Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

IN RE ORBITAL IMAGING CORPORATION, (Bankr.E.D.Va. 2002)

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Nov 5, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION CONCERNING SECTION 328(a) EMPLOYMENT ORDERS

ROBERT G. MAYER, Bankruptcy Judge

This case is before the court on the application of Orbital Imaging Corporation to retain Global Marketing Insights, Inc., as an expert witness. No objections were filed to granting the application. The court has reviewed the application and, with one exception, finds the application in order.

The application requests retention under 11 U.S.C. ยง 328(a) which is intended to establish the actual compensation rate for the professionals and limits the circumstances under which the compensation may be modified. Section 328(a) orders are not normally entered without an actual hearing at which the scope of the employment and the reasonableness of the requested compensation are established. Ordinarily, the reasonableness of compensation requested is determined at the hearing on the application for compensation when a record can be developed. Here, the basis of the compensation is sought to be established in advance and without a record. The court is reluctant to do so.

The court is aware that professionals desire reassurance about their compensation and will enter Section 328(a) orders were appropriate after an actual hearing. An actual hearing may be dispensed with if (i) notice of the employment application and its terms are given as required for a hearing on a fee application requesting more than $1,000 under F.R.Bankr.P. 2002(a)(6) unless the court has previously entered an order prescribing the means and length of notice; (ii) the request for a Section 328(a) order is conspicuous and in language that would advise a layman of the relief requested; (iii) the professional services sought and the requested compensation are routine and widely known; (iv) there is no objection to the application; and (v) the United States Trustee has endorsed the proposed order. Such orders are the exception and not the rule.

The failure to grant the request is not an indication that the requested compensation will not be approved upon proper application.