From: Laurence J. Zielke Esq.

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:13 AM To: Bruggers, James Cc: 'Schardein, Bud'; 'Paula Purifoy'; 'Celentano, A.J.' Subject: RE: msd questions

ThefollowingismycommentstotheApril9,2008internalauditreport: 1. IonlyreceivedacopyofitonJune29,2011.Itwasnevershowntomenoranymatter containedthereinbroughttomyattention. Regardingoneormoremissingemployeeinitialsfromabillasimplephonecallwould havecaughtthistypoanditwouldhavebeeneasilycorrected. RegardingnoformalcontracttheZielkeLawFirm,PLLCreceivedanassignmentfrom PZGPofthecontractandsuchassignmentwasprovidedtoMSD.TheZielkeFirmthen receivedanewcontractwithMSDeffectiveJuly1,2008. Regardingminutesofvotingoflawfirmpartnersthisisnotaprocedurethatsmaller lawfirmuse.Indeed,themakingofanonequitypartnerisdoneorally,isbasedupon theirexperience,knowledgeandskill,andreceivesbonusbasedupontheirwork product,whichanassociatedoesnotreceive.Anonequitypartnerisonthesame billinglevelasafullpartner. RegardingkeepingoftimesheetsWedokeepsuchtimesheetsandtheywere providedtoMSD. RegardingCommonwealthRealtyaninvoicewasprovidedtoMSDandthe settlementwasappropriate.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7/1/2011

Glacier

Page 2 of 2

7.

RegardingsuggestedconflictofrepresentationThereisnoconflictbetweenmy serviceasBoardCounselandLitigationCounsel.Mylegalassignmentsaregiventomy firmbytheGeneralCounselatMSDortheExecutiveDirectorortheBoard.Idonot presentissuesorcasesthenrequestthatmyfirmhandlethematter.Infact,asyou shouldknow99%ofmyworkinlitigationisdefensework.Ofcourse,Iupdatethe Boardregularlyonthestatusofdefenselitigation.MSDinhousecounselperform manyservicesthattheyneverinvolvemyfirm.AlltheZielkeLawFirmworkisreviewed thoroughlybyGeneralCounsel,theExecutiveDirectorandtheBoardChairandifthere wasanyquestionaboutthenecessityofsuchworkitwouldhavebeenraisedand resolvedatthetime. RegardingrateschargedtoMSDthepartnerratethatwechargeMSDissignificantly belowthelegalindustrysstandard.Idonotbelievetheauditorhadsufficient informationregardingthelegalfieldandassignmentofpartnersorassociatestocases torenderanyfindingonthisissue.AllourlegalworkisreviewedeverymonthbyMSD andapprovedandnoissueregardingstaffinghaseverbeenraisedwithmyfirm. RegardingMs.Schookshewillrespondseparately.

8.

9.

10. Regardingallegedoverchargefrom2004to2005Therewasabsolutelynoovercharge toMSDofanyamount!Theauditordoesnotspecifyhowshecameupwiththe $149,000figure,doesnotspecifywhosheallegesperformedthework,whatthework consistedor;therefore,thereissimplynofactualbasistosupportthisissue. Onafinalnote:ItiscleartomethatMSDsManagementandBoardneveraccepted theseunsupportedopinions,neverevendiscusseditwithmenorbroughtanyissuesto myattention.Weareproudoftheexcellentworkandresultsthatwehaveperformed forMSDandhavesavedMSDover$30milliondollarsovertheyearsofmy representation.

7/1/2011