Matter of RC Sanders Technology Systems, Inc.

21 B.R. 40, 6 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 150, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4834
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedFebruary 11, 1982
Docket14-11279
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 21 B.R. 40 (Matter of RC Sanders Technology Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of RC Sanders Technology Systems, Inc., 21 B.R. 40, 6 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 150, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4834 (N.H. 1982).

Opinion

ORDER

JOSEPH J. BETLEY, Bankruptcy Judge.

On May 5, 1980, R. C. Sanders Technology Systems, Inc. of Amherst, New Hampshire, a corporation organized in 1975 to develop, manufacture and market electronic products, filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The “Debtor” was continued in possession of its property and was authorized to operate and manage its business.

By order dated August 27, 1980, the court authorized the retention of Stroock and Stroock and Lavan of New York City as general counsel nunc pro tunc under a general retainer to represent the “Debtor” in the within Chapter 11 proceeding. To be assured of payment of its services up to a total of $150,000.00, Venturtech Capital, Inc. (“Venturtech”) and Charles M. Brennan shareholders of the debtor and the latter a director, agreed to pay legal fees of Stroock and Stroock and Lavan for services rendered to the debtor conditioned on the following:

(a) To the extent allowances are granted in these proceedings and paid by the debtor-in-possession, such amounts shall be repaid to the shareholders (by Stroock) if fees have been paid, or set-off against the obligations of the shareholders to pay such legal fees if they have not already paid them, provided that such repayments and set-offs shall not reduce the total obligations of the share holder; and
*42 (b) In consideration of the undertaking by such shareholders to pay said legal fees, they be granted the rights respecting new shares, which may be issued and sold by the debtor, set forth in the (August 8, 1980) agreement.

In accordance with the terms of the August 8, 1980 agreement, “Stroock” rendered periodic bills to the Debtor for legal services which were forwarded to and paid by “Ven-turtech”. The total amount that “Stroock” billed Debtor was $115,262.00 for legal fees and $8016.40 for disbursements for the period of May 12, 1980 — December 3, 1980. It has received from “Venturtech” payments on account totalling $69,958.25 leaving a balance of $48,320.25 due; however, “Stroock’s” “summary of attorney time billing rates and total fee Exhibit B” reflects a grand total of 997.4 hours and a total fee of $120,-262.10. The hourly rate billed varied from $76.00 per hour to $125.00 per hour for “Associates” and $125.00 per hour to $185.00 per hour for “Partners”. The “Partners” ran-.up 529.6 hoursfor a total of $76,941.00 of the total fee.

At the request of the Debtor, “Stroock” ceased acting as general counsel to the Debtor the latter part of November 1980 and on December 1, 1980 “Debtor” filed an application seeking authorization to retain Hale and Dorr, Esqs. of Boston, Mass. as general counsel and by an order dated December 15, 1980, the Court approved the application and further provided as follows:

“That no attorney or other professional person retained by the Debtor and approved by this Court or any attorney or professional person retained by the unsecured creditors’ committee shall receive any compensation either by way of fees or reimbursement of out-of-pocket disbursements except upon application to and approval by the Court.
That no payments to attorneys or professional persons retained either by the Debtor or unsecured creditors’ committee shall be paid by the Debtor or any other person who will acquire any property or shares of the Debtor under, or prior to confirmation of a Proposed Plan or Reorganization until such time as this Court approves the application by the attorney or professional person for such payment and determines the extent to which any such professional person will be entitled to payment from any third party including Venturtech Capital, Inc.”

Hale and Dorr filed an itemized bill for legal services rendered to debtor indicating 1598.7 hours of service and a total fee of $190,000.00 adjusted to $186,000.00 and expenses of $4911.13 for the period of November 14, 1980 through March 26, 1981; however, the narrative of services (Schedule A) reflects 1585.7 hours and a total fee of $171,118.00. The hourly rate billed varied from $60.00 to $65.00 per hour for “Associates”, $85.00-$95.00 per hour for “Junior Partners” and $110.00 to $175.00 per hour for “Senior Partners.” The “Senior Partners” put in 905.8 hours for a total of $127,-088.00 of the total bill.

“Stroock and Stroock and Lavan” were general counsel for the “debtor” from May 12, 1980 through November 14, 1980 while the “debtor” had been in Chapter 11 a period of six (6) months and together with its consultants Wheeler Curry and Associates (“Wheeler and Curry”) no plan of reorganization had been prepared, negotiated or filed and no new “capital venture capital” was in place. The latter is a usual prerequisite to a successful reorganization of a debtor suffering from a “cash flow” problem. The only hope of “Venturtech” and “Brennan”, both stockholders, to gain an equity position in the Debtor company was to agree to advance money to “Stroock” and attempt to protect their capital investment.

Hale and Dorr, Esqs. were general counsel for the debtor, from middle of November 1980 through March 1981, while “debtor” had been in Chapter 11 succeeding “Stroock” as general counsel. During the four month period, counsel finalized settlements with the banks — State Street Bank and Trust, Boston, Mass, reduced its claim from $590,-000.00 to approximately $409,000.00 in exchange for a cash payment due on the effective date of the “Plan” and First National Bank of Boston agreed to have its claim *43 paid over the course of one year with a $50,000.00 payment on the effective date of the “Plan”. The unsecured creditors, the orphans of the reorganization, were to receive 10% of stock ownership of the reorganized company which stock was not to be diluted by agreements with other creditors and interests.

Administration of the bankruptcy law for most of its history has been the operation of an economic funeral parlor. Those who failed in their business affairs brought the remains to the bankruptcy court for as peaceful a burial as possible. Of recent years an annex has been built to this funeral parlor because many of the business bodies brought in have been found to hold some breath of life, which, out of proper social and human considerations demands that such life be revived, if possible. This annex has grown into an economic hospital with many operating rooms and wards. In one wing, large corporations are operated upon. In another, small businesses are treated. In another, sick municipalities are given financial oxygen, and so on down the corridors of the “Bankruptcy Clinic Building”. In one of the wards we treat budgetary problems of individuals with regular incomes. The charter under which this hospital operates is open to all. Certainly, businessmen and corporations, be they private or municipal, have no patent on financial difficulties, since there are many individuals with regular income who have the same kind of difficulties and need the same kind of help.

The 1978 Reform Act specifically provides that compensation for attorneys shall be based on the cost of comparable services other than in a case under this title (11 U.S.C., Sec. 330(a)(1)). This, in the opinion of the court, is a point of reference and not a controlling determinant of what should be allowed in bankruptcy cases.

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

Related

Applications of Kurtzman
220 B.R. 805 (S.D. New York, 1998)
In Re Farah
141 B.R. 920 (W.D. Texas, 1992)
In Re Fred J. Szostek, Denise M. Szostek
886 F.2d 1405 (Third Circuit, 1989)
In Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
86 B.R. 7 (D. New Hampshire, 1988)
In Re Wendy's of Montana, Inc.
111 B.R. 314 (D. Montana, 1988)
In Re S.T.N. Enterprises, Inc.
70 B.R. 823 (D. Vermont, 1987)
In Re Seneca Oil Co.
65 B.R. 902 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1986)
In Re Jensen-Farley Pictures, Inc.
47 B.R. 557 (D. Utah, 1985)
United States v. Johanns
17 M.J. 862 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1983)
In Re Werth
32 B.R. 442 (D. Colorado, 1983)
In Re Rosen
25 B.R. 81 (D. South Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 B.R. 40, 6 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 150, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-rc-sanders-technology-systems-inc-nhb-1982.