Dispute over sales agreement led to action

By Anna Vitale, Missouri Lawyers Weekly

A St. Louis County jury awarded Creve Coeur-based Monsanto a verdict of more than $7.6 million June 28 in the company’s suit against Houston-based ConocoPhillips.

According to Monsanto’s petition, Conoco fell short in delivering petroleum coke that was promised in a sales agreement. Petroleum coke is produced during the oil-refining process and is used by Monsanto to make Roundup herbicides.

The sales agreement stated that Conoco was to deliver at least 64,000 short tons of petroleum coke in 2005 and 2006, claimed Monsanto, but Conoco only delivered about 52,500 tons in 2005 and about 30,700 in 2006. In total, that amounts to a shortfall of about 45,000 tons over the two-year period.

Because of the shortfall, Monsanto claimed it had to seek out other, more expensive providers.

In Conoco’s answer, it said Monsanto didn’t inform it of the alleged breach of contract in a timely manner or give it a chance to make right by the agreement.

Monsanto was represented by James Bennett, Gabriel Gore and Jennifer Kingston, of Dowd Bennett in Clayton.

Bob Peirce, a spokesman for Monsanto, said the company was looking forward to continuing to develop Roundup herbicides.

“The jury clearly understood the issues involved when ConocoPhillips did not supply us with the amount of petroleum coke in 2005 and 2006 called for by the contract,” he said in a written statement, “so that we had to purchase the material elsewhere for a higher price.”

Conoco was represented by Jeffrey Parsons, of Beirne Maynard & Parsons in Houston, and John Reynolds, of Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt in Clayton, at trial. Parsons did not respond to requests for comment.

Ian P. Cooper, also of Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt, wrote Conoco’s answer to Monsanto’s petition. He said all media requests should be directed to the company. A message left on ConocoPhillip’s media line was not returned.

$7.6 million jury verdict
Breach of contract
Case Number/Date: 08SL-CC-02002/June 28, 2010
Court: St. Louis County Circuit Court
Judge: John F. Kintz
Plaintiff Expert: Sean Durkin, Chicago (economics)
Caption: Monsanto Co. and P4 Production, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: James Bennett, Gabriel Gore and Jennifer Kingston, Dowd Bennett, Clayton
Defendant’s Attorneys: Jeffrey Parsons, Beirne Maynard & Parsons, Houston; John Reynolds and Ian P. Cooper, Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt, Clayton

Copyright 2010  Missouri Lawyers Media

Wal-Mart wins defense verdict in federal court

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has lost a case involving a woman who alleged Wal-Mart fired her because of her age.

A  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri jury found for Wal-Mart on April 7.

Yvonne Loskot was 67 when she was fired from the De Soto store’s optical center. At the time, she made just under $18 an hour and was the highest-paid optician at the center, according to the EEOC.

The EEOC alleged that the district vision center manager targeted Loskot because of her age and how much money she made, said EEOC attorney Andrea Baran. The EEOC claimed it had testimony from the center’s former manager that the district manager had told her to cut workers’ hours in May 2005 and particularly Loskot’s because she was “old” and was going to retire soon anyway.

“She [the center manager] had a clear understanding from him [the district manager] that he wanted her to get rid of Mrs. Loskot,” Baran said. The district manager denied during trial he ever made such comments, she said.

After the cutback in hours and the firing of the optical center manager, the district manager ordered a loss-prevention specialist to investigate the De Soto center’s optical department and, specifically, Loskot, the EEOC claimed.

Wal-Mart said the investigation gave it reason to believe Loskot had stolen glasses and enrolled her grandchildren without permission in the program Project Insight, which provides eye care to children without insurance, Baran said.

Baran said Loskot “had receipts going back for years.”

Baran said the division center manager gave permission to the optical center manager to enroll Loskot’s grandchildren and two other employees’ children into Project Insight and that Loskot’s grandchildren would have been eligible for the program anyway.

Baran said the EEOC employed a “cat’s paw” theory in the case, in which one person unwittingly carries out another person’s discriminatory motives. In this case, Baran said, the loss-prevention specialist was not aware of the district manager’s ultimate goal of firing Loskot for her age.

While Wal-Mart’s internal investigation was pending, Loskot visited a doctor because of stress, Baran said.

