologies to benefit patient outcomes, build modern and more accessible facilities, bring needed primary care and specialty physicians to the area, and fulfill our strong commitment to provide care for the under and uninsured. Although our accomplishments have been significant, we will never be satisfied with the status quo. United Regional will continue to bring new and better ways to deliver compassionate, quality care for our patients today and well into the future. our passion To provide excellence in health care for the communities we serve. our purpose To make a positive difference in the lives of others. PEOPLE PEOPLE During the past decade, United Regional has developed a culture that embraces our passion of providing excellence in health care for the communities we We are all serve – care that is both high quality and compassionate. It starts with recruiting patients skilled staff and physicians and attracting dedicated volunteers. Then we dedicate resources to help ensure that our people stay committed, engaged, passionate, highly capable and healthy.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Magazine
    UCLA Volume 27 Q Fall 2004 LAW LAW Volume 27 27 Volume Q Fall 2004 Dean Michael H. Schill Building on a Tradition of Innovation UCLA LAW The Magazine of the School of Law contents 2 Dean’s Message 4 Dean’s Events 6 Go West, Young Man 10 History of UCLA School of Law: A Tradition of Innovation 18 UCLA Clinical Education: Bridging the Gap Between the Classroom and the Courtroom 24 UCLA School of Law Think Tanks: Providing Relevant Scholarship and Reliable Data for Real Issues 30 UCLA School of Law Emphasizes an Interdisciplinary Approach 34 UCLA Students Capitalize on Third Year Opportunities 40 After the JD: A Pathbreaking Study of the Lives of Young Lawyers 46 2004 Commencement 48 Faculty 49 Focus on Faculty 53 New Faculty 58 Recent Faculty Books 64 Faculty Honors 66 Tribute to Norm Abrams, Interim Dean 68 In Memoriam 70 Events 74 Students Moot Court Student Awards In Memoriam Law Fellows Public Interest 82 Development Major Gifts Law Annual Fund 87 Alumni Innovative Alumni Alumni Events Mentor Program Class Notes Planned Giving message from the dean s I assume the deanship of impact of living wage laws on employment and bankruptcy laws UCLA School of Law, I am on corporations. A tremendously excited Throughout this magazine, you will read of the myriad ways in about the prospects for this great insti- which UCLA has approached the study of law and the development of tution. Founded only fifty-five years its programs—both curricular and extra-curricular—with a truly ago, UCLA School of Law is the original mindset.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Confirms Energy Future Holdings'ʹ Plan of Reorganization
    Court Confirms Energy Future Holdings' Plan of Reorganization Upon Regulatory Approvals and Emergence, EFH to Benefit from Strengthened Balance Sheet and Strong Position in Texas' Competitive Energy Market DALLAS, Dec. 3, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Energy Future Holdings today announced that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has confirmed the company's plan of reorganization. The plan contemplates a tax-free spin of the company's competitive businesses, including Luminant and TXU Energy, and the sale of its holdings in Oncor to a consortium of investors. "We are pleased to have reached this critical milestone on the road to emergence," said John Young, chief executive officer of EFH. "We can now begin, in earnest, to build for the future, with a strong capital structure, excellent assets and a singular commitment to delivering for our customers, employees and business partners in Texas' growing, competitive market. Our financial restructuring has been among the most complex in history, and it is a credit to our entire team and our outside advisors that the company has reached this point while maintaining stellar customer service and operational excellence." Following the court's confirmation, the company must also receive regulatory approvals and satisfy various other closing conditions in order to emerge from chapter 11. The regulatory process is expected to extend into the spring of 2016, though final timing is subject to modification. About Energy Future Holdings EFH is a Dallas-based holding company engaged in competitive and regulated energy market activities in Texas. Its portfolio of competitive businesses consists primarily of Luminant, which is engaged largely in power generation and related mining activities, wholesale power marketing and energy trading, and TXU Energy, a retail electricity provider with 1.7 million residential and business customers in Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Educating Artists
    DUKE LAW MAGAZINE MAGAZINE LAW DUKE Fall 2006 | Volume 24 Number 2 F all 2006 Educating Artists V olume 24 Number 2 Also: Duke Faculty on the Hill From the Dean Dear Alumni and Friends, University’s Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medal, awarded annually for outstanding commitment to service. This summer, four Duke law faculty members were Graduates Candace Carroll ’74 and Len Simon ’73 called to testify before Congressional committees. have used their talents and resources in support Professor Neil Vidmar appeared before the Senate of civil liberties, women’s rights, and public inter- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, est causes; their recent leadership gift to Duke’s to address legislation on medical malpractice suits. Financial Aid Initiative helps Duke continue to attract Professor Madeline Morris testified before the Senate the best students, regardless of their ability to pay, Foreign Relations Committee regarding ratification of and gives them greater flexibility to pursue public the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaty. Professor James Cox interest careers. Other alumni profiled in this issue offered his views on proposed reforms for the conduct who are using their Duke Law education to make a of securities class action litigation to the House difference include Judge Curtis Collier ’74, Chris Kay Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee ’78, Michael Dockterman ’78, Andrea Nelson Meigs on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government ’94, and Judge Gerald Tjoflat ’57. Sponsored Enterprises. Professor Scott Silliman, I want to thank all alumni, friends, and faculty executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and who contributed so generously to the Law School in National Security, was on Capitol Hill three times in the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Most Impacted by the New Lease Accounting Standards?
