Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schooler

United States District Court, S.D. California

March 14, 2017

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS V. SCHOOLER and FIRST FINANCIAL PLANNING CORPORATION, dba Western Financial Planning Corporation, Defendants. Category Total Category Total Applicant Fees Allowed % of Fees Incurred[3] Costs Allowed % of Costs Requested

          (1) GRANTING RECEIVER'S SEVENTEENTH INTERIM FEE APPLICATION; [ECF No. 1433] (2) DENYING ALLEN MATKINS' SEVENTEENTH INTERIM FEE APPLICATION; [ECF No. 1434] (3) APPROVING RECEIVER'S SEVENTEENTH STATUS REPORT; [ECF No. 1422] (5) VACATING HEARING DATE

          HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are the seventeenth interim fee applications of the Court-appointed receiver Thomas C. Hebrank (the “Receiver”) and Counsel to Receiver, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP (“Allen Matkins”):

1. Seventeenth Interim Application for Approval and Payment of Fees and Costs to Thomas C. Hebrank, as Receiver (“Receiver's Seventeenth Interim Fee Application”), ECF No. 1433;
2. Seventeenth Interim Fee Application of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, Counsel to Receiver (“Allen Matkins' Seventeenth Interim Fee Application”), ECF No. 1434.

Receiver has also submitted for Court approval, a Seventeenth Interim Report. ECF No. 1422. Neither the Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), nor Defendants have filed any response to the fee applications or the status report.

         BACKGROUND

         A. Receiver

         In the Seventeenth Interim Fee Application, Thomas C. Hebrank, the Receiver, asserts that he incurred $107, 113.50 in fees and $1, 713.69 in costs for the application period covering July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016 (“Seventeenth Application Period”). ECF No. 1433 at 2.[1] The breakdown of the fees amassed is as follows:

Category
Total

General Receivership

$6, 831.00

Asset Investigation & Recovery

$0.00

Reporting

$5, 928.75

Operations & Asset Sales

$86, 600.25

Claims & Distributions

$846.00

Legal Matters & Pending Litigation

$6, 907.50

Total

$107, 113.50

Id. at 3-6. Receiver now seeks payment of 80% of the fees he incurred, amounting to $85, 690.80, and 100% of the costs, which account for postage, mailings, website maintenance, and copies. Id. at 2 & Exhibit C.

         B. Allen Matkins

         In the Seventeenth Interim Fee Application, Allen Matkins (“Counsel to Receiver”), asserts that it incurred $99, 325.35 in fees and $503.96 in costs for the application period covering July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016, same as the Seventeenth Application Period identified previously. ECF No. 1434 at 2. The breakdown of the fees amassed is as follows:

Category
Total

General Receivership

$51, 444.00

Reporting

$4, 450.50

Operations & Asset Sales

$38, 459.25

Claims & Distributions

$2, 177.10

Third Party Recoveries

$362.25

Employment/Fees

2, 432.25

Total

$99, 325.35

Id. Allen Matkins now seeks payment of 80% of the fees incurred, amounting to $79, 460.28, and 100% of the costs, accounting for document searches, recordation fees, filing fees, service of process, and court messenger fees. Id. at 2 & Exhibit A at 26-27.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “[I]f a receiver reasonably and diligently discharges his duties, he is entitled to fair compensation for his efforts.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1577 (11th Cir. 1992). “The court appointing [a] receiver has full power to fix the compensation of such receiver and the compensation of the receiver's attorney or attorneys.” Drilling & Exploration Corp. v. Webster, 69 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1934). A receiver's fees must be reasonable. See In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 962 F.2d 1402, 1409 (9th Cir. 1992).

         As set forth in the Court's prior fee orders, see, e.g., ECF No. 1167, the Court will assess the reasonableness of the requested fees using the factors enumerated in Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, 364 F.Supp. 1220, 1222 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) and In re Alpha Telcom, Inc., 2006 WL 3085616, at *2-3 (D. Or. Oct. 27, 2006). Those factors include: (1) the complexity of the receiver's tasks; (2) the fair value of the receiver's time, labor, and skill measured by conservative business standards; (3) the quality of the work performed, including the results obtained and the benefit to the receivership estate; (4) the burden the receivership estate may safely be able to bear; and (5) the Commission's opposition or acquiescence. See 364 F.Supp. at 1222; 2006 WL 3085616 at *2-3.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Interim Fee Applications

         A. Complexity of Tasks

         1. Receiver

         The Court finds that the tasks performed by the Receiver during the Seventeenth Application Period were moderately complex. The Receiver undertook the following tasks during the period:

- handling general administrative matters, including reviewing correspondence directed at the Receivership entities;
- administering the bank accounts of the Receivership entities;
- reviewing and approving expenditures;
- maintaining and updating the Receiver's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.