Opinion
Case No. 02-55642-MM
December 11, 2003
Memorandum Decision and Order on First Interim Application for Compensation by Wendel, Rosen, Black Dean, LLP.
This matter is before the court on the First Interim Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses by Counsel for the Trustee. The trustee's attorney, Wendel, Rosen, Black Dean, LLP, is seeking an award of fees in the amount of $196,786.25 and reimbursement of costs advanced in the amount of $9,920.13. After a hearing on November 6, 2003, the court took the application under advisement. Having considered the submissions of counsel and their arguments, the court finds as follows:
BACKGROUND
The debtor filed its petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 4, 2002. Suzanne L. Decker was appointed to serve as the chapter 7 trustee and, with court approval, she retained the applicant as her counsel on October 22, 2002. To date, the applicant has assisted the trustee in her inventory, evaluation and sale of the debtor's assets, including its equipment and intellectual property. More specifically, the applicant was charged with assessing whether liens or leases existed that might affect a sale and with setting up a bidding procedure to maximize competitive bidding. To accomplish its sales goals, the applicant helped the trustee divide the assets into a number of separate sale lots. Next, the applicant had several auctioneers submit bids on the various lots to obtain the best possible original bid. Then, in January 2003, the applicant conducted two out-of-court auctions using a bidding procedure intended to maximize overbids. Subsequently, the applicant negotiated purchase agreements with each of the successful bidders.
Apart from the auctions, the applicant also handled a number of other matters at the trustee's direction. These matters include the pursuit of a number of preference claims and the resolution of several issues with the debtor's landlords. The applicant also monitored the estate's position in a class-action securities litigation pending in the Southern District of New York and obtained refunds on insurance premiums. All told, the applicant estimates that its services have helped to bring over $1 million into the estate and will reduce claims against the estate by over $41 million.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code mandates that any award of compensation must be reasonable and can only be allowed for actual, necessary services. 11 U.S.C. § 330 (a)(1)(A). Implicit in this statutory mandate is the bankruptcy court's obligation, as a guardian of the estate's funds, to review every application by professionals who seek compensation from the bankruptcy estate and to determine whether the fees requested fall within the parameters of the statute. This duty exists whether or not there is any opposition to the request. In re Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc., 19 F.3d 833, 841 (3rd Cir. 1994); In re Berg, 268 B.R. 250, 257 (D. Montana 2001). In reviewing each application, the court must consider the nature, extent and value of the professional's services. If the court determines that some or all of the legal services provided were not likely to benefit the estate or were not necessary for the case, the court may award less compensation than requested. In re Riverside-Linden Investment Co., 925 F.2d 320, 322-23 (9th Cir. 1991) (court may decline to award attorneys' fees where the time expended cannot be justified by a cost-benefit analysis). The burden of proof to show entitlement to all fees requested from the estate is on the applicant. Berg, 268 B.R. at 257.
Under these standards, and as set forth more fully below, certain time entries are noticeably deficient. As a result, a portion of the fees requested must be disallowed.
I. Excessive or Redundant Time
Attorneys have a duty to exercise good billing judgment when they apply for fees. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983). Hours that are excessive in relation to the task accomplished or that are spent on unnecessary tasks are not reasonable and should be excluded from fee applications. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)(D) and (a)(4)(A). In deciding whether time spent is excessive, the court must consider factors such as the skill and experience level of the practitioner, as well as the complexity, importance and nature of the task at hand. Id. at § 330(a)(3)(D) and (E).
In this regard, the applicant's time records reflect a few occasions where an undue amount of time was devoted to performing what should have been relatively straightforward tasks. While the individual time entries do not appear out of line, consideration of a group of entries devoted to a single task reveals that the time devoted to that task was excessive. For example, the chart below, based on entries found in Exhibit C, demonstrates that two attorneys devoted almost eighteen hours to preparing two motions requesting an extension of time to assume or reject leases. The court finds that this time is excessive in light of the nature and complexity of the task accomplished, as well as the hourly rate charged. As a result, these entries are reduced by $1,800.00, and $1,515.00 is allowed for this task. Total 17.70 $3315.00
Page Date Arty Time Entries Hours Amount Billed _________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 11-06-02 VPL Research on the procedural and substantive 0.60 $90.00 law for a motion to extend the time to assume or reject unexpired leases and executory contracts 2 11-06-02 VPL Prepare motion to extend the time to assume 1.70 $255.00 or reject unexpired lease 2 11-06-02 VPL Prepare a declaration in support of the motion 1.60 $240.00 to extend the time to assume or reject unexpired lease 2 11-07-02 EBD Review and revise motion re leases 1.00 $300.00 2 11-07-02 VPL Review of changes to the motion to extend the 0.30 $45.00 time to assume or reject unexpired lease and the declaration in support of the motion Page Date Atty Time Entries Hours Amount Billed _________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 11-07-02 VPL Confer with Ms. Berke-Dreyfuss via e-mail 0.10 $15.00 about changes to the motion to extend the time to assume or reject unexpired leases and executory contracts 2 11-08-02 EBD Revisions to declaration in support of motion 0.90 $270.00 to extend time 2 11-08-02 VPL Edit declaration in support of the motion to 0.30 $45.00 extend the time to assume or reject unexpired leases and executory contracts 2 11-11-02 VPL Changes to motion to extend time to assume 0.20 $30.00 or reject unexpired leases and executory contracts and declaration in support of motion 3 11-12-02 VPL Review of changes to the motion to extend 1.00 $150.00 time to assume or reject 3 11-15-02 EBD Review and revise motion for to [sic] extend 0.20 $60.00 time to assume and assign 3 11-18-02 EBD Review and revise two motions to extend the 0.50 $150.00 time to assume or reject lease 3 11-18-02 VPL Prepare motion, notice of motion, and 4.10 $615.00 memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to extend time to assume or reject lease with Sobrato 3 11-18-02 VPL Edit motion, notice of motion, and 0.50 $150.00 memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to extend time to assume or reject lease with Sobrato 3 11-19-02 EBD Further revisions to Motions to extend the 0.50 $150.00 time to assume or reject leases 3 11-19-02 VPL Edit motion, notice of motion, and 1.10 $165.00 memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to extend time to assume or reject lease with Sobrato 3 11-19-02 VPL Prepare declaration in support of a motion to 1.90 $285.00 extend time to assume or reject lease with Sobrato 4 11-20-02 EBD Review and revise motion to extend time to 0.80 $240.00 assume and assign lease for property and review and revise application for order shortening time Page Date Arty Time Entries Hours Amount Billed _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 11-20-02 VPL Edit motion and declaration in support of 0.40 $60.00 motion to extend the time to assume or reject the lease with Sobrato Another series of entries in Exhibit C shows that an additional five hours was spent preparing an application for an order shortening time with respect to the same motion to extend time to assume or reject leases. Because the court believes that it should not have taken even a junior attorney this amount of time, this group of entries will be reduced to $350.00, a reduction of $355.00. Total 4.70 $705.00 Page Date Arty Time Entry Hours Amount Billed ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 11-20-02 VPL Prepare application for OST for service and 1.30 $195.00 hearing of the motion to extend time to assume or reject the lease with Sobrato 4 11-20-02 VPL Prepare OST for service and hearing of the 0.30 $45.00 motion to extend time to assume or reject the lease with Sobrato 4 11-20-02 VPL Prepare declaration in support of application 1.10 $165.00 for OST for service and hearing of the motion to extend time to assume or