consuming." [d.
l\.)
in 2013. plaintiffs successfully brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District ot`l\lew 'r’ork to seize lranian assets in satisfaction of this Court`s judgment The S.D.N,Y. court ordered turnover of 8 l .?5 billion in assets heid by Citibanl< N.A. These assets were cash bonds that Banl< l\»’larkazi-the Central Banl< of lran~»-»»held in an account with Citibank through an intermediary Pelerson v. fslamic Republic of Ircm, l\lo. 10 ClV. 4518, 2013 WL ll`55 576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 20l3). The court subsequently issued an order creating a Qualified Settlement Fuiitl LQSF) and transferred the seized funds to a trustee for the benefit ofthe plaintiffs The court`s opinion authorizing the seizure of the assets was at`ii.rmed by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. ch'k Marka:i v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 (2016); Pelerson v. Islcunic Repztbfr`c oflran, 758 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 20l4).
lite special masters have not yet been paid for their services and expenses The special masters have sought payment several times since 2008. but this Court denied these past motions 'l`he C ourt briefly reviews the previous filings regarding compensation for these special masters
A. Motions for Compensation from the Victims of Crime Fund
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed multiple motions in 2008 for orders authorizing payment on behalf of tln‘ee special masters The motions predicated their prayer for relief on 28 U.S.C. § l605A, which allows certain court appointed special masters to be paid through the Victims of Crime Fund, which is administered by the Depaitment of Justice. ECF l\lo. 242; ECF l\lo. 243; see 28 li.S.C. § l605A(e). I~lowever, the Pererson action was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(9.)(7), not § 1605A. Plaintiffs had assumed that § IGOSA, which was enacted as pait of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (after the Pe_rerson action was filed), applied with v automatic and retroactive force to actions filed under § 1605(a)(7). Pub. L. No. 110-81, § 1083,
122 Stat. 338 (2008) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § l605A). However, this Couit disagreed
The Court denied piaintiffs’ motions, reasoning that § 1605A(e) could not be retroactively applied given: (1) the plain language of § loO:'>A(e)@). which limits payment to special masters to cases brought or maintained under § 1605A. and (2) the D.C. Circuit`s ruling that “{a] plaintiff in a case pending under§ 1605(a)(7) may not maintain that action based upon the jurisdiction conferred by § iGOSA; in order to claim the benefits of § l605A, the plaintiff must file a new action under that new provision." l\flem. Op. and Order 2. ECF No. 430 (quoting Simon v. Republic of 1:'¢;1;],529 F.Bd 11871 i192 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
B. Pirst Motion for Compensation from a Private Foundation
ln April 2009, plaintiffs" counsel made another attempt to obtain payment for nine special masters This time, counsel argued that the Couit had authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(g)(2). Rule 53 g)(2) states that special masters" “compensation must be paid either: (A) by a party or parties; or (b) from a fund or subject matter of the action within the court’s control."’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g)(2). Plaintiffs` counsel asked the Court to enter an order "approving payments by the Peace fhrough Law Foundation_ lnc. directly to the Special lvlasters . . . in amounts acceptable to the Couit." Mot. for Order Authorizing Payment to Special Masters 4, ECF No. 435. However_ counsel did not provide any information about the Foundation’s membership, its organizational structure, or the source of the funding The Court determined that the most prudent course of action was not to consider plaintiffs proposed approach to use the private foundation to pay the special masters but for counsel to determine whether, consistent with the guidance offered in fn re IsIcmn'c chublic qf]mn Tcrrorz'.s'm Liiigulr'on, 659 F. Supp. 2d 3i (D.D.C . 2009)7 the action could qualify for retroactive treatment under § lGOSA. This led the C ourt to deny
plaintiffs counsel`s request without prejudice jul at lll-lf`).
C. Second Motion for Compensation from a Private Foundation
Plaintiffs’ counsel did not attempt to qualify the case for retroactive treatment under § 1605A. Instead, in July 2012, counsel made another attempt to secure payment from the Peace Through Law Foundation. Mot. for Order Authorizing Deposit of Funds into Registry of the Ct. for Compensation of Special I\/lasters of this Ct., ECF No. 474. Specitically, plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the Court authorize the Foundation to deposit money into the Court’s registry from which the Court could direct payment to the special masters ]d. Plaintiffs’ counsel also requested that the Couit impose the costs on defendants Id.
