After we posted the press release recognizing the Sullivan & Cromwell and Kaye Scholer lawyers who worked on the recent Onex / Kodak Health Group transaction, one of you pointed out:

Respectfully, you missed the lede in the Kodak post. Read Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint (PDF) re: Kodak's complaints regarding fees and overstaffing. Then look at the attorney list for Kodak and compare the slim list for the other side.

S&C put out its major league press, earning how much in fees??? I'll leave it to you to parse the Exhibit C memo. Have at it!

Point well-taken. The announcement mentions just five Kaye Scholer lawyers, versus almost thirty S&C lawyers, who worked on the deal.

In fairness to Sullivan, the Kaye Scholer part of the announcement names only partners, not associates (presumably omitted from the list). But it is true that a staggering number of S&C lawyers worked on this transaction -- some 28 lawyers, about a third of them partners, from six different countries. Basically, everybody and their cousin-in-law worked on this deal.

Not surprisingly, Kodak squealed about the bill. For your reference, here's Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint:

Partner Stephen Kotran notes that griping about the bill is "par for the course" for Kodak.

But Kodak might be wondering: Is overstaffing "par for the course" for Sullivan & Cromwell?

(Okay, that last line was gratuitously snarky. For all we know, Kodak was just delighted with the quality and cost of S&C's legal representation. Heck, maybe we'll drop Kodak a line and see if they have any comment. We'll keep you posted.)

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)