And that’s just so far…

The Jones Day firm has billed Chrysler more than $18.5 million dollars since the failing automobile company paid them $1 million in late November to establish a retainer. According to the Jones Day filing, about $5.8 million remains in the retainer which means Jones Day has drawn down just over $13 million so far. Business is good representing bankrupt companies, I guess now is the perfect time.

“Also of interest: the firm is staying below the magic $1,000 per hour mark that a few firms have jumped over in bankruptcies this year. Corrine Ball, the lead bankruptcy partner in the Chrysler case, is billing at $900 per hour. She’s actually not the top-billing partner, though. That distinction goes to John Cornell, who will be advising Chrysler on employee benefits and executive compensation to the tune of $950 per hour.

One other nugget from the filing: According to the firm’s engagement letter from November, Jones Day was advising General Motors in its talks with Cerberus Capital Management on a possible GM-Chrysler mega-merger. Should those talks reopen — an unlikely happening now, we realize — Jones Day would still advise GM and build a wall between its GM and Chrysler teams, the letter says.”

The only other firm that applied is Togut, Segal, and Segal, which will serve as conlict council for Chrysler and advise on any matters that present a conflict for Jones Day. ” Togut partners will bill between $760 and $890 per hour; associate and counsel rates will range from $295 to $680.”

To view the original article, click here.

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com.
SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Companies contemplating the formation of a joint venture should make preliminary and legally binding confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements before signing a joint venture agreement. In these negotiations, the parties should address several issues, such as whether the restrictions should be mutual, what information will be deemed confidential, and the exclusions or permitted use of confidential information. The parties may also wish to agree as to who exactly will become privy to such confidential information, such as which employees, consultants, or executives, and if the agreement is breached, any equitable or legal remedies available to the non-breaching party.

Oftentimes, the respective parties provide an imbalanced amount of information, and their interests therefore may differ when negotiating a confidentiality agreement. The party who will be disclosing more information will want to (i) broaden the definition of confidential information, (ii) lengthen the term during which the confidential information must be kept secret, (iii) limit the people within each party’s organization given access to the confidential information, and (iv) limit the ways in which the confidential information may be used. Conversely, the party receiving most of the information will want to do the opposite.

Popularity: 4% [?]