In August 2012, this Couit ordered plaintiffs to file (l) a memorandum disclosing the membership structure of the Foundation as well as its source of funds and (2) a memorandum addressing the legal basis for the Court’s authority to distribute these funds to the special masters and whether these payments may be levied against the defendants pursuant to the FSIA. Order, ECF No. 475. After plaintiffs filed this information, the Couit denied plaintiffs’ motion to allow Foundation funds to be channeled through the Court’s registry to pay the special masters because the Foundation was “a corporation that is controlled and entirely funded by plaintiffs’ counsel, l\/lr. Thomas Fortune Fay and his firm Fay Kaplan Law, PA.” Order, ECF No. 489. The Court determined that “having the special masters compensated indirectly by piaintiffs` counsel via this Foundation might cast doubt on the fairness of the procedures in this case,"' r.'d. at l-?,, and that "‘if the Court were to allow plaintiffs" counsel to now pay the special masters in this case, the appearance of impropriety would be too great.” ]d.
D. Motion for Compensation from the Oualified Settlement Fund
ln May 20l 6, plaintiffs’ counsel made their fourth attempt to obtain payment for the special
masters Counsel sought to have the Court exercise its authority under Rule 53(g) to authorize
U\
payment for the special masters from the QSF and enter judgment for costs pursuant to Rules 53(a) and 54(b) in that amount against lran and MOIS in favor of the Pererson action plaintiffs
Judge Fon'est’S order directing turnover of blocked assets noted that the QSF was "`created for the benefit” of the Pe{erson plaintiffs and required a court order authorizing distribution "in accordance with the terms of the Plaintiffs’ agreement concerning the distribution of those funds." Pe[et'SOH v, fsiamr`c Repnblic offrmr, No. iO-c\f-¢i§l$, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183219, at ”':55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2013). The order establishing the QSF stated that the trustee was to administer the QSF “in accordance with: (i) the terms of the Fund Agreement, (ii) the terms of this Order and any subsequent Orders issued by this Court . . . .” Order Approving Quaiified Settlement Fund, Peierson v. lsfmn‘ic Repub!r`c of Iran, ECF NO. 460 (S.D.N.Y. .luly 9, 2013) (No. lO-cv-4518) [hereinafter S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 460]. The Fund Agreement deciared the fund was created for the benefit of the Pererson' plaintiffs “and such other persons, entity or entities . . . to whom the Court directs that distributions shall be made.” Agreement for the Peterson § 468B Fund Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 468B at il 2.1, Feterson v. Islamic Republic oflmn, ECF No. 461 (S.D.N.Y. .`luly 9, 2013) (No. 10-cv-4518) [hereinafter Fund Agreement, S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 461]. The Fund Agreement makes no specific mention of funds to be allocated to compensate special masters Further, at the time plaintiffs’ counsel made this attempt to obtain payment for the special masters from the QSF, the district court in the S.D.N.Y. had not issued any order authorizing the distribution of funds to the special masters Therefore, this Court declined to supersede the terms of the S.D.N.Y. order approving the QSF, and the Fund Agreement itself, to impose non»negotiated terms and conditions on plaintiffs and piaintiffs` counsel. Pererson v. Isfamr'c Republz'c QfIran, 224 F. Supp. 3d 17, 26
(D.D.C. 2016).
fn addition, two special masters sought to require plaintiffs1 counsel to pay for the special inasters" fees and expenses as a tax or sanction 'l`hese special masters argued that sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel were proper because counsel had not taken steps to qualify the Peferson action for retroactive treatment under § l605A or to move for reconsideration of this Court’ s prior rulings Peferson v. fslmrch Republic oflmn, 224 F. Supp. 3d 17, 24 (D.D.C. 20l6). This Couit rejected this argument because it found that plaintiffs counsei had not acted in bad t"aith. vexatiously, wantonly._ or for oppressive reasons at any time. fit at 27. i"his Court also declined to tax costs on plaintiffs counsel because the Court ""consider{ed] defendant tran responsible and refuseid] to set
new [compensation] terms which impose the costs of the special masters upon plaintiffs counsel."
Id. at 28. II. Discussion A. The Current M_otion for Compensation from the Oualified Settlement Fund
Plaintiffs" counsel has again moved to obtain payment for the special masters from the QSF. The Court now grants this motion, believing the QSF is a proper fund from which to pay the special masters based on §udge Forrest’s recent S.D.N.Y. opinion. See Mem. Decision & Order, Pe!ei‘Son v. Islanrr`c Repub[r`c offmn (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2018) (No. lO~Cv-4513), ECF No. 585-9 [hereinafter ECF. No. 585-9]; see also R. & R., Pererson v. lslamic Repubh`c oflrcm (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2018) (No. lO-cv-4518), ECF No. 585~8 [hereinafter ECF. No. 585-8]. As discussed in Section I(D), the S.D.N.Y. order approving the QSF declared that "‘the Fund shall be administered by the Fund Trustee in accordance with: (i) the terms of the Fund Agreement, (ii) the terms of this Order and any subsequent Orders issued by this Court [S.D.N.Y.] . . . ."' S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 460. The Fund Agreement establishing the QSF stated: “Pursuant to the Order, the Fund is created for
the benefit of Plaintiffs, and such other persons, entity or entities . . . to whom the Court directs
that distributions be made." S.D.N.Y. ECF No. d6l. In .luly 2018, Judge Forrest adopted and confirmed special master Massey’s report that recommended the S.D.N.Y. “[d]irect the Trustee to distribute funds from the QSF as necessary to compensate the Peterson Special Masters, if and to the extent the D.D.C. fixes their compensation."‘ ECF No. 585~9. Thus, the S.D.N.Y. has now issued an order directing QSF funds to be allocated to compensate the special masters
This Court now believes it is proper for the special masters to be paid from the QSF based on ludge Forrest’s recent order. The special masters “rendered crucial assistance by helping the Court to determine the appropriate amount of monetary damages for hundreds and hundreds of plaintiffs.” fn re islands R€ptrb/ic oflran Terrorism Liti`galr'on. 659 F. Supp. 2d at l 10. The Special masters reviewed “hundreds, if not thousands of documents including economic reports and deposition testimony,"’ and their work “demand[ed] great attention to detail and [Was] extraordinarily time-consuming.” Ia’. Further, "'the sheer volume of the endeavor surely pales in comparison to the emotional toll that such work extracts from these individuals who have worked diligently to achieve justice for victims ot` terrorism." Id. Under Rule 53(g), special masters’ compensation “must be paid either: (A) by a party or parties; or (B) from a fund or subject matter of the action within the court’s control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g)(2). Plaintiffs were able to secure money assets in the S.D.N.Y. to satisfy part of their judgments l`he S.D.N_Y.’s recent ruling that the QSF may be used to pay the special masters means that the QSF now constitutes a fund from Which the special masters may be paid.
The amount required to compensate the special masters is relatively minimal. This Court entered a default judgment against lran for approximately 32.65 billion. Peterson v. Islami'c Repubh`c of Imn, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 60 (D.D.C. 2007). The QSF was funded with Iranian assets
totaling about $1.75 billion. S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 460. According to Special l\/laster Massey, who
was appointed by .ludge Forrest to examine issues related to the payment of the Pererson special masters and whose report was adopted in its entirety, "after deducting certain amounts deemed chargeable against all Plaintiffs, approximately $1.6 billion of the amount collected was allocated for payment to or on behalf of the Peterson Plaintiffs, and payment of related expenses attorneys’ fees and other items.” ECF No. 585-8, at 35. Also, as of .iuly 3, 2018, Special Master Massey had been informed that “approximately $950 million has been or will shortly be distributed to the Peterson Plaintiffs (and the Advance Companies, at their direction).” Id. Taking into account that the total compensation for the special masters is 365 l ,184.45, the burden on the Pererson plaintiffs is approximately 0.041% of the total amount allocated to the Pererson plaintiffs or approximately 0.069% of the total amount that had been or will shortly be distributed to the Per'erson plaintiffs Thus_. the amount required to compensate the special masters does not significantly diminish the plaintiffs hard-won and long overdue compensation
Further, adequate funds have already been reserved from the QSF to pay these special masters Plaintiffs" counsel does not have any objection to the use of the QSF to compensate the special masters See ECF No. 585-8.