reject the lease with Sobrato 4 11-20-02 VPL Edit application for OST for service and 2.00 $300.00 hearing of the motion to extend time to assume or reject the lease with Sobrato Further, as the next table reflects, two attorneys spent nine hours preparing an application and order to amend their first order extending the time to assume or reject the lease. This time is problematic for two reasons. First, as a general rule, orders extending time are uncomplicated and it should not take multiple hours to draft them. Additionally, however, work to correct errors in documents that should have been correct the first time around provides no real benefit to the estate in light of the task accomplished. For these reasons, the time set forth in the following table is disallowed. Total 9.0 $1,770.00 Page Date Atty Time Entry Hours Amount Billed _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 12-16-02 EBD Revise application and order regarding 0.80 $240.00 amendment of order extending time to assume Sobrato Lease 6 12-16-02 VPL Prepare amended order extending the time to 0.50 $75.00 assume or reject the Sobrato lease 6 12-16-02 VPL Research on the filing of an application for 0.40 $60.00 amendment of an order 6 12-16-02 VPL Prepare application for amendment of order 1.10 $165.00 extending the time to assume or reject the Sobrato lease 6 12-16-02 VPL Edit amended order to assume or reject lease 0.20 $30.00 with Sobrato 6 12-16-02 VPL Prepare declaration in support of application to 0.70 $105.00 amend order extending the time to assume or reject the lease with Sobrato 6 12-17-02 EBD Review application, declaration and order for 2.00 $600.00 amendment of order on extension of time to assume lease 6 12-17-02 VPL Edit amended order extending time to assume 0.20 $30.00 or reject Sobrato lease 6 12-17-02 VPL Further edit of amended order extending time 0.20 $30.00 to assume or reject Sobrato lease 6 12-17-02 VPL Edit application to amend order extending the 1.40 $210.00 time to assume or reject the Sobrato lease 6 12-17-02 VPL Edit declaration in support of application to 1.30 $195.00 amend order extending the time to assume or reject the Sobrato lease 7 12-18-02 VPL Final review of application to amend order to 0.20 $30.00 extend the time to assume or reject the Sobrato lease and supporting declaration Time can also be excessive in light of the role the attorneys are playing with respect to a particular project. To be compensable, services performed must have been reasonably likely to benefit the estate at the time the services were rendered. In re Mednet, 251 B.R. 103, 108 (9th Cir. BAP 2000). In determining whether any particular service satisfies this standard, the court must consider the circumstances and manner in which services were performed and the results achieved. Id. For example, the estate receives no real benefit when an attorney reviews work performed by another attorney in the same firm or when extensive amounts of time are spent performing or monitoring services for which special counsel has been retained. The following entries relate to the applicant's review of documents in the IPO class action suit pending in New York. According to the application, the applicant merely monitored the IPO proceedings. In light of this limited role, the applicant's extensive review of documents is excessive and not of benefit to the estate. As a result, fees for the following entries from Exhibit E will be reduced to $5,000.00, a reduction of $12,795.00. Total 56.40 $17,795.00 Page Date Arty Services Rendered Hours Amount Billed ________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 10-09-02 JCW Review IPO litigation settlements and 1.80 $540.00 documents 1 10-10-02 JCW Review documents re IPO litigation 5.60 $1,680.00 2 10-22-02 JCW Review documents re IPO 2.30 $690.00 2 10-24-02 JCW Review documents re IPO 3.20 $960.00 2 10-25-02 JCW Review IPO documents 1.30 $390.00 2 10-28-02 JCW Review IPO documents 1.20 $360.00 2 11-25-02 JCW Review and analyze IPO settlement and 3.10 $930.00 respond 2 12-12-02 JCW Review and analyze new IPO settlement 2.90 $870.00 documents and respond 4 04-25-03 JCW Review documents re IPO settlement 4.10 $1,332.50 documents and respond 4 05-02-03 JCW Review settlement draft 1.10 $357.50 4 05-23-03 JCW Review documents re IPO 1.30 $422.50 4 06-05-03 JCW Review and analyze settlement documents 1.90 $617.50 4 06-06-03 JCW Review and analyze settlement documents 2.50 $812.50 4 06-10-03 JCW Review and analyze settlement documents 1.30 $422.50 4 06-10-03 JCW Review and analyze transfer documents 4.90 $1,592.50 4 06-13-03 JCW Review