"Significant Fee Enhancement" Request Almost Causes Judicial Heart Attack


There's been a lot of discussion lately about the bills submitted by receivers and trustees in bankruptcy to compensate lawyers for marshaling up assets.
David notes Vanessa Blum's excellent coverage of the recent hearing before Judge Moreno, where Roberto Martinez argued for an $11 million "enhancement" for his and KTT's work on the MBC receivership.
As reported by Vanessa, the Judge in his usual manner had something funny and charming yet witty to say:
“I needed a defibrillator,” he joked. “We’re talking about a lot of money.”He's right, but to be fair I pulled the final fee app, which you can review here.
Roberto basically argues that his firm and KTT agreed to discount their rates back in 2004, have not sought any increases during the five years of the receivership, and did incredible work very efficiently which resulted in a big distribution to investors. Accordingly, they ask for 10 percent of what they collected as a bonus, which apparently was an option contemplated in the original fee agreements.
Michael Hanzman, who served as counsel in a related class-action case involving MBC, approves:
“If you want to attract the best and the brightest people to take these cases, you have to pay a reasonable fee,” Hanzman said. “This is not a pro bono case.”I think the Judge's comments highlight where he is going with this.
However, I wonder whether these firms could have billed at incrementally higher rates over the last five years and possibly recouped a chunk of this bonus back through regular applications to the Court without ever garnering this kind of headline?
Indeed, consider what's going on with our friend Allen Stanford and his receivership, which is just off the ground and has accrued over $36 million in fees -- or $100,000 a day. Not good.
The Judge also referenced the Supreme Court's recent dismay over how much it costs to litigate cases nowadays, though that involved a fee-shifting statutory question not at issue here.
My own take is this is probably not the best case or the best time to make a request like this, and you definitely do not ever want to make Judge Moreno's eyes boggle if you can avoid it.
Let's see what he does with it.
This entry was posted on at 8:40 AM and is filed under Chief Judge Moreno, Kozyak Tropin, Michael Hanzman, Mutual Benefits Corporation, R. Allen Stanford, Roberto Martinez. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
The average cost of family health insurance coverage rose 3% to $13,770 in 2010, while at the same time the employee's share of the c...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...
-
There are four house bills that propose changes to the current custody statute. However, H.1306 and H.2684 are practically the same, though...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
According to a New York Times article , the New York State legislature recently approved legislation that would allow No-Fault divorces in N...
-
Image courtesy of FreeFoto.com This is the first post in our series evaluating the potential of Custody Reform in Massachusetts. Before you...
-
If you live in Massachusetts, by now you've probably heard about Alimony Reform. Both the House and Senate have passed the Alimony Refo...
-
The second senate bill that proposes amendments to the current custody statute is S00847. This proposal was filed in the Senate on January ...