The Court therefore finds that the QSF may be used to pay the special masters
B. Compensation for the Special Masters
l`his Court set the compensation terms in the order governing the appointed special masters This Court declared:
Each special master shall be paid 31,000.()0 per day upon submission to the Court
of a voucher in the form attached Where less than a full work day is expended by
any special master in performance of duties under this plan, the voucher shall
indicate so if less than l/2 of the day is expended, in which case the special master
shall be paid $500.00. Where more than 1/2 of a work day is expended but less than
a full day, the per day amount of $l,OO0.00 shall be paid. In addition each special
master shall be paid out of pocket expenses not to exceed $300.00 per day, exclusive of transportation, and the special master’s full transportation expenses
ECF l\lo. 29 § 3. The Court believes it is most appropriate to set eight hours as a full work day and four hours as half a work day Although the prior order did not specifically state the amount the special masters would be paid for expending exactly half a work day, the Court determines the special masters shall be paid 3500 for the days in which they expended exactly half a work day. lt is proper for the special masters to receive half a full day’s payment for expending half a full day working on the matters in this action. As the Court that appointed the special masters this Court will now proceed to rule on the exact compensation owed to each special master. i. Special Mcrsler Dcrvid L. Bloom Based on the voucher submitted by special master Bloom requesting payment of fees and expenses the Court calculated that special master Bloom is entitled to $l 1,500 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues.l ECF No. 585-5, at 2_10. Bloom also incurred $43.39 in expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. fd. Therefore, special master Bloom should be paid Sl l,543.39 for his service. ii. Special Masrer Chri`sropher/l. Byrne Based on the voucher submitted by special master Byrne requesting payment of fees and expenses the Court calculated that special master Byme is entitled to 310,500 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues ECF No. 585-5, at 2--1(). Byrne did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. Id. 'l"herefore, special master Byrne should be paid
$ l 0,500 for his service.
1 Special master Bloom only requested 33,500 in fees Bloom added the hours he worked together and determined the equivalent number of full days he worked based on this total. Bloom then calculated his fee amount from this number. However, this calculation does not comport with the Court"s compensation plan as set forth in the order governing the appointed special masters rl`he Couit’s order directed that the special masters should be paid on a per day basis with the fees added together to give the final amount owed, rather than calculating fees by adding the hours worked together. Therefore, the Coult’s calculation of the fees that Bloom is entitled to is greater than his requested amount 'l`he Court will award Bloom the amount he is entitled.
iii. Special ill/farmer Coliir MT Dzmlmm Based on the voucher submitted by special master Dunham requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Couit calculated that special master Dunham is entitled to 310,000 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues. ECF No. 585-5, at 15-17. Dunham did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. fail 'l`herefore, special master _Dunham should be paid $10,000 for his service iv. Special ill/faster Francis B. Fermessey Based on the voucher submitted by special master Fennessey requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Fennessey is entitled to $5,000 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues. ECF No. 585»5, at lS-Zl. Fennessey did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. Id. Therefore, special master Fennessey should be paid $5,000 for his service. l v. Special AJasrer Paul G. Grq']j(in Based on the voucher submitted by special master Griffm requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Griffm is entitled to $5 l ,000 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues2 ECF No. 585-5, at 22-33. Griffm did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. [d. 'l`herefore, special master Griffin should be paid $51,000 for his service. vi. Special Masrer Kareir J. Kruger Based on the voucher submitted by special master Kruger requesting payment of fees and
expenses, the Court calculated that special master Kruger is entitled to $34,500 in fees for her time
2 Special master Griffm requested 551,500 in fees. llowever, Griffm requested 31,000 for 4 hours of work on April l l, 2009, whereas the Court has determined a special master shall be paid 3500 for the days in which they expended exactly half a work day. Special master Griffln is therefore entitled to 351,000 in fees.
ll
expended working on damages issues ECF No. 585-5, at 34-46. Kruger also incurred 3450.25 in expenses in the course of her duties as a special master. Id. Therefore, special master Kruger should be paid $34,950.25 for her service
vii Special il/[asrer Szrsan M'eek
Based on the voucher submitted by special master l\/leek requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Meek is entitled to $244,500 in fees for her time expended working on damages issues3 ECF No. 585-5, at 47-75. lvleek also incurred $l3,506 in expenses in the course of her duties as a special master. ]a'. Tlier‘efor'e, special master Meek should be paid 3258,006 for her service
viii. Special Masler .]ef]?'eyA. il{crrrl'.'er`nrer'
Based on the voucher submitted by special master Manheimer requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Manheimer is entitled to $10',000 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues.4 ECF No. 585»5, at 76-79. l\/lanheimer did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. ]d. Therefore, special master Manheimer should be paid $10,000 for his service
ix. Special Mr:rsrer Lorr'aine A. Ray Based on the voucher submitted by special master Ray requesting payment of fees and
expenses, the Court calculated that special master Ray is entitled to 39209,000 in fees for her time
3 Special master Meek requested $306,506 in fees. However, Meel< requested $ l ,000 for 4 hours of work on numerous occasions, whereas the Court has determined a special master shall be paid 3500 for the days in which they expended exactly half a work day. Special master Meek ls therefore entitled to 3244,500 in fees. 4 Special master l\/lanheimer requested a payment of $28,000. However, special master Manheimer stated that he expended 10 days working on the issues in this action in his voucher requesting payment Based on Manheinrer’s assertion that he worked lO days, the Court calculated that he was entitled to SI0,000 based on the compensation plan, which states each special master shall be paid S 1,000 per day. Special master Manheimer did not give any additional documentation as to why he should be entitled to 523,000 rather than $10,000. The Court therefore finds he should be paid 310,000 for his service.