After Loskot was diagnosed with extreme anxiety, she took what she believed was an approved 30-day leave of absence, Baran said. During that time, Wal-Mart claimed she missed a scheduled meeting with the loss-prevention specialist, denied her leave of absence and fired her in October 2005.

Baran said the EEOC sought back pay and benefits totaling more than $160,000 for Loskot. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, she said, you cannot ask for punitive damages, but a judge potentially can double the jury verdict if he or she makes a finding of willfulness on the part of the employer.

After initial attempts to settle and ultimately three days of trial, the jury returned the defense verdict.

James Bennett of Dowd Bennett represented Wal-Mart but declined to comment on the case. He referred a reporter to Wal-Mart’s corporate media department.

“We’re pleased that the jury has recognized that our managers acted appropriately in this matter,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter.

Employment attorney Jerry Carmody said he thinks Wal-Mart had discipline termination protocols in place. “Employers who terminate people in a protected age group – 40 or over – are conscious of the possibility that claims can arise and will be certain to take extra measures to ensure there are documented reasons for the termination,” said Carmody, of Carmody MacDonald. He is not affiliated with the case. “I expect that’s what happened in this case.”

Baran said she was “disappointed” in the jury’s decision, and that most cases taken up by the EEOC settle.

“We’re committed to taking our cases all the way through to the end,” she said.

Defense jury verdict
Age discrimination
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Case Number/Date: 4:08-CV-01439-AGF/April 7, 2010
Judge: Audrey G. Fleissig
Caption: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Andrea G. Baran and Barbara Seely, EEOC
Defendant’s Attorneys: James F. Bennett, Erika M. Anderson and Jennifer L. Aspinall, Dowd Bennett, Clayton

Copyright 2010  Missouri Lawyers Media

Western District debates who can fire ALJs

Appeals court judges Thursday asked how, beyond the language of a state statute, administrative law judges can be fired.

Ron Holliger, general counsel for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, told the judges the Legislature has the power to create, abolish, modify or change any position – including through appropriations legislation.

“It’s been a general proposition of American law for many, many years that the body that creates a public office can abolish that position,” Holliger said at the hearing before the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District, at the University of Missouri Law School.

“If the position is established by the constitution, then it can be abolished by the people through only a constitutional amendment,” said Holliger, who served on the court before taking his job as Koster’s general counsel.

Last year, the Legislature passed a budget bill to cut positions at the Division of Workers’ Compensation. After the bill was signed into law, a number of administrative law judges received letters saying their tenure would end at the end of June. Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration cited the state’s worsening financial situation for the decision.

Three of the judges – Matthew Murphy, Henry Herschel and John Tackes – sued, arguing that they could be dismissed only through a process delineated in a statute. Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ultimately agreed, as he issued a permanent injunction last year keeping the three judges in their positions.

“Once appointed and assuming they remain otherwise qualified to serve, an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to [state statutes] may be removed only by the Governor after two or more votes of no confidence by the Committee or by a vote of non-retention taken at the end of their term,” Beetem wrote in a 10-page decision.

But on Thursday, Holliger told the judges, “The precedent is that the Legislature can use either its appropriations power or its other legislative power to eliminate positions or eliminate funding.”

John Comerford – the attorney for Murphy, Herschel and Tackes – argued that the administrative law judges could only be ousted either at the end of their terms – or if they receive votes of no confidence from a state board. Judge Mark Pfeiffer asked if it was Comerford’s position that under no scenario could budget legislation reduce the number of ALJs.

“Well, I certainly don’t believe … the specific removal methods that are spelled out in that statute authorize an additional removal method through the appropriations process,” Comerford said. “I think as a practical matter, the Legislature could simply change the statutorily authorized ALJs in the first sentence [of the statute] and do it that way.”

Judge Alok Ahuja said his concern is if the Legislature actually authorized the director of the division to eliminate the ALJs’ positions. He said the language of the budget bill in question showed the amount of money and positions allowed but didn’t say anything specifically about eliminating the judges’ positions.

“In your view, is there any warrant to look beyond the face of [the budget legislation] to determine the need of the bill?” Ahuja asked Comerford.

“Absolutely not,” Comerford said, adding that it’s “incumbent on them as the executive branch to enact their appropriation in a way that comports with the law.”

Copyright 2010  Missouri Lawyers Media

Suit against medical center is dismissed

March 5, 2010 EL PASO — A federal lawsuit against a medical center with two clinics in El Paso has been dismissed, attorneys for the center said this week.

The suit alleging Medicare fraud by Fresenius Medical Care of North America and a clinic manager, Larry Ramirez, was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Phillip Martinez, attorneys said. Martinez dismissed the case after a jury found that a doctor named in the lawsuit, Dr. Alfonso Chavez, wasn’t liable.

Rebecca Gonzalez, a former clinic employee, filed the suit and claimed that the company had for years allowed two unlicensed employees to pose as doctors and administer kidney dialysis treatment without the presence of a licensed physician. She claimed Chavez and Ramirez devised a fraudulent scheme to bill Medicare for those dialysis treatments.

Copyright 2010 El Paso Times, Texas

The futures of three administrative law judges are in the hands of a Cole County judge.

Attorneys presented final arguments on Wednesday in a case deciding whether the three ALJs can stay on job. Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration dismissed Henry Herschel, Matthew Murphy and John Tackes earlier this year, citing budgetary concerns. Two other judges’ positions were also cut.

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem issued a preliminary injunction earlier this year that prevents the Nixon administration from firing or retaliating against the three judges. The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction that would keep them in place.

John Comerford, an attorney with St. Louis County-based Dowd Bennett, has argued that there are statutory protections against firing administrative law judges. He said an ALJ can only be dismissed after a term expires or if he or she receives two no confidence votes from a state board.

“Outside of those two methods, there is no other method by which an ALJ can be removed,” Comerford said.

Comerford has also argued that a full slate of ALJs is needed, as workplace injuries are steadily increasing as time goes on.

But Ron Holliger, a former appeals court judge who is now Attorney General Chris Koster’s general counsel, argued on Wednesday that administrative law judges could be removed another way: the legislative appropriations process.

“It is the purest way and the only way that they can eliminate positions,” Holliger said. “If they are not allowed to eliminate positions, it creates a constitutional and budgetary crisis.”

The two competing sides spent the majority of the hearing questioning Lawrence Rebman, the director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Comerford spent a great deal of time asking Rebman about how the cuts were framed to the Legislature, as well as how the five specific administrative law judges were picked for termination.

Comerford also called Murphy to the stand in order to show damages. Murphy – a longtime Columbia resident who had just been assigned to hear cases in Cape Girardeau when he was removed – said he had to put the kibosh on an effort to purchase a house near the southeastern Missouri city.

In his closing argument, Comerford said that the statute presents a clear path to dismissing administrative law judges. But even if the Legislature could upend them by not appropriating money, Comerford said the cut wasn’t based on a statutory requirement of “necessity measured by the needs and requirements of the division office.”

Holliger noted that hundreds of other people in and around state government are losing their jobs, not just administrative law judges.

“They’re going to feel that’s unfair as well – that their job is just as important as these three individuals’,” Holliger said. “This wasn’t and isn’t about the termination of these three people. This is about the ability of the General Assembly to reduce and eliminate positions by the power of appropriation.”

Both Comerford and Holliger indicated that they would appeal Beetem’s ruling on the permanent injunction. Beetem didn’t say when he would render his decision.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch – Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
By Joe Whittington

Federal District Judge Carol E. Jackson signed the order Tuesday for Structural Polymer Group to collect $23,306,462 plus $3,160.74 daily interest since Dec. 7, 2008, after winning a breach of contract verdict against Zoltek.

Structural Polymer was represented through the trial and appeal process by Tom Walsh, Jim Bennett, Ed Dowd and Lou Bonacorsi.

Metro agreed in a settlement with the fired builders of its light-rail extension to Shrewsbury to pay just $6 million in attorneys’ fees. The Cross County Collaborative, which in November won a case filed by the transit agency, had sought $27 million in attorneys’ fees. “This is it. They’re paying us $6 million,” said Ed Dowd, a Dowd Bennett attorney who represented STV Inc., one of the four contractors Metro sued in 2002 on claims of fraud and mismanagement. “We hope [the settlement] helps Metro to continue to expand its light rail service for the people of St. Louis,” he said.

