Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03836-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CROWN PAPER LIQUIDATING TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP f/k/a

COOPERS & LYBRAND, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. 02-3836 MMC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY

MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF

ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS AND

REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF

SUPERSEDEAS BOND OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR ORDER

PERMITTING TRUST TO BE ADVANCED

MONEY

On March 30, 2005, the Court granted defendant Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin’s

(“Houlihan”) motion for an award of attorney’s fees, and awarded Houlihan fees and nontaxable costs in the total amount of $480,385.43. Additionally, on March 30, 2005, the

Court granted defendant Credit Suisse First Boston LLC’s (“Credit Suisse”) motion for an

award of attorney’s fees, and awarded Credit Suisse fees and non-taxable costs in the total

amount of $824,913. On April 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the abovereferenced orders.

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “emergency motion,” pursuant to Rule 62(d) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8005 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure, to stay enforcement of the above-referenced orders pending appeal and for a

reduction of the bond requirement. Alternatively, and in the event the Court were to find a

Case 3:02-cv-03836-MMC Document 400 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

reduction of the bond amount is not appropriate, plaintiff requests permission from the

Court to allow plaintiff’s counsel to advance plaintiff the funds necessary to obtain a

supersedeas bond or to pay off the attorney’s fees awards. Houlihan and Credit Suisse

have filed a joint response, stating that while they do not oppose the Court’s granting

permission to allow plaintiff’s counsel to advance plaintiff the funds necessary to pay off the

attorney’s fees awards, Houlihan and Credit Suisse oppose the other forms of relief sought

by plaintiff and seek the opportunity to respond to those aspects of the motion on the

merits.

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, notes that plaintiff has not provided a

proposed order or orders specifying the relief sought, and, in particular, the specific amount

and other terms of the bond.

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. Plaintiff shall submit to the Court and serve on Houlihan and Credit Suisse a

proposed order as to each alternative form of relief sought.

2. Within five court days of the date plaintiff serves the proposed orders on Houlihan

and Credit Suisse, Houlihan and Credit Suisse shall file its opposition to the motion.

3. Within five court days of the filing of the opposition, plaintiff may file a reply.

4. Thereafter, unless the parties are advised otherwise, the Court will rule on the

matter on the papers submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03836-MMC Document 400 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2