l’)
expended working on damages issues.5 ECF No. 585-5, at 80-9'2.. Ray also incurred 31,374.56 in expenses in the course of her duties as a special master. Id. Therefore, special master Ray should be paid 3210,374.56 for her service
x. Special Masfer Jrrdge Howard P. Rives, Jr.
. Based on the voucher submitted by special master Rives requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Rives is entitled to $5,500 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues ECF No. 585-5, at 93-101 . Rives did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. [d. Therefore, special master Rives should be paid $5,500 for his Service.
xi. Special Masfer Pfir`h'p ill Saeta Based on the voucher submitted by special master Saeta requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Saeta is entitled to fiSZ,S 00 in fees for his time expended working on damages issues.6 ECF No. 585-5, at 102-"05. Saeta did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. Id. 'l`herefore, special master Saeta should he paid $2,500 for his service xii. Special Mnsrerjohn C. chmson Based on the voucher submitted by special master Swanson requesting payment of fees
and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Swanson is entitled to $24,500 in fees for
5 Special master Ray requested payment of fees of 3208,000. I-lowever, special master Ray omitted the Si ,000 fee she was due for the 5.8 hours of work she did on April 23, 2005. The Court will award Ray the arnoth she is entitled, which is S209,000 in fees.
6 Special master Saeta requested a payment of 56,825. l-lowever, special master Saeta stated that he expended 19.5 hours working on the issues in this action in his voucher requesting payment Saeta did not list the hours he worked each day. l-Ie only gave the sum total of those hours. The Court can only assess the fees that special master Saeta is entitled to ti'orn this number because of the lack of additional information Based on a work day of 8 hours, 19.5 hours equals 2 full days and 3.5 hours. Based`on the Court’s compensation plan as set forth in the order governing the appointed special masters, Saeta is therefore entitled to $2,500. Given the lack of additional documentation as to why special master Saeta should receive $6,825, the Court finds he should be paid $2,500 in fees for his service
l3
his time expended working on damages issues. ECF l\lo. 585-5, at 106-17. Swanson also incurred $l ,3l0.25 in expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. ]a'. Theret`ore, special master Swanson should be paid $25,810.25 i"or his service. xiii. Special il-Q'asfer Kem?efh‘ ill Tromb]y
Based on the voucher submitted by special master Ti'oiiibly requesting payment of fees and expenses, the Court calculated that special master Ti'oiiibly is entitled to 316,000 in fees for his time expended Working on damages issues ECF No. 585-5, at l 18-21. Trombiy did not incur any expenses in the course of his duties as a special master. ]d. Therefore, special master Trombly should be paid 316,000 for his service.
C. Costs to be Taxed Against the Det`endants
Under Rule 53(g (3)._ the Court must allocate payment to the special masters among the parties “at`ter considering the nature and amount ot` the contro\-'ersy, the parties` means and the extent to which any party is more responsible than other parties t"or the reference to a master." lied R. Civ. P. 53(g)(3}. lran and MOIS provided material support to the terrorist organization that carried out the horril`ic attack that killed or injured the plaintiffs in the Pererson action lran and MOIS are therefore responsible t`or the actions that necessitated the appointment of the special masters The Court has no reservations about imposing additional costs on iran and MOIS. iran and ilelS should be the parties that bear the costs of payment to the special masters Accordingly, the Court will award costs to be taxed against lran and ilelS. This will allow the ]’e!ens'c)n plaintiffs to recoup some or all of the amounts deducted from their distributions from t`uture
recoveries of iranian assets
Ilf. Conciusion
The Court finds that it is now proper for the special masters to be paid from the QSF based on Judge Forrest’s recent S.D.N.Y. order. The Court authorizes and approves payment to the special masters in the amounts set forth in this opinion as compensation for the services they provided Also, the C ourt awards costs in the amount of So§l,lSLi.-“LS to be taxed against the
defendants A separate order shall issue
sioNED this Z/€iiy errebmary, 2019.
gs arm
Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge