In re Dunnhell Suspender & Belt Corp.

162 F. Supp. 608
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 29, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 162 F. Supp. 608 (In re Dunnhell Suspender & Belt Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Dunnhell Suspender & Belt Corp., 162 F. Supp. 608 (S.D.N.Y. 1958).

Opinion

HERLANDS, District Judge.

The attorneys and the accountants for the trustee have filed objections to the Report on Final Allowances submitted by Hon. John E. Joyce, Referee in Bankruptcy.

Harold P. Seligson, Esq. and George Zolotar, Esq., who have served up to the present as attorneys for the trustee, applied for an allowance of $7,500. The Referee allowed $4,000. The law firm of Krause, Hirsch, Gross & Heilpern, who formerly served as attorneys for the trustee from December 14, 1951 to August 4, 1953, applied for an allowance of $3,500. The Referee allowed $1,400. G. George Kogut & Co., accountants for the trustee, applied for an allowance of $4,250. The Referee allowed $3,200.

The attorneys and accountants now object to the Referee’s Report for the asserted reasons (1) that the allowances are grossly inadequaté and clearly erroneous and (2) that the report does not present detailed findings or reasons for the amount of compensation recommended.

The gross assets of the estate were $46,024.90. The net assets on hand are $27,934.94. If the Referee’s recommendations with respect to said attorneys’ and accountants’ fees (totalling $8,600.) are approved, and if certain other concededly proper fees, expenses and disbursements (totalling $8,108.81) are deducted, the amount left for the general creditors would be $11,226.13. This would constitute a dividend of 14.-833% to general creditors.

The present attorneys for the trustee, Messrs. Seligson and Zolotar, claim that they have spent 348 hours on the case and that their associates have devoted 137 hours to this matter, that is, a total of 485 hours. The work they performed for the trustee may be summarized as follows:

(a) reviewed the work of the former attorneys for the trustee.
(b) after an investigation, discovered evidence of falsification of the bankrupt’s books; and inquired into the criminal acts of the bankrupt’s officers.
(c) instituted a plenary action against Manufacturers Trust Company and Samuel Breiter & Company for preferential transfers in the amount of $35,000. After intensive preparation and on the eve of trial, the case was settled for $10,000.
(d) instituted a plenary action against Commercial Trading Company for a preferential transfer in the amount of $16,262.40. After the case was prepared for trial, it was settled for $6,250.
(e) handled the sale of the name and good-will of the bankrupt for $150.
[610]*610(f) checked 57 claims; and reduced priority claims by $2,545.62 and general claims by $1,779.96.

The law firm of Krause, Hirsch, Gross & Heilpern were attorneys for the trustee from December 14, 1951 to August 4, 1953. The following is a summary of their work:

(a) conferences with various creditors.
(b) examination of the corporation’s books and records, and of various public records.
(c) analysis of all transactions by the bankrupt.
(d) arrangements for the sale of property.
(e) examination of various persons and preparation therefor; examinations were held on 21 differ-erent occasions; over 1,000 pages of testimony were taken.
(f) conferences with successor counsel.
(g) collected accounts receivable.
(h) various administrative services.

G. George Kogut & Company were accountants for the trustee since January 11, 1952. The following is a summary of their work:

(a) statement of the affairs of the bankrupt.
(b) income and profit and loss statements for the period from January 1, 1951 to October 24, 1951.
(c) an analysis of the deficit accounts.
(d) schedules of accounts receivable.
(e) schedules of liabilities.
(f) history of the company.
(g) balance sheet as of December 31, 1950.
(h) compared income and profit and loss statements of 1950 and the statements submitted to Manufacturers Trust Company.
(i) report on cash withdrawn by Harold Reisman, an officer of the bankrupt.
(j) report on cash withdrawn by Morris Reisman, president of the bankrupt.
(k) report on the transactions of the bankrupt with Commercial Trading Company from October 1950 to April 1952.
(l) analysis of loans received from Manufacturers Trust Company during 1950 and 1951.
(m) balance sheets as of December 31, 1948, December 31, 1949 and December 31, 1950 to prove bankrupt’s insolvency for several years.
(n) conferences on the suits brought against Samuel Breiter & Company, Manufacturers Trust Company and Commercial Trading Company.
(o) examined fictitious accounts receivable and cheeks from accounts receivable credited to officers of the corporation.
(p) schedule of payments within four months of filing the petition.
(q) assisted in the examination of certain claims that were subsequently reduced.

In arguing that the allowances are manifestly inadequate, Messrs. Seligson and Zolotar point, to the fact that the Referee awarded them, in effect, a fee that amounts to only $8.25 an hour, whereas the requested allowance would amount to the modest rate of $15.46 an hour. They also emphasize the fact that it was through their skill and energetic efforts that $16,250 was collected on lawsuit settlements; that priority claims were reduced by $2,545.62; and that general claims were reduced by $1,779.96.

The accountants, G. George Kogut & Company, point out that, at normal rates, they would be entitled to $7,375, whereas the Referee allowed them only $3,200.

The principles governing this case have recently been expounded by Circuit Judge Lumbard, for a unanimous court, in Matter of Paramount Merrick, Inc., 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 482. To paraphrase Judge Lumbard, when this Court examines the size of the dividend to un[611]*611secured creditors herein, it is obvious that it “hardly permits generous fees.”

In Paramount Merrick, the dividend accruing to unsecured creditors was less than 30 percent. In the case at bar, the dividend will amount to less than 15 percent. The estate available for dividends if the Referee’s allowances herein are confirmed, will amount to $11,226.13. If the additional amount ($6,650.) that the objectants request were to be allowed, the dividend to general creditors would be 7.37 percent, or the sum of $5,576.13, instead of $11,226.13. In such a case, the total requested allowance ($15,250.) to the objectants would be about three times the total estate ($5,576.13) available for dividends to the general creditors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Schumann Tire & Battery Co., Inc.
89 B.R. 223 (M.D. Florida, 1988)
Matter of Aminex Corp.
15 B.R. 356 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Matter of DH Overmyer Co., Inc.
3 B.R. 678 (S.D. New York, 1980)
In Re MacHado
349 F. Supp. 979 (D. Puerto Rico, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 F. Supp. 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dunnhell-suspender-belt-corp-nysd-1958.