In addition to the $6 million payment, Metro will pay $2.5 million in damages that a St. Louis County jury awarded to the CCC on Nov. 30. After a three-month trial on the matter, the jury rejected each of Metro’s claims and sided with the contractors. As part of judgment, which Presiding Judge Carolyn C. Whittington signed Tuesday, the CCC has agreed not to appeal the damages amount. It also dropped its motion for attorneys’ fees. Metro, which after the trial had accused the CCC of propagating negative publicity about the case, likewise dismissed its motions for sanctions against the contractors. Richard Hardcastle, a Greensfelder Hemker & Gale attorney for the CCC, said his clients are happy to put the matter behind them. He would not comment on the status of the $27 million legal fees the CCC had submitted to the court. In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Bob Baer, interim president and CEO of Metro said, “This agreement represents a strong commitment by both sides to put the past behind us and to continue the process of moving the community forward.” Baer was named the head of Metro after Larry Salci resigned in early December. Salci’s departure largely was due to his involvement with the failed lawsuit, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley said in December. Dowd said Baer took the lead in the settlement talks between the parties. Baer’s statement also noted that the four engineering firms that make up the CCC — Parsons Brinckerhoff, STV Inc., Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and Kwame Building Group Inc. — could work on future Metro projects.

CLAYTON – The Metro transit agency and the MetroLink designers it unsuccessfully blamed for cost overruns and delays on the Shrewsbury extension have reached the end of the line in their long-running legal battle.

Metro and the four design and construction management firms declared Tuesday that they had reached a $6 million settlement that includes the $2.56 million judgment a St. Louis County jury awarded the firms in November.

The settlement appears to save Metro from reimbursing tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and costs amassed by the defendant, the Cross County Collaborative, as well as its own additional costs if it appealed the verdicts. Metro told the Post-Dispatch onTuesday that its costs for pressing the lawsuit were $21.4 million through Dec. 31.

The settlement relieves the collaborative firms of the risk of losing an appeal.

Both sides announced the agreement Tuesday in the courtroom of St. Louis County Presiding Judge Carolyn C. Whittington.

“This settlement resolves all claims. There will be no appeals,” Richard Hardcastle, an attorney for the collaborative, told reporters after the hearing. “Our clients are happy to put this behind them and thank the very attentive and dedicated jury for restoring the good names and reputations of the (Cross County Collaborative) companies by their verdict.”

The collaborative included Parsons Brinckerhoff, Jacobs Civil Inc., STV Inc. and Kwame Building Group.

Robert Baer, the interim president of Metro, said the settlement reflects a strong commitment by both sides to move beyond the case. The transit agency considered an appeal, but Baer said it could have been financially risky.

Metro officials told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that the suit had cost the agency $21.4 million through Dec. 31. The figure includes legal bills, expert witness expenses and other costs.

Baer, who was not present for Tuesday’s brief court appearance, said Metro can now focus on the meat and potatoes of providing regional public transportation.

“It just was a major distraction,” Baer said. “I felt in my heart and soul that it was the right thing to do.”

Repercussions of the Nov. 30 jury verdicts extended well beyond the courtroom. Metro’s president, Larry Salci, resigned under fire. And St. Louis County leaders cited the legal loss in pulling a half-cent transit sales tax increase for the Metro agency off next month’s ballot.

St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley said Tuesday he was pleased at the settlement.

“I’m glad it is all behind us,” Dooley said. “It is settled, resolved, and we can move on.”

He said the transit agency can work on restoring its credibility, continue with its on-time service, increase ridership and assist the community in handling the shutdown of part of Highway 40.

Dooley said Tuesday that he had no idea when a tax-increase proposal for Metro would go on the ballot. Dooley had asked Baer and Metro’s board of commissioners to settle the suit to get the matter out of the way.

As part of the settlement, both sides agreed to drop all legal actions that were pending before Whittington.

Those included:

- The request by the defense for $27.3 million in legal fees and costs that 37 lawyers from 10 law firms in four states ran up representing the four companies.

- A last-ditch effort by Metro’s lawyers to blame the loss of their case on some sort of media conspiracy, and to get the judge to sanction the defendants for an amount equal to their request for attorney’s fees.

- A request that Whittington allow Metro’s lawyers to interview jurors to find out if they had been influenced by Salci’s negative press while the trial was in progress.