and analyze new settlement documents 1.90 $617.50 4 07-08-03 JCW Review documents re IPO 0.70 $227.50 4 07-24-03 JCW Review and analyze IPO documents 3.10 $1,007.50 4 07-29-03 JCW Review and analyze IPO claims against 3rd 5.20 $1,690.00 party Page Date Arty Services Rendered Hours Amount Billed _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 07-30-03 JCW Review and analyze new settlement documents 3.30 $1,072.50 (IPO) 4 08-25-03 JCW Review IPO documents 3.70 $1,202.50 II. Ministerial. Clerical or Administrative TimeIn Sousa v. Miguel (In re United States Trustee), 32 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit held that time entries for ministerial, clerical or administrative tasks are part of normal overhead expenses and, therefore, are non-compensable. Id. at 1374. This court believes that, in this day of computerized record-keeping, time spent separating time entries into project categories is most accurately described as ministerial. Under these standards, the following entries for ministerial or administrative time are disallowed: Exhibit A — General Administration Exhibit B — Sale of Assets Exhibit C — Business Premises Exhibit I — SVB Compromise Exhibit K — Fee Application Total -20.40 $3,582.50
Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed _________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 02-03-03 FLM Instruct Ms. Anderson re preparation of -0.30 $30.00 certificate of service for Notice of Abandonment 8 11-19-02 VPL Edit table of unexpired leases and executory -0.10 $15.00 contracts 8 11-19-02 VPL Edit table of unexpired leases and executory -0.10 $15.00 contracts 14 12-17-02 RAL Send NDA to Alan Li (LGC Wireless) -0.10 $32.50 18 01-08-03 RAL send notice of sale to JR Witt, Adam Reich, -0.10 $35.00 John Soliday(.1) 23 01-16-03 RAL Send detailed asset lists to Mike Hokanson -0.10 $35.00 Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 01-02-03 VPL Review of docket to determine if amended -0.10 $17.50 order extending the time to assume or reject the Sobrato lease entered 4 12-20-02 FLM Fax order approving Compromise of -0.10 $7.50 Controversy (Silicon Valley Bank)to Fred Hjelmeset 1 04-01-03 VPL Review of pre-billing time sheets to prepare fee -0.70 $122.50 application 1 04-02-03 VPL Review of pre-billing time sheets to prepare fee -0.40 $70.00 application 1 04-03-03 VPL Review of pre-billing time sheets to prepare fee -0.20 $35.00 application 2 04-08-03 VPL Prepare task categories for fee application -0.40 $70.00 2 04-10-03 VPL Review and analyze time entries to organize -0.90 $157.50 them by task categories for the preparation of fee application 2 04-11-03 VPL Review and analyze time entries to organize -3.20 $560.00 them by task categories for the preparation of fee application 2 04-14-03 VPL Review and analyze time entries to organize -4.50 $787.50 them by task categories for the preparation of fee application 2 05-09-03 VPL Review time entries for preparation of fee -2.30 $402.50 application 3 05-20-03 VPL Review time entries to assign categories -2.10 $367.50 3 05-27-03 VPL Review time entries to categorize them and -4.50 $787.50 prepare fee application 4 06-18-03 VPL Edit time entries and assign categories to extra -0.20 $35.00 time entries III. Inadequate DescriptionEach applicant for attorneys' fees is under a duty to describe the work performed in a manner which will enable a determination of whether the time is compensable. If the description is inadequate, then the court cannot determine whether the compensation requested is reasonable or whether it is for actual, necessary services. Because the applicant bears the burden of proof, its failure to provide an adequate description is sufficient basis to disallow the request for fees.
In this regard, one particular practice of the applicant is especially troubling to the court. Many of the applicant's time entries start with the phrase "attention to" and then describe the subject matter of the professional's attention. This vague term "attention to" fails to identify any specific task against which the court may judge the wide variety of time allotted to such descriptions. Without the ability to determine whether the time was suitable to the task and whether the task is necessary to the case, it is impossible to determine whether the fee request falls within the statutory parameters of 11 U.S.C. § 330, and the court is unable to allow compensation for that time. Absent further explanation, the court finds that the following entries are reduced or disallowed as indicated. Exhibit A — General Administration Attention to administrative claim analysis Allowed .3 hrs. for review of emails and case docket Exhibit B — Sale of Assets Allowed .1 hr. for response to email Allowed .2 hrs. for on-line review Allowed .1 hr. for email Allowed .1 hr. for telephone call Allowed .3 hrs. for conference Allowed .1 hr. for drafting Exhibit C — Business Premises Exhibit D — Other Professionals Exhibit F — Insurance Allowed .4 hrs. for phone call Allowed .1 hr. for phone call Exhibit H — Preferences Allowed .1 hr. for email Allowed .1 hr. for conference Total 19.0 $5,797.50
Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 08-07-03 VPL Attention to objections to certain claims in the -0.30 $52.50 case 10 08-08-03 VPL ; -0.20 $35.00 review e-mails from M. Gabrielson, S. Decker and R. Gaspar re fees and costs; review case docket for fee application information 2 10-14-02 RAL attention to intellectual property due diligence -0.50 $162.50 and transfer issues (.5) 2 10-14-02 RAL attention to parts, work-in-progress and -0.70 $227.50 finished goods questions (.7) 2 10-15-02 RAL attention to open questions such as status of -1.40 $455.00 new designs, relations with distributors, purchase order, license with M. Fuerter (1.4) Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 10-21-02 RAL attention to packages going to prospective -0.60 $195.00 acquirors [sic] and to liquidators (.6) 4 10-24-02 RAL Attention to IP information for Kaval and -0.10 $32.50 respond to Kaval email 4 10-25-02 RAL Attention to emails from Ubiquital and revisions -0.30 $97.50 to NDA 6 11-06-02 RAL Attention to NDA's and due diligence -0.20 $75.00 packages for Crescendo, Dekolink and Andrews, Inc. and on-line review of web sites of same re operations in telecom 8 11-15-02 RAL Attention to response to EMS -0.10 $32.50 8 11-19-02 RAL Attention to NextG Networks NDA -0.10 $32.50 9 11-22-02 RAL Attention to sending NDAs to parties -0.20 $65.00 submitting them and check transmittal letters to NDA parties 10 12-03-02 RAL Attention to NDA's and information packages -0.20 $65.00 for Mikom-US and Etenna 10 12-04-02 RAL Attention to schedule for sale -0.40 $130.00 10 12-05-02 RAL Attention to deadlines for bid process and -0.30 $97.50 email to J. Wurms, E. Dreyfuss and V. Loumber re same 11 12-06-02 RAL Attention to transmittal of NDA's to -0.10 $32.50 prospective buyers 13 12-12-02 RAL Attention to terms and timing of bids for -1.20 $390.00 liquidators and companies; attention to breaking assets into separate lots 14 12-14-02 RAL Attention to information needed from Repeater -0.40 $130.00 computer servers (.4) 17 01-02-02 RAL Attention to request for Repeater depreciation -0.10 $35.00 schedules and telephone call from JR Witt re ARC Wireless questions about asset lists (.2) Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19 01-10-03 RAL Attention to delivery of Notice of Sale to all -0.20 $70.00 company bidders 20 01-14-03 RAL Attention to antenna and Chinese Repeater lots -0.20 $70.00 as they affect bidding; conference with J. Wurms re how to handle these lots (.5) 24 01-16-03 RAL Attention to effect of giving bid credit to ARC -0.20 $70.00 Wireless for $56,000 lease payment commitment 24 01-16-03 RAL Attention to credit to ARC Wireless for lease -0.30 $105.00 commitment, return of funds depending on landlord deal, removal of Lots 2 3 to equalize bids, allowing bidders to cut arrange for lien releases directly with Phoenix, alternatives for obtaining computer data an DoveBid's view of Lots 2 3, timing of removal and responsibility for lease costs 24 01-17-03 RAL Attention to how to resolve discrepancies -0.40 $140.00 between bids for Lots 1, 2 3, Lots 1 2, and Lot 1 in view of amounts owed to Phoenix Leasing for Lots 2 3 24 01-17-03 RAL Attention to resolution of issue of providing -0.20 $70.00 license to intellectual property to buyers of existing inventory despite selling intellectual property to third party 27 01-21-03 RAL Attention to overbid auctions for remaining lots -0.30 $105.00 and how to handle license from winner of intellectual property to buyers of inventory 28 01-21-03 RAL Attention to comments to Asset Purchase -0.30 $105.00 Agreement with Wireless Networking, including cross-closing conditions, license provisions, timing of closing and other issues 29 01-22-03 RAL Attention to possible alternatives to additional -0.30 $105.00 ARC Wireless bid for Lot 7 30 01-23-02 RAL Attention to Steven Li request re license to -0.30 $105.00 intellectual property for OA 850s; send draft licenses to Steven Li 31 01-24-03 RAL Attention to concerns of EMS regarding -0.60 $210.00 transfer of intellectual property, elimination of condition