  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
name. The existing attorney had then delayed nine months changing the caption of the state court action and transferred the case to another attorney without approval from the court or trustee.)
In re Citation Corp., 493 F.3d. 1313 (11th Cir. July 26, 2007) (Debtor hired investment banker to provide financial advisory and investment banking services necessary for potential restructuring prior to filing for bankruptcy. Debtor subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court approved the retention of the investment banker but specifically reserved the right to review the overall fee subject to the reasonableness standard in S 330. Debtor objected to investment banker's final fee application, arguing that investment banker had a conflict of interest with debtor. Debtor also argued that the services provided by investment banker were much less extensive than originally expected and sought to have the fee reduced. The bankruptcy court first found that there was no conflict of interest, and then reduced investment banker's fee, pursuant to S 330, after thoroughly reviewing the 16 factors in the statute, including the "lodestar," which requires a court to find a reasonable rate and then multiply that by the amount of hours actually expended that benefited the estate. The appellate court affirmed the holding of the bankruptcy court's reduction of the fee, saying that S 330 instructs a court to "look at: 'the nature, the extent, and the value of such services,' as well as the time spent on such services, and the cost of comparable services in other cases." The appellate court also noted that it is appropriate, but not required, for a bankruptcy court to use the lodestar analysis to review an investment bank's fees for reasonableness, because part of the intent of S 330 and the Code as a whole is "an overriding concern for keeping administrative expenses to a minimum so as preserve as much of the estate as possible for the creditors." As for the conflict of interest issue, the appellate court remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court for a determination of whether or not investment banker violated Rule 2014's disclosure requirements.)
In re Williams, 357 B.R. 434, 2007 WL 51188 (6th Cir. BAP Jan. 9, 2007) (Bankruptcy court erred when it denied fee application of debtor's counsel without conducting lodestar analysis.)
In re Eliapo, 468 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court erred in failing to offer Chapter 13 debtor's attorney an opportunity to object when the Court sua sponte reduced the amount sought in an attorney's fee application.)
