Matter of Investors Funding Corp. of New York

422 F. Supp. 461, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12398
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 8, 1976
Docket74 B 1454, 74 B 1455, 74 B 1511-74 B 1542
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 422 F. Supp. 461 (Matter of Investors Funding Corp. of New York) 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
Matter of Investors Funding Corp. of New York, 422 F. Supp. 461, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12398 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

OPINION

BONSAL, District Judge.

General Background

Pursuant to Section 247 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. § 647) and Chapter X Rule 10-216 thereunder, a hearing was held before this Court on June 28, 1976 for the purpose of considering applications for interim and final allowances for services rendered to the various debtor corporations by the Trustee, general and special counsel for the Trustee, and the accountants for the Trustee since the start of the Chapter X proceedings in October 1974 through the end of February 1976. Written objections to interim allowances sought by Weil, Gotshal & Manges, general counsel for the Trustee; Anderson Russell Kill & Olick, Special Counsel for the Trustee; and Coopers & Lybrand, accountants for the Trustee, were filed by the Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., Chemical Bank, as successor to Security National Bank, the National Bank of North America and Citibank, N.A., (“the Banks”) as creditors in these proceedings. In addition, the Court received over seventy letters from debenture-holders, shareholders, and general creditors of Investors Funding Corporation in opposition to the applications for allowances. Oral objections to the applications were also made by investors in IFC securities.

The Court granted a request by the Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter “SEC”) to file its recommendations with respect to the allowances on or before July 20, 1976. In addition, the Banks were given to July 20, 1976 to file memoranda of law in support of their formal objections. The applicants were given until August 9, 1976 to file reply papers and a further hearing was scheduled for August 16, 1976.

On July 6, 1976, the Court entered an order granting 50% of the interim allowances sought by the Trustee; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Anderson Russell Kill & Olick; and Coopers & Lybrand, without prejudice to the award of further interim and/or final allowances, on the grounds that “[tjhese applicants are presently devoting very substantial amounts of time in rendering services to the Estate” and “[t]he Trustee has filed an affidavit stating that such payments may be made at this time without undue financial burden on the Estate.”

At the hearing on August 16, 1976, the SEC presented its position on the applications for interim allowances and comments were solicited from the individual investors who were in attendance. A third hearing was held on August 30, 1976 for the purpose of concluding the oral argument in favor of and in opposition to the several applications for allowances.

Applicable Legal Principles

While allowance awards in a Chapter X proceeding generally await the consummation of the proceedings so that the results of the rehabilitation can be evaluated and the contribution of each party measured with the appropriate distribution of funds available, see 6A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 13.16 at 1009 (14th ed. 1972); In re Keystone Realty Holding Co., 117 F.2d 1003 (3d Cir.1941), interim allowances, under proper circumstances, may be granted to officers of the debtor’s estate, including the trustee and his counsel, so that “. the administration of the debtor’s estate may be carried on.” 6A Collier on Bank *465 ruptcy, supra; see also, In re Keystone Realty Holding Co., supra; Matter of Paramount Publix Corp., 12 F.Supp. 16 (S.D.N.Y.1934). Indeed, this Court has noted on several occasions that these interim allowances are necessary to sustain those who have been working on this matter for the past sixteen months and who have been advancing their services to the estate without compensation. However, the interim allowances are designed only “to keep body and soul together”, to provide necessary payments so that the services needed by the debtor estate can be continued.

In reviewing the various applications for allowances, the Court recognizes that the SEC’s recommendations are entitled to great weight since it is a disinterested government agency skilled and experienced in reorganization affairs. Surface Transit, Inc. v. Saxe, Bacon & O’Shea, 266 F.2d 862 (2d Cir.1959); Finn v. Childs, 181 F.2d 431 (2d Cir.1950); see also, Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Charisma Securities Corporation, 506 F.2d 1191 (2d Cir. 1974). The Court has proceeded on the basis that any awards granted be reasonable in the context of the value of the debt- or’s estate, the amount available for allowances, and the ability of the debtor to pay. 6A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 13.02 at 910 (14th ed.1972). In connection therewith, the Court has considered the papers filed in support of the application as well as the papers and letters filed in opposition, and has relied on the Trustee’s affidavit dated July 5, 1976 in which he states that allowances sought at this time may be granted without undue burden to the financial condition of the Estate.

Interim Allowances

Application by the Reorganization Trustee

James Bloor, the Reorganization Trustee, was appointed to his position by the Court on November 1, 1974 and has performed his duties as Trustee on a full-time basis since on or about November 15, 1974. The Trustee, in his application, submits that his duties have required him to put in a full nine-hour day, five days a week and that on many occasions he has been required to spend additional hours in the evening and on Saturdays and Sundays. According to his records, the Trustee submits that he has devoted in excess of 2700 hours to his duties since his appointment on November 1, 1974 through February 29, 1976. For the services rendered during this period, the Trustee seeks an interim allowance in the amount of $133,333.00.

The SEC, in its recommendations, contends that the Trustee’s request in equivalent to the rate of $100,000 per year but that his allowances in the future, under the simplified fee request procedure, will be limited to $75,000 per year. The SEC contends that in interim allowance at the rate of $75,000 per year is sufficient to alleviate any economic hardships incurred by the Trustee and, accordingly, recommends that the Trustee’s request be reduced to $100,000 for the sixteen-month period in question. The SEC also contends that any amount in excess of $100,000 would be inconsistent with the principle of economy of administration in a Chapter X proceeding, particularly since it appears that reorganization in this case will be frustrated and it is impossible, at this time, to assess the impact of these proceedings on the public and private interests.

The Court is aware that the Trustee has devoted his full attention to the daily operations of Investors Funding Corporation and that he has performed his duties as Trustee over the first sixteen months of these proceedings without compensation.

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

Related

In Re Engel
190 B.R. 206 (D. New Jersey, 1995)
In Re Regan
135 B.R. 216 (E.D. New York, 1992)
In Re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., Ltd.
64 B.R. 236 (E.D. New York, 1986)
In Re Duque
48 B.R. 965 (S.D. Florida, 1984)
Matter of Ferkauf, Inc.
42 B.R. 852 (S.D. New York, 1984)
In Re Western Farmers Ass'n
8 B.R. 539 (W.D. Washington, 1981)
Matter of DH Overmyer Co., Inc.
3 B.R. 678 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Union Bank v. Bloor
592 F.2d 134 (Second Circuit, 1979)
Investors Funding Corporation of New York v. Bloor
592 F.2d 134 (Second Circuit, 1979)
Matter of R. Hoe & Co., Inc.
471 F. Supp. 493 (S.D. New York, 1979)
In the Matter of Arlan's Dept. Stores, Inc.
462 F. Supp. 1255 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Matter of Interstate Stores, Inc.
437 F. Supp. 14 (S.D. New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 F. Supp. 461, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-investors-funding-corp-of-new-york-nysd-1976.