  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
xi. In re Blue Stone Real Estate, 487 B.R. 573 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)
Issue: Whether an objection to a post-confirmation distribution agent's compensation should be sustained when the agent's liquidation efforts did not produce a "comparable recovery" for the debtors' unsecured creditors.
Holding: The bankruptcy court held that the post-confirmation distribution agent was entitled to reasonable compensation for its liquidation efforts, though its efforts did not produce a "comparable recovery" for the debtors' unsecured creditors. The distribution agent was appointed to liquidate the assets of the debtors in six consolidated cases. The court found that hindsight should not be used to judge reasonable compensation. The court also found that distribution agent's compensation was reasonable at the time performed due to the alleged misconduct and transfers made by the debtors' principal and the agent showed that it used reasonable billing judgment by reducing and discounting hours when unnecessary or duplicative. The distribution agent pursued many avoidance actions, which drove up its costs, and none of the parties had requested he cease pursuit of such actions. The court concluded by overruling the objection to the distribution agent's compensation.
xii. McCrary v. Barnett (In re Sea Island Company), 486 B.R. 559 (S.D. Ga. 2013)
Issue: Whether the bankruptcy court's order extending the deadline for the liquidating trustee to object to creditor claims and granting other related relief effectively modified a plan that had been substantially consummated.
Holding: The district court held that the bankruptcy court's extension of the deadline for the liquidating trustee to object to creditor claims and granting of other related relief did not effectively modify a plan that had been substantially consummated. A creditor appealed the bankruptcy court's order extending the deadline for the liquidating trustee to object to creditor claims and granting other related relief on the grounds that it improperly effected a modification of the substantially consummated plan. Particularly, the creditor objected to the provision in the bankruptcy court's order making the deadline to objection to claims inapplicable to claims that the liquidating trustee already objected to. The creditor claimed that this provision modified the plan by making the objection deadline irrelevant, as the trustee could simply object to all claims in order to delay the allowance of and distribution on such claims. However, the court found that plan expressly allowed for the bankruptcy court to extend the objection deadline. So the provision did not modify the plan, but rather conformed to the plan. The creditor objected to another provision in the bankruptcy court's order that allowed the liquidating trustee to delay distributions on claims he objected to until the next distribution date--approximately thirty days after the claim is allowed. The creditor claimed that changing the distribution date modified the plan. However, the court found that the plan language allowed for distributions "as soon as practical" after the claim was allowed. The court could not determine based on the facts and the creditor's arguments that distributions made on the next distribution date after claims are allowed
©2014 William L. Norton III
