In Re Eastern Elec. Sales Co., Inc.

E.D. Pennsylvania

In Re Eastern Elec. Sales Co., Inc.

66 B.R. 545

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 8, 1986

Docket19-10163

StatusPublished

This text of 66 B.R. 545 (In Re Eastern Elec. Sales Co., Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

In Re Eastern Elec. Sales Co., Inc., 66 B.R. 545 (Pa. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

*546 MEMORANDUM OPINION

EMIL F. GOLDHABER, Chief Judge:

Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 4002.1, counsel for the above debtor in possession sent timely notice to the debt- or’s creditors advising them that, barring objection, the debtor in possession proposed to pay designated compensation to certain of its employees. Included among said employees was one Louis C. Goodfarb, a major shareholder of the debtor who requested $432,928.00 per annum, “for consultation with the (debtor) in major policy decisions concerning financial purchaser, sales, marketing, etc. Said compensation is the same as he received 90 days prior to the inception of these proceedings.” The aforesaid Rule further provides that any objecting creditor may file a written objection with the Clerk, who will schedule a hearing thereon. The attorneys for the Philadelphia National Bank object.

In the first place, Mr. Goodfarb is hardly in a position to give his full time to the debtor’s business affairs since he is presently occupied (full time) as a resident of the Allenwood Federal Penitentiary. He writes us that, since he is “consulted (tele-phonically or by smoke signals, we assume) on all major policy decisions he feels that he should not be required to take any reduction in compensation.” The compensation he seeks, appears to us to be pretty good pay, for one being punished, albeit in a minimum security container. The secured creditor obviously feels the same way. Accordingly, our order, sustaining the objections, follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, to wit, this 28th day of October, 1986, upon consideration of the request of Louis C. Goodfarb, to pay him compensation, and the objections of the Philadelphia National Bank thereto, and after argument thereon before this court, it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that the objections of the Philadelphia National Bank are SUSTAINED and the request for compensation is DENIED.

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

*546 MEMORANDUM OPINION

EMIL F. GOLDHABER, Chief Judge:

Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 4002.1, counsel for the above debtor in possession sent timely notice to the debt- or’s creditors advising them that, barring objection, the debtor in possession proposed to pay designated compensation to certain of its employees. Included among said employees was one Louis C. Goodfarb, a major shareholder of the debtor who requested $432,928.00 per annum, “for consultation with the (debtor) in major policy decisions concerning financial purchaser, sales, marketing, etc. Said compensation is the same as he received 90 days prior to the inception of these proceedings.” The aforesaid Rule further provides that any objecting creditor may file a written objection with the Clerk, who will schedule a hearing thereon. The attorneys for the Philadelphia National Bank object.

In the first place, Mr. Goodfarb is hardly in a position to give his full time to the debtor’s business affairs since he is presently occupied (full time) as a resident of the Allenwood Federal Penitentiary. He writes us that, since he is “consulted (tele-phonically or by smoke signals, we assume) on all major policy decisions he feels that he should not be required to take any reduction in compensation.” The compensation he seeks, appears to us to be pretty good pay, for one being punished, albeit in a minimum security container. The secured creditor obviously feels the same way. Accordingly, our order, sustaining the objections, follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, to wit, this 28th day of October, 1986, upon consideration of the request of Louis C. Goodfarb, to pay him compensation, and the objections of the Philadelphia National Bank thereto, and after argument thereon before this court, it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that the objections of the Philadelphia National Bank are SUSTAINED and the request for compensation is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 B.R. 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eastern-elec-sales-co-inc-paeb-1986.