    Who is Most Impacted by the New Lease Accounting Standards? An Analysis of the Fortune 500’s Leasing Obligations What Do Corporations Lease? Many companies lease (rather than buy) much of the equipment and real estate they use to run their business. Many of the office buildings, warehouses, retail stores or manufacturing plants companies run their operations from are leased. Many of the forklifts, trucks, computers and data center equipment companies use to run their business is leased. Leasing has many benefits. Cash flow is one. Instead of outlaying $300,000 to buy five trucks today you can make a series of payments over the next four years to lease them. You can then deploy the cash you saved towards other investments that appreciate in value. Also, regular replacement of older technology with the latest and greatest technology increases productivity and profitability. Instead of buying a server to use in your data center for five years, you can lease the machines and get a new replacement every three years. If you can return the equipment on time, you are effectively outsourcing the monetization of the residual value in the equipment to an expert third-party, the leasing company. Another benefit of leasing is the accounting, specifically the way the leases are reported on financial statements such as annual reports (10-Ks). Today, under the current ASC 840 standard, leases are classified as capital leases or operating leases. Capital leases are reported on the balance sheet. Operating leases are disclosed in the footnotes of your financial statements as “off balance sheet” operating expenses and excluded from important financial ratios such as Return on Assets that investors use to judge a company’s performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Nameprotect Trademark Insider®
    NAMEPROTECT TRADEMARK INSIDER® Comprehensive Guide: Trademark Industry IN THIS ISSUE: Top 200 Trademark Firms Top 100 Company Trademark Filers 2003 Industry Summary Madrid Protocol Annual NameProtect Trademark Insider AwardsTM Annual Report 2003 NameProtect ® digital brand protection Methodology Pre-Publication Review The NameProtect Trademark Insider® is developed through analysis of public Upon request, NameProtect is happy to offer any attorney, law firm or company trademark filings data compiled by the United States Patent and Trademark the opportunity to review our rankings prior to publication. Interested parties Office (PTO) and maintained in NameProtect's global trademark data center. may submit a request for pre-publication review to the Trademark Insider edi- tors at [email protected]. Data Integrity In order to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the law firm and company rank- Disclaimer ings presented herein, NameProtect employs the following data integrity practices: NameProtect makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the data provided within this report. However, for various reasons including the potential for 1) Collection. As a trademark services provider, NameProtect collects and incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by the United States Patent and aggregates PTO and other trademark filing data from around the world, which Trademark Office, we cannot warrant that this report or the information con- is maintained in electronic form in the Company's trademark data center. tained herein is error free. NameProtect will not be liable for any reliance upon the 2) Normalization. In order to create this report, data from numerous fields data, analysis, opinions or other information presented within this report. within the PTO data set is normalized and parsed for detailed aggregation and Contact Information analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Winners and Losers: Fallout from KKR’S Race for Profit Contents
    Winners and Losers: Fallout from KKR’s Race for Profit Contents Introduction ......................................................................................5 The U.S. Economy .............................................................................9 The KKR Workforce ........................................................................13 Consumers .....................................................................................17 Environment ...................................................................................23 Conclusion .....................................................................................27 Appendices ....................................................................................28 Endnotes ........................................................................................32 Introduction KKR’s Race for Profit 5 Winners and Losers: Fallout from KKR’s Race for Profit The buyout industry and its harmful practices are receiving greater scrutiny as Americans struggle with a growing sense of anxiety over the state of the economy and the expanding income gap between the richest 10th of Americans and those in the middle class. How does the buyout industry’s “see no evil, accept no responsibility” approach to business really impact Main Street America? With hundreds of thousands of employees, KKR portfolio companies together employ one of the largest private workforces of any U.S.-based firm. While recent reports have focused on the net job loss resulting from leveraged buyouts, there
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Ethics Commission 2012 List of Registered Lobbyists with Employers/Clients (Emp/C) Sorted by Lobbyist Name
    TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION 2012 LIST OF REGISTERED LOBBYISTS WITH EMPLOYERS/CLIENTS (EMP/C) SORTED BY LOBBYIST NAME Lobbyist Lobbyist Mailing Address Telephone # Reporting Type Termination Date EMP/C EMP/C Address Comp. Type Comp. Level EMP/C Term. Date Aanstoos, Alice L. 6500 West Loop South # 5100 Bellaire, TX (713)567-7718 Monthly 12/31/2012 77401-3520 AT&T 208 S. Akard St. Dallas, TX 75202 Prospective $50,000 - $99,999.99 12/31/2012 Abel, Douglas Deane 1515 Hermann Dr. Houston, TX 77004-7126 (713)524-4267 Annual 12/31/2012 Harris County Medical Society 1515 Hermann Dr. Houston, TX 77004 Prospective Less Than $10,000.00 12/31/2012 Acevedo, Adrian G. 1001 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX (512)499-8085 Annual 12/31/2012 78701 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 1201 Lake Robbins Drive The Woodlands, TX Prospective $50,000 - $99,999.99 12/31/2012 77380 Adair, Bobby Glenn 600 N. Dairy Ashford - 2WL 8024F Houston, (832)486-3395 Annual 12/31/2012 TX 77079 ConocoPhillips 600 N. Dairy Ashford Houston, TX 77079 Prospective $ 0.00 12/31/2012 Adams, Cynthia S. 2100 S IH 35 Suite 202 Austin, TX 78704 (512)692-1465 Annual 12/31/2012 Superior HeatlhPlan 2100 S IH 35 Suite 202 Austin, TX 78704 Prospective $10,000 - $24,999.99 12/31/2012 Page: 1 Texas Ethics Commission * (512) 463-5800 * www.ethics.state.tx.us Date Printed: 02/13/2013 Lobbyist Lobbyist Mailing Address Telephone # Reporting Type Termination Date EMP/C EMP/C Address Comp. Type Comp. Level EMP/C Term.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Contract Detention
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CONTRACT DETENTION FACILITY IN THE HOUSTON, TEXAS AREA OF OPERATIONS 29 December 2016 Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 500 12th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20536 Points of Contact: Trina Fisher Contracting Officer, Detention Compliance and Removals Division DHS ICE Office of Acquisition Management 801 I Street NW, Room 9143 Washington, DC 20536-5750 Elizabeth Kennett Energy, Environmental, and Sustainability Program Manager DHS ICE Office of Asset and Facilities Management 500 12th Street SW, Mail Stop 5703 Washington, DC 20536 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 8 PROJECT BACKGROUND 11 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2 Purpose and Need 11 1.3 Scope and Content of the Analysis 12 1.4 Interagency Coordination, Consultation and Public Involvement 12 1.5 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 13 1.5.1 Proposed Action 13 1.5.2 No Action Alternative 13 1.5.3 Proposed Action Alternative 1 – Renovations to HPC 14 1.5.4 Proposed Action Alternative 2 – New Facility in Montgomery County 15 1.5.5 Summary of Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 15 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 17 2.1 Geology, Soils, Topography and Seismicity 21 2.1.1 Affected Environment 21 2.1.2 Environmental Consequences 24 2.1.3 Mitigation and BMPs 25 2.2 Hydrology and Water Resources 25 2.2.1 Affected Environment 25 2.2.2 Environmental Consequences 28 2.2.3 Mitigation
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Directors' Pay up from Last Year
    Published By 200 Business Park Drive Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: 914.730.7300 Fax: 914.730.7303 www.total-comp.com 2017 / 2018 BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION REPORT January 2018 All rights reserved. © 2018 Total Compensation Solutions, LLC. Printed in the United States of America. This publication of the 2017/2018 Board of Directors Compensation Report may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in whole or in part, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of Total Compensation Solutions, LLC. 200 Business Park Drive, Armonk, NY 10504. The information provided in this report is confidential and for the use of the subscribing organization only. By accepting this material, you agree that it will not be reproduced, copied, transmitted or disclosed to organizations or persons outside of your organization. Table of Contents Section Page I. Executive Summary Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Company Demographics -------------------------------------------------- 5 Findings and Observations ----------------------------------------------- 8 II. Data Analysis Board Structure -------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Committee Structure ------------------------------------------------------- 16 Board Compensation ------------------------------------------------------ 19 III. Board Compensation All Companies --------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Pro Bono Institute Law Firm Pro Bono Challengesm Results
    2007 Pro Bono Institute Law Firm Pro Bono ChallengeSM Results Executive Summary Introduction The Pro Bono Institute's Law Firm Pro Bono ChallengeSM is a unique global aspirational pro bono standard. Developed by law firm leaders and corporate general counsel, the Challenge articulates a single, unitary standard for one key segment of the legal profession - the world's largest law firms. Major law firms that become Signatories to the Challenge acknowledge their institutional, firm-wide commitment to provide pro bono legal services to low income and disadvantaged individuals and families and non-profit groups. The Challenge includes an accountability mechanism and an outcome measurement tool through its annual reporting requirement. The following is an executive summary of the 2007 Challenge statistics reported by Challenge Signatories and compiled by the Law Firm Pro Bono Project. ChallengeSM Performance “Striving to meet the goals of the Law Firm Pro Bono ChallengeSM, a national aspirational pro bono standard, 135 of the nation’s largest law firms provided almost 1,600,000 hours in donated legal services to the poor and disadvantaged and charitable organizations in 1995, the first year of the Challenge.” That was the opening paragraph of the Executive Summary issued by the Pro Bono Institute in 1995, when it announced the amount of pro bono legal services contributed by PBI Challenge Signatory law firms in the first year of implementation of the Challenge. Between 1995 and 2007 there have been substantial changes in the size, culture, management, economics, and staffing of major law firms but arguably one of the most notable changes is the amount and nature of pro bono services performed by these firms.
    [Show full text]