180913 PRESUMPTIVE FEE STANDARDS ORDER.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER ON FEE EXAMINER’S MOTION 

TO IMPOSE PRESUMPTIVE STANDARDS AND 

TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL FEE APPLICATIONS 

Upon the Fee Examiner’s Motion to Impose Presumptive Standards and Timeliness 

Requirements for Professional Fee Applications (the “Motion”); and the Court having found it 

has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to PROMESA section 306(a); and it 

appearing that venue is proper pursuant to PROMESA section 307(a); and the Court having 

found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interests of the Debtors, their creditors, 

and other parties in interest; and the Court having found that the Fee Examiner provided 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

(“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). 

(Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations.) 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3932 Filed:09/13/18 Entered:09/13/18 16:00:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
180913 PRESUMPTIVE FEE STANDARDS ORDER.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 2

adequate and appropriate notice of the Motion under the circumstances, including that the relief 

sought in the Motion is supported by good cause as contemplated by Bankruptcy Rule 9006, and 

that no other or further notice is required; and the Court having reviewed the Motion and the 

Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion establish just 

cause for the relief granted herein; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing 

therefor, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED; 

2. The following presumptive standards, which the Fee Examiner has represented 

embody standards that he has generally and consistently applied since the outset of his 

appointment, shall continue to be applied in the Fee Examiner’s review of fee applications filed 

in these Title III cases after the entry of this Order: 

a. For attendance at mediation sessions, fees and expenses incurred by any 

more than two timekeepers per professional firm are not compensable; 

provided, however, that if a mediation session covers more than one of the 

Debtors or unrelated issues for the same Debtor, the number of 

timekeepers may be increased. 

b. For attendance at hearings in which a professional anticipates a speaking 

role, fees and expenses incurred for attendance by timekeepers other than 

those with meaningful speaking roles (plus one additional timekeeper per 

speaker) are not compensable. In addition, the local rules require pro hac 

vice sponsors to appear with their co-counsel and, accordingly, each party 

participating in a hearing will be compensated for the attendance of Puerto 

Rico counsel, whether or not the latter speaks at the hearing. 

c. For monitoring hearings (whether in person or by telephone) in which the 

professional has no meaningful speaking role, fees and expenses incurred 

by any more than one timekeeper per professional are not compensable. 

d. Fees and expenses incurred for reviewing generally available broadcast 

and published news reports or summaries about these cases are not 

compensable unless: 

i. The review relates directly to the professional’s work on current or 

emerging issues subject to actual or likely litigation involving a 

Debtor; or 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3932 Filed:09/13/18 Entered:09/13/18 16:00:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
180913 PRESUMPTIVE FEE STANDARDS ORDER.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 3

ii. The information obtained through a legal or financial industry 

publication was reasonably available promptly only through such 

publications. 

e. For legal professionals, fees and expenses incurred to review case dockets 

on a daily, weekly, or other routine periodic basis by any more than one 

designated timekeeper (at a time) are not compensable. A 

paraprofessional or client should perform this task wherever possible. 

f. For non-legal professionals (financial professionals, consultants), fees and 

expenses incurred to monitor case dockets and review legal pleadings 

(other than to review summaries prepared by counsel) are not 

compensable unless: 

i. The review is explicitly directed by a legal professional for a 

specifically stated purpose; or 

ii. The review relates directly to the financial professional’s active work 

on a current or emerging issue directly affecting the professional’s 

client. 

g. Fee applications requesting compensation for the preparation of any 

motion for intervention or for permission to file an amicus brief in any 

court presiding over matters arising in or under Title III of PROMESA, or 

related to these Title III cases, shall contain a brief statement of the 

reasons the movant concluded that a separate pleading or separate 

participation was required to represent the moving parties’ interests and, 

further, that a joint, shared, or partially shared pleading would not have 

fulfilled that obligation, whether ethical or practical. In assessing 

reasonableness, the Fee Examiner will determine whether the applicant 

consulted with the principal party or parties in the proceeding to determine 

whether a coordinated effort would have been appropriate. Intervention 

briefs required pursuant to the order of a court will not be subject to this 

presumption. 

3. The burden remains on each professional to demonstrate the reasonableness and 

necessity of fees and expenses exceeding these standards in light of the unique facts and 

circumstances presented. 

4. Nothing in this Order shall restrict any party, including the U.S. Trustee and the 

Fee Examiner, from objecting to a professional’s fees and expenses even within the parameters 

of these presumptions. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3932 Filed:09/13/18 Entered:09/13/18 16:00:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
180913 PRESUMPTIVE FEE STANDARDS ORDER.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 4

5. Nothing in this Order shall restrict the Fee Examiner from, in his discretion, 

electing not to apply a presumption to a professional application if, in his judgment, application 

of the presumption would be unreasonable under the circumstances. 

6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any party from challenging or rebutting any of 

the presumptions set forth herein, which are general guidelines only. 

7. Fees incurred by applicants to provide the basis for rebutting a presumption in an 

initially filed fee application are compensable if they are otherwise reasonable, taking into 

account the good faith basis for the applicant’s position. 

8. Nothing in this Order shall alter or amend any express term of a previously 

entered order concerning the employment or retention of a professional. To the extent that a 

conflict exists between the terms of this Order and a professional’s court-approved express 

retention terms, a retention order may provide support for rebutting a presumption. 

9. Nothing in this Order shall alter or amend any express term of an engagement 

agreement between a Debtor and its professionals. 

10. Any professional more than four months behind in filing an interim fee 

application shall be prohibited from submitting monthly statements for payment under the 

Interim Compensation Procedures until the late interim application has been filed. 

11. The Fee Examiner may, upon notice and a hearing, request additional 

presumptions based on issues that emerge in the review of subsequent or pending but unresolved 

interim fee applications. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3932 Filed:09/13/18 Entered:09/13/18 16:00:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
180913 PRESUMPTIVE FEE STANDARDS ORDER.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 5

12. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or 

related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order. 

13. This Order resolves docket entry no. 3790. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 13, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN 

 United States District Judge 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3932 Filed:09/13/18 Entered:09/13/18 16:00:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5