What began Aug. 22 with the bombast of opening statements ended with a whimper of a nine-minute hearing, in which both sides’ lawyers asked Whittington to sign a five-page final order summarizing the case and jury verdicts against Metro and in favor of the designers.

The settlement itself was not made part of the court record.

In court Tuesday were Mary Bonacorsi and Peter Gullborg for Metro. Representing the defendants were Hardcastle, Roger Edgar, former U.S. Attorney Ed Dowd, and former Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White.

Dowd said the companies that formed the collaborative were “pro-rail,” and expressed hope that the settlement “helps Metro continue to expand their light-rail system and be very successful.”

Dowd said the defense attorneys have been paid by their employers and the submission for legal fees had been an effort to seek reimbursement.

Metro’s $21.4 million in trial costs, which included attorney fees, expert witness expenses and other expenses, will be borne by taxpayers. But Baer said there will be no service cuts as a result.

Baer said Tuesday that the agency has paid its ongoing legal expenses and other trial-related costs out of the project budget for the $676 million MetroLink train line extension from Forest Park to Clayton and Shrewsbury.

John Noce, the transit agency’s chief financial officer, said those funds were a combination of transit sales taxes collected in the county and bond proceeds. Had they not been used to pursue the lawsuit, they would have been available to retire project debt and cover other capital needs, he said.

Meantime, Metro has 30 days to pay the defendants the $6 million settlement. Metro, which is self-insured, has “ample” insurance reserves and could use those funds to cover the cost, Noce said.

—

Billed to taxpayers

Metro public transportation agency’s litigation expenses through Dec. 31:

Lawyers and other major legal fees- $13,065,337.45

Expert witnesses – $8,185,199.86

Testimony – $51,367.36

Miscellaneous – $132,385.36

Total – $21,434,290.03

Source: Metro transit agency

ST. LOUIS COUNTY — Thirty-seven lawyers who defeated the Metro public transportation agency’s efforts to hold their clients responsible for light rail construction woes have submitted claims for $27.3 million in fees and expenses against the transit agency.

If St. Louis County Presiding Judge Carolyn C. Whittington approves the bills at a hearing Wednesday, it would bring the liability for taxpayers or transit riders to almost $30.7 million. The figure includes a $2.6 million judgment and almost $770,000 in interest.

But that’s without counting Metro’s own legal expenses in the failed suit against the Cross County Collaborative. Metro attorneys say its costs have not been calculated yet.

In one of many documents filed with Whittington, collaborative lawyers said Metro attorneys had spent $17.5 million in legal fees and costs by Oct. 5. The 100-day trial ended with nine jury verdicts against Metro almost two months later, on Nov. 30.

Metro used lawyers from three local firms. The defense had 10 firms from four states.

Metro had hired the collaborative for design and construction management of the MetroLink light rail train line extension to Clayton and Shrewsbury from Forest Park. The agency later sued the collaborative for $81 million, alleging that breach of contract, negligence and fraud caused cost overruns and delays.

The collaborative denied blame and countersued for payments it said were still owed.

Less than a week after Metro lost the case, its president, Larry Salci, and general counsel, M. Celeste Vossmeyer, resigned under fire.

Summaries of the lawyer bills, backed by thousands of pages of time sheet entries and expense reports, are held in a large cardboard box in the judge’s chambers in Clayton.

The 37 defense lawyers represented the joint venture itself and its four member companies that Metro fired in August 2004 and sued a day later: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Jacobs Civil Inc., STV Inc. and Kwame Building Group.

Parsons Brinckerhoff and STV are based in New-York. Jacobs swallowed up Sverdrup Corp., of St. Louis, in 1999 and is headquartered in Pasadena, Calif. Kwame is locally owned and operated.

“The contracts contain mutual promises by the parties that the fees would be given to the prevailing party in litigation,” according to a memorandum by the collaborative in support of the fee payments. “The five defendants now ask the Court to compel Metro to honor that promise and give defendants the benefit of their bargain.”

Documents in the case show that the St. Louis firm of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale employed 17 lawyers, who charged hourly rates from $90 to $365, two paralegals and five support personnel. It represented the collaborative and was the lead firm throughout the proceedings.

The legal bills for Greensfelder date to Nov. 20, 2003, when partner Tim Thornton, one of the lead trial attorneys, reviewed a default letter that Metro had sent to the joint venture. That was nine months before Metro fired the companies.

