Case No. 01 B 36484.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
March 31, 2009
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO SHAW GUSSIS FISHMAN GLANTZ WOLFSON TOWBIN LLC, ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEBTORS, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF FINAL COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
EUGENE WEDOFF, Bankruptcy Judge
THE COURT HAS MARKED THE ATTACHED TIME AND EXPENSE ENTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN PART. THE BASIS FOR EACH DISALLOWANCE IS DISCLOSED BY THE NUMERICAL NOTATION THAT APPEARS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF EACH HIGHLIGHTED ENTRY. THE NUMERICAL NOTATIONS REFER TO THE ENUMERATED PARAGRAPHS BELOW.
(1) Insufficient Description
The Court denies the allowance of compensation for the following task since the description of the time entry fails to identify in a reasonable manner the service rendered. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (“A proper fee application must list each activity, its date, the attorney who performed the work, a description of the nature and substance of the work performed, and the time spent on the work. [Citation omitted] Records which give no explanation of the activities performed are not compensable.”); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 708-9 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (same).
(2) Unreasonable Time
The Court denies the allowance in part of compensation for the following task since the professional or paraprofessional expended an unreasonable amount of time on this task in light of the nature of the task, the experience and knowledge of the professional performing the task, and the amount of time previously expended by the professional or another on the task In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 306 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (“The Court will determine what is the reasonable amount of time an attorney should have to spend on a given project . . . An attorney should not be rewarded for inefficiency. Similarly, attorneys will not be fully compensated for spending an unreasonable number of hours on activities of little benefit to the estate.”); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 713 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (same).
As to the time devoted to the preparation of the fee application itself, the Court denies the allowance of compensation that is disproportionate to the total hours in the main case. In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 711 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (“In the absence of unusual circumstances, the hours allowed by this Court for preparing and litigating the attorney fee application should not exceed three percent of the total hours in the main case.”); In re Spanjer Bros., Inc., 203 B.R. 85, 93 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) (compensation limited to 5%). See also In re Pettibone Corp., 74 B.R. 293, 304 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (citing Coulter v. State of Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146, 151
(6th Cir. 1986) (in non-bankruptcy cases, compensation for preparation and litigation of fee petitions limited to 3-5% of the hours of the main case)).
Page 2
[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINED JUDGE’S NAME]Page 3
Page 4
Fee Applications
18. Shaw Gussis expended 18.70 hours of professional services having a value of $5,364.50[2] in connection with services pertaining to reviewing, drafting, filing, and presenting applications for the compensation of professionals in the Cases, including Shaw Gussis’ second interim fee application, the first and final fee application for McCague Peacock, special counsel to the Debtors, and this Application.
19. The chart below is a summary of the total amount of time entered by each timekeeper related to Fee Applications during the Application Period, as well as the corresponding dollar value of those services.
ING Litigation
20. Shaw Gussis expended 16.7 hours of professional services having a value of $3,966.00 in connection with services pertaining to the causes of action and adversary proceedings by and against ING Furman Selz LP and related entities (“ING”), the Debtors’ prepetition investors. Services rendered by Shaw Gussis in this category generally included, among other things, participating in hearings, meetings, and conferences with the Debtors, co-counsel, and opposing counsel concerning the final negotiation and execution of a settlement agreement between the parties and seeking Court approval for the same.