In re Horizon Grp. Mgmt., LLC

Honorable Timothy A. Barnes

Chapter 7

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO BAUCH & MICHAELS, LLC, ATTORNEYS FOR TRUSTEE, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

TOTAL FEES REQUESTED:	$ 227,521.00	TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED:	$ 3,224.94
TOTAL FEES REDUCED:	$ 20,261.50	TOTAL COSTS REDUCED:	$ 0.00
TOTAL FEES ALLOWED:	$ 207,259.50	TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED:	$ 3,224.94

TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $ 210,484.44 The attached time and expense entries have been underlined to reflect disallowance in whole or in part. The basis for each disallowance is reflected by numerical notations that appear on the left of each underlined entry. The numerical notations correspond to the enumerated paragraphs below. (1) No Benefit to the Estate - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 13,264.00

The court denies requests for fees relating to services that do not benefit the estate or that are not necessary to the administration of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A). An attorney's internal work prior to retention to determine whether the attorney's firm satisfies the disinterestedness requirement of section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code does not provide benefit to the estate and is not compensable.

(2) Computational or Typographical Error - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 800.00

The court denies the allowance of compensation for the following tasks because the amount of fees appears to be a computational or typographical error. Also, where there are two identical entries (same day, same tasks, same time billed), the court will consider one of the entries to be a typographical error. (3) Duplication of Services - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 2,189.50

The Court denies the allowance of compensation for services that duplicate those of another professional or paraprofessional. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A)(i). Reduction in fees is warranted if multiple attorneys from the same firm appear in court on a motion or argument or for a conference, unless counsel adequately demonstrates that each attorney present contributed in some meaningful way. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 307 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("A debtor's estate should not bear the burden of duplication of services. If found in the record, such duplication shall be disallowed by the court as unnecessary."). It is also an accepted principle that generally no more than one attorney may bill for time spent in an intra-office conference or meeting absent an adequate explanation. See In re Adventist Living Ctrs., Inc., 137 B.R. 701, 716 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991) (Sonderby, J.); In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. at 303. In this case, the majority of CYS' entries were for conferences or reading emails. The court deemed such efforts repetitive where more than one counsel charged for the conference and where such time entries did not result in work product, only review. (4) Insufficient Description - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 3,240.00

The Court denies the allowance of compensation for the indicated task(s) as the description of each task fails to identify in a reasonable manner the service rendered. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("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) (Schmetterer, J.) (same).

Should counsel choose to amend the time entries and seek reconsideration of compensation, counsel may only be awarded 50% of the amount originally sought.

(5) Lumping - TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $ 144.00

The Court may impose a ten percent penalty on entries that appear to be "lumping." The Court will reduce each entry marked as such per the penalty. In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 709 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("Applicants may not circumvent the minimum time requirement or any of the requirements of detail by "lumping" a bunch of activities into a single entry. [citation omitted]. Each type of service should be listed with the corresponding specific time allotment.").

(6) Overhead/Clerical Work Not Compensable - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 624.00

The court disallows the compensation of clerical or stenographic employees of the professional for the performance of routine clerical or administrative activities in the normal course of the professional's business, such as photocopying, secretarial work, or routine filing. Such activities are not in the nature of professional services and must be absorbed by the applicant's firm as an overhead expense. In re Dimas, LLC, 357 B.R. 563, 577 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10 (1989)). See also In re Chellino, 209 B.R. 106, 114 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1996) (Paralegal, but not "clerk" services entitled to compensation at an hourly rate; clerk activities arc overhead of the professional); Souza v. Miguel, 32 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1994) (Trustee not entitled to reimbursement or compensation of overhead expenses such as secretarial, stenographic, clerical, and routine messenger services). Dated: March 8, 2017

/s/_________

Timothy A. Barnes

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Image materials not available for display.