MR. TENPAS: Well, let me just say this has been a hard fought matter. We estimate that at the Department of Justice we have expended in excess of 52,000 attorney hours on this matter.
Just put that in perspective real quickly. If you think about an attorney working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, that's 2,000 hours. So you're talking about the equivalent of 26 attorney years devoted to this matter alone.
We estimate that we have spent in excess of $7 million on expert fees, expert witness fees, other court and litigation-related costs. So that gives you some sense of the magnitude of the effort involved here.
In any matter of this size it is not unusual for there to be discussions as the matter is proceeding about whether there is a way to resolve it. That was a part of this case as well. I don't think it's appropriate to go into the details of different talks we've had along the way except to say that you can usually expect, in a case of this kind, on the one hand you are doing everything you can as the United States to prepare the case, to prove your case. On the other hand, you always want to be open to the possibility that there is a way to resolve the matter satisfactorily.
And ultimately, in the last several weeks, we got to that point. It is probably fair to think that the attention of AEP was focused by the fact that we had trial that would have begun this morning on the question of what remedies the government was entitled to for the violations that we had claimed.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about that? I mean obviously if the trial was supposed to start today there must have been something that AEP wanted to avoid in order to come to the settlement.
MR. TENPAS: I don't want to speak for AEP. You can ask them about that,
but certainly it would be my experience that having a firm trial date tends
to focus the attention of all parties on whether there is an agr
|SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice|
Copyright©2007 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved