"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
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...