Ganz v. Feiner (In Re Bobroff)
This text of 64 B.R. 308 (Ganz v. Feiner (In Re Bobroff)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
The question for decision is whether we should grant the relief requested in the trustee’s complaint and enter judgment against a law firm which received funds of the estate without approval of the bankruptcy court. For the reason outlined below, we will enter judgment in favor of the trustee and against the law firm.
The facts of this case are as follows: 1 An involuntary petition for relief against the debtor was filed under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”) and an order for relief was granted. We then appointed a trustee to administer the case.
After the filing of the petition the debtor engaged the firm of Coco, Feiner & Citron, P.C., (“Coco”), to litigate an insurance claim against Monarch Life Insurance Corn- *309 pany (“Monarch”). Monarch and the debt- or eventually settled the suit for $18,500.00 from which a fee of $7,500.00 was paid to Coco.
The entire $18,500.00 was property of the bankruptcy estate. At no time did the debtor or Coco seek or obtain approval from the bankruptcy court for the retention of the law firm. When apprised of the above facts the trustee commenced the instant suit against Coco seeking judgment of $7,500.00.
The Code mandates that the employment of professionals under 11 U.S.C. § 327 be approved by the bankruptcy court. § 327(a). 2 The proper vehicle by which court approval is sought, is through an application filed by the trustee, the debt- or in possession or a properly constituted committee. Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a). 3 Notice need not be disseminated to creditors for the mere approval of the application, unless the court orders otherwise. After a properly appointed professional has performed the requisite services, he may file an application for compensation from funds in the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 330(a). 4 The procedure for obtaining this relief is by application. Bankruptcy Rule 2016. 5 Except as otherwise provided in Bankruptcy Rule 2002, 6 the court may not award compensation or a reimbursement of expenses in excess of $100.00 unless creditors are given 20 days notice during which they may file objections to the disbursement and request a hearing thereon.
*310 In this circuit a professional seeking compensation from the bankruptcy estate generally may not be paid for work done prior to the filing and allowance of his application for employment. In Re Calpa Products, 411 F.2d 1373 (3d Cir.1969); In Re Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., 411 F.2d 203 (3d Cir.1969); In Re National Tool Mfg. Co, 209 F.2d 256 (3d Cir.1954); Kaufman v. Morrison (In Re Robertson), 4 F.2d 248 (3d Cir.1925); In Re Massetti, 60 B.R. 756 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1986); Glick v. Brogan (In Re Roberts), 58 B.R. 65 (Bankr.D.N.J. 1986) (per Goldhaber, J., sitting by designation); In Re Fidelity America Financial Corp., 48 B.R. 258 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1985). As we repeated recently in Massetti:
There is no question that [the professional applying for compensation] acted throughout in good faith and a denial to him of compensation is a harsh conclusion. However, the law is unquestionably settled....
Massetti, 60 B.R. at 759, quoting, In Re Progress Lektro Shave Corp., 117 F.2d 602, 604 (2d Cir.1941). A narrow exception to this rule was recently enunciated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Re Arkansas Co., Inc. (Appeal of Beneson & Scher, P.A.), 798 F.2d 645 (3d Cir.1986). Under Arkansas Co. retroactive approval for the appointment of counsel may be granted in “extraordinary circumstances.”
In the absence of an order appointing an attorney, the courts at times have allowed fees when counsel’s actions have generated a common fund or benefited the estate. Under this method of compensation the attorney is not awarded fees on the value of reasonable services provided as would be allowable under § 330, but rather compensation is limited by value of the benefit inuring to the estate. This theory of compensation is often called the “common fund” rationale. Under this rubric the attorney bears the burden of establishing the value of the benefit flowing to the estate through his labor. In the absence of any proof on the matter, no fees can be awarded. As stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, “The courts have been extremely reluctant to apply the ‘common fund’ rationale, see e.g. Trustees v. Greenough [15 OTTO 527], 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1881); Kopet v. Esquire Realty Co., 523 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir.1975); In re American Express Warehousing, Ltd., 525 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir.1975); Fidelity, 48 B.R. at 260.
In the case at bench Coco was employed by the debtor and received funds from the bankruptcy estate without prior application to or approval of the bankruptcy court. There are no extraordinary circumstances justifying the entry of an order retroactively appointing counsel under the rule announced in Arkansas Co. Furthermore, no proof was introduced on the value of the service rendered for the application of the “common fund rule.” In light of the above authority we will accordingly enter judgment in favor of the trustee and against Coco in the amount of $7,500.00.
. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Bankruptcy Rule 7052.
. § 327. Employment of professional persons
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court’s approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title.
11 U.S.C. § 327
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 B.R. 308, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganz-v-feiner-in-re-bobroff-paeb-1986.