UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

 

In re 

) 

) 

PROMESA 

Title III 

) 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

As a representative of ) 

) 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

et al., 

Debtors.1

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Re: Dkt. No. 3790 

Hearing date: September 13, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. 

(Atlantic Standard Time) 

) 

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL REGARDING FEE EXAMINER’S 

PRESUMUPTIVE STANDARDS MOTION SET FOR HEARING 

ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 AT 9:30 A.M. (AST) 

I, Eyck O. Lugo, counsel to the Fee Examiner in the above-captioned cases, hereby 

certify as follows: 

1. On August 21, 2018, the Fee Examiner filed the Fee Examiner’s Motion to 

Impose Presumptive Standards and Timeliness Requirements for Professional Fee Applications

[Dkt. No. 3790] (the “Presumptive Standards Motion”). 

 

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#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 16
2 

2. With the Presumptive Standards Motion, the Fee Examiner filed a draft Order on 

Fee Examiner’s Motion to Impose Presumptive Standards and Timeliness Requirements for 

Professional Fee Applications attached as Exhibit A (the “Proposed Presumptive Standards 

Order”). The Fee Examiner’s counsel widely circulated the motion and draft order before filing. 

3. Pursuant to the Sixth Amended Notice, Case Management and Administrative 

Procedures [Dkt. No. 3804-1], the deadline to object to the Presumptive Standards Motion was 

August 28, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. (the “Objection Deadline”). 

4. Three retained professionals (the “Challenging Professionals”) contacted 

counsel to the Fee Examiner prior to the tolling of the Objection Deadline, requesting revisions 

to the Proposed Presumptive Standards Order. 

5. To accommodate some of the expressed concerns, and to provide an opportunity 

to discuss those concerns, the Fee Examiner extended the Objection Deadline for the three 

Challenging Professionals to August 30, 2018 (the “Extended Objection Deadline”). The 

Challenging Professionals notified the Court by e-mail of the agreed Extended Objection 

Deadline. 

6. Counsel to the Fee Examiner and the Challenging Professionals have reached 

agreement on a revised, uncontested form of order granting the Presumptive Standards Motion 

and the revised order. 

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a revised Proposed Presumptive Standards Order 

incorporating the revisions. 

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a redline comparing the revised Proposed 

Presumptive Standards Order against the original version submitted as Exhibit A to the 

Presumptive Standards Motion. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 16
3 

9. Other than as stated herein, no party has objected, formally or informally, to the 

Presumptive Standards Motion, nor has any other party requested an extension of the Objection 

Deadline. 

WHEREFORE, the Fee Examiner respectfully requests that the Court enter the order 

attached as Exhibit A at its earliest convenience. 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date, we electronically filed the foregoing motion 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send notification of such filing to 

all attorneys of record registered in the use of the CM/ECF system. 

Dated this 31st day of August, 2018. 

EDGE Legal Strategies, PSC 

 s/Eyck O. Lugo 

Eyck O. Lugo 

252 Ponce de León Avenue 

Citibank Tower, 12th Floor 

San Juan, PR 00918 

Telephone: (787) 522-2000 

Facsimile: (787) 522-2010 

Puerto Rico Counsel for Fee Examiner 

GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. 

One East Main Street, Suite 500 

Madison, WI 53703 

Telephone: (608) 257-3911 

Facsimile: (608) 257-0609 

Katherine Stadler (Pro Hac Vice Approved) 

Counsel for the Fee Examiner 

19438096.1 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 16
EXHIBIT A 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

 

In re 

) 

) 

PROMESA 

Title III 

) 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

as a representative of ) 

) 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

et al., 

Debtors.1

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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 

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

 

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#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 16
2 

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#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 16
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#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 16
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. 

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. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 16
5 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2018 

 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN 

United States District Judge 

19425204.4 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 16
EXHIBIT B 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

 

In re 

) 

) 

PROMESA 

Title III 

) 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

as a representative of ) 

) 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

et al., 

Debtors.1

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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 sections 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 

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

 

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#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 16
2 

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 any objections to the relief requested herein having been 

withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after a hearing on September 13, 2018,after due 

deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED; 

2. The following presumptive standards shall govern all, 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, whether filed before or after the entry of this Order, except that any 

interim fee application that has been allowed or partially allowed through the entry of an interim 

compensation order shall not be subject to retroactive application of these standards: 

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. In considering whether this presumption has been rebutted, 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 12 of 16
3 

the Fee Examiner and—ultimately—the Court may consider whether

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 

ii. The information or pleadings obtained through a legal industry 

publications covering Puerto Rico, such as Reorg Research and 

Debtwire, were unreasonably delayed or withheld from interested 

parties and, therefore, wereor financial industry publication was

reasonably available promptly only through media accountssuch 

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, except to the extent the 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. AnyFee 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 byof the 

movant’s counsel that it has consulted with the principal party or parties in 

the proceeding andreasons the movant concluded that a separate pleading 

or separate participation is ethically or practicallywas required to represent 

the moving parties’ interests and, further, that a joint, shared, or partially 

shared pleading willwould not fulfillhave 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. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 13 of 16
4 

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. 

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. 6. 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. Fees incurred 

to respond to Fee Examiner requests for necessary information inappropriately omitted from a 

fee application, to negotiate extensively with the Fee Examiner over presumptions and/or 

adjustments to interim fee applications, or to litigate matters related to professional fees—

including these presumptions—will not be compensable unless the Court concludes that the 

applicant has substantially prevailed in challenging the Fee Examiner’s, taking into account the 

good faith basis for the applicant’s position. 

8. 7. 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. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 14 of 16
5 

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

agreement between a Debtor and its professionals. 

10. 8. 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. 9. 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. 

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

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

13. 11. This Order resolves docket entry no. ____3790. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2018 

 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN 

United States District Judge 

19374535.2

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 15 of 16
Summary report: 

Litéra® Change-Pro TDC 10.1.0.500 Document comparison done on 

8/31/2018 12:02:04 PM

Style name: GKFirm 

Intelligent Table Comparison: Active 

Original DMS: iw://GKDMS2K8/Active/19374535/2 

Modified DMS: iw://GKDMS2K8/Active/19425204/4 

Changes: 

Add 41 

Delete 26 

Move From 1 

Move To 1 

Table Insert 0 

Table Delete 0 

Table moves to 0 

Table moves from 0 

Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.) 0 

Embedded Excel 0 

Format changes 0 

Total Changes: 69 

19442623.1 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3849 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 18:37:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 16 of 16