on sale of intellectual property and timing of approval (.6) Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 33 01-28-03 RAL attention to alternative plans for disposing of -0.70 $245.00 Lot preserving the intellectual property in Lot 7 on computer media (.7) 33 01-28-03 RAL Attention to possible ARC Wireless back-up -0.10 $35.00 bid(.1) 34 01-29-03 RAL Attention to descriptions of intellectual -0.50 $175.00 property rights in purchase agreement and bid instructions (.5) 35 01-30-03 RAL Attention re preparation of auction instructions -1.10 $385.00 for new intellectual property auction 35 01-30-03 RAL Attention to problem of assigning software to -0.40 $140.00 buyer of intellectual property (.4) 36 01-30-03 RAL Attention to new auction for intellectual -0.70 $245.00 property, different alternatives for transferring database files, potential cost of assistance from Mike Dill and John Soliday, timing of sale, need to have companies review database on site, personnel required for review of databases 36 01-30-03 RAL Attention to software required for HP and Sun -0.40 $140.00 servers to access intellectual property databases 40 02-05-03 RAL Attention to format and presentation for -0.50 $175.00 holding two auction: one with exclusive rights from Matt Fuerter and one without exclusive rights from Matt Fuerter 42 02-10-03 RAL Attention to and draft language re reason for -0.10 $35.00 waiving stay 9 07-17-03 VPL Attention to files re amended order extending -0.40 $70.00 the deadline to assume or reject the Sobrato lease 9 07-18-03 VPL Attention to order amending order extending -0.20 $35.00 the deadline to assume or reject the Sobrato lease Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 10-24-02 RAL Attention to AlphaCap partners proposal to -0.10 $32.50 represent Repeater 2 10-29-02 RAL Attention to emails and phone messages from -0.20 $65.00 liquidators and potential buyers 3 11-12-02 RAL Attention to Larchmont engagement documents -0.10 $32.50 4 05-09-03 VPL Attention to requests for auditing of insurance -0.40 $70.00 policies; telephone call with V. Castro about status on request for auditing of insurance policies 5 06-04-03 VPL Attention to the debtor's package insurance -0.10 $17.50 policy 6 06-12-03 VPL Attention to status of insurance policies and -0.40 $70.00 updating status on return premiums and various contact information 8 07-09-03 VPL Attention to status of collecting insurance -0.10 $17.50 policy premiums from insurance companies 8 07-15-03 VPL Attention to package policy information -0.10 $17.50 9 07-27-03 VPL Attention to determining whether the estate is -0.50 $87.50 entitled to a return premium under the debtor's DO insurance policy 9 07-28-03 VPL Attention to status of requested return premium -0.10 $17.50 on package policy 9 08-12-03 VPL Attention to status of return check premiums -0.10 $17.50 on insurance policies 9 08-13-03 VPL Attention to receipt of check from Hartford re -0.10 $17.50 return premium on cargo policy; call Hartford Insurance to confirm that check is re Repeater's cargo policy 10 09-25-03 VPL Attention to e-mail from F. Sowers re return -0.10 $17.50 premium check on the package policy Page Date Atty Services Rendered Hours Amount not not allowed allowed ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 06-02-03 VPL Attention to files containing preference claim -0.30 $52.50 information 5 07-31-03 VPL Attention to payment amounts in preference -0.10 $17.50 demand letters 5 08-01-03 VPL Attention to preference demand letters -0.10 $17.50 6 08-19-03 VPL Attention to two telephone messages from J. -0.10 $17.50 Pomerantz re preference claim against Sanmina; prepare e-mail to J. Pomerantz re same and time for contact 7 09-10-03 VPL Attention to preference payment received by -0.10 $17.50 Optim Microwave; confer with J. Wurms re same 8 09-17-03 VPL Attention to terms of amendment to -0.10 $17.50 restructuring agreement and search for person most familiar with terms of and performance under amendment to restructuring agreement between the debtor and Sanmina IV. ExpensesAs a finalnote, there was one item of expense amounting to $25.00 which was not sufficiently described and therefore must be disallowed. The item is dated March 21, 2003 and is described as "Miscellaneous PBMS Overtime." Based on this description, the expense appears to be noncompensable overhead. Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED:
The First Interim Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses by Counsel for Trustee is allowed in the amount of $170,686.25 in fees and $9,895.13 costs, for a total of $180,581.38.