Between that date in 2003 and Oct. 31, 2007, the 17 Greensfelder lawyers racked up almost 54,175 hours of work that filled 1,673 pages of documents and amounted to $10,748,418.

Added to the Greensfelder tab are bills for the last month of the trial, along with $209,749 for Steve Cockriel of Cockriel and Christofferson, and $163,541 to a former Missouri Supreme Court judge, Ronnie White, of Holloran, White & Schwartz.

Greensfelder also submitted bills of more than $4.5 million that were paid to experts: Two who testified and two who didn’t. Expenses for the law firm totaled more than $1.37 million.

The case had required the taking of sworn statements from engineers and experts and former Metro employees who had moved elsewhere. As a result, many lawyers submitted travel expenses for New York, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, Washington, Minneapolis, Seattle and Charlotte.

DLA Piper US is an Atlanta law firm that Parsons Brinckerhoff hired. Its lead counsel at the trial was Mark Grantham. Records show three other Piper lawyers, a paralegal and three support staff worked on the case. Grantham called the $4,611,591 that his firm seeks “fair and reasonable for the type of litigation.”

Jacobs Civil hired Keesal, Young and Logan of Long Beach, Calif. That firm submitted bills for three lawyers and two paralegals.

Samuel A. Keesal charged $695 an hour; Albert E. Peacock III, who did most of the trial work, $465 an hour. Peacock said the case was “billed at the firm’s standard rates for complex, commercial litigation.”

Before Keesal Young, a law firm in San Francisco represented Jacobs. Thelen, Reed, Brown, Raysman and Steiner has submitted bills and legal fees for three lawyers and costs totaling $687,258.

The combined fees and costs that Jacob Civil submitted were $2,971,150.

STV was represented by the Clayton firm of Dowd & Bennett. STV’s submitted bill was $1,989,392. Former U.S. Attorney Edward L. Dowd said he worked 924.9 hours on the case; his partner, James E. Bennett, 2,071.15 hours. Two attorneys in their office also worked on the case.

Included in the STV bill is $99,575 for David Halem, a New York lawyer who helped with an aborted mediation effort.

Mary Nelson and Kwame Thompson of Kwame Building, and Jay L. Kanzler Jr. of Witzel and Kanzler of Richmond Heights, represented Kwame and are seeking $102,676 in legal fees and costs.

ST. LOUIS – [O]n Friday, lawyers for the winning defendants in that lawsuit filed documents in St. Louis County Circuit Court seeking more than $28 million from Metro to cover attorney fees, expert witness costs and other costs. That’s on top of $2.56 million that a jury awarded to the defendants.
…
Metro was seeking $81 million from the companies.
…
Richard Hardcastle, attorney for the collaborative, said Friday his clients’ legal fees amounted to more than $28 million.
“My clients welcome the opportunity to recover the substantial fees and costs which they were forced to spend over the years to defend against Metro’s baseless claims,” Hardcastle said in a prepared statement.
Metro has not disclosed how much the trial has cost the agency in legal fees. Hardcastle pointed out that trial testimony disclosed that Metro had spent more than $17 million on the case as of mid-October.
Metro’s board of commissioners on Friday received a post-trial report from its outside lawyers, including those from the Thompson Coburn law firm. A spokeswoman for the law firm on Friday declined to say how much it will bill the agency for its services.
Scott said it was too early to say whether the transit agency will appeal the jury’s verdicts.
—
The high cost of losing a lawsuit
A breakdown of what contractors want Metro to pay:
The Cross County Collaborative Joint Venture
$2.6 million: Breach of contract judgment
$769,277: Interest on the judgment
$17.7 million to the Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale and Holloran, White & Schwartz law firms, both of St. Louis, representing the collaborative.
$4.6 million to the DLA Piper US law firm of Atlanta, representing Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas
$3 million to the Keesal, Young & Logan law firm of Long Beach, Calif., representing Jacobs Civil Inc.
$2 million to Dowd & Bennett law firm of Clayton, representing STV Inc.
$102,676 to the Witzel & Kanzler law firm of Richmond Heights and lawyer Mary E. Nelson of St. Louis, representing the Kwame Building Group Inc.
Total sought: $30.7 million