1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 

SCOTT H. MCNUTT (CSBN 104696) 

324 Warren Road 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (415) 760-5601 

Email: shm@ml-sf.com 

Counsel to the Fee Examiner 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

 Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

Chapter 11 

MOTION TO APPROVE FEE 

PROCEDURES 

Date: October 8, 2019 

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 

..........450 Golden Gate Avenue 

..........16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

,,, 

I. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE 

By this Motion, Bruce Markell, the Court Appointed Fee Examiner, asks the Court for an 

order impacting all parties seeking the award of fees from the bankruptcy estate in these 

bankruptcy cases. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a chart of parties (the “Chart) that have filed 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 1 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 2 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

applications for employment in these bankruptcy cases, as well as those who have filed 

applications for interim compensation (henceforth referred to as “Fee Applicants” or 

“Respondents”). 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE. THE PARTIES NAMED IN EXHIBIT 1 ARE 

RESPONDENTS TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THIS MOTION. THE FEE EXAMINER 

CALLS TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL RESPONDENTS THAT THE ORDER REQUESTED 

BY THE FEE EXAMINER WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF FEES AND 

EXPENSES. THE PROCEDURES BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE FEE EXAMINER, AS 

WELL AS THE OTHER RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE FEE EXAMINER, WHEN ORDERED BY 

THE COURT, WILL BE BINDING ON THE RESPONDENTS IN THESE CASES. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE. ANY ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT 

WILL BE BINDING ON RESPONDENTS IN THESE CASES AND ANY OBJECTIONS OR 

OTHER RESPONSE BY RESPONDENTS WILL BE WAIVED IF NOT TIMELY MADE. THE 

COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED THAT ALL RESPONSES ARE DUE NO LATER 

THAN OCTOBER 1, 2019. See, Order Setting Motion To Approve Fee Procedures, Entered 

September 17, 2019 [Doc. No. 3918]. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE. THE FEE EXAMINER SPECIFICALLY 

CALLS TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL RESPONDENTS THE FOLLOWING: 

THE PUBLISHED GUIDELINES FOR COMPENSATION AND EXPENSE 

REIMBURSEMENT OF PROFESSIONALS AND TRUSTEES (the “Guidelines”); and 

PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES IN JUDGE MONTALI’S COURT, ESPECIALLY 

PARAGRAPHS II, J AND III, I (RE TRAVEL AND CONFLICTS CHECKS/ ETHICAL 

WALLS) (“Judge Montali’s Local Rules”). 

The Guidelines and Judge Montali’s local rules are both available on this Court’s website. 

II. INTRODUCTION 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 2 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 3 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

The Fee Examiner in these jointly administered bankruptcy cases moves this Court for an 

order establishing procedures for scheduling hearings on the interim fee applications currently 

pending, as well as to establish a procedure for scheduling all interim and final fee applications to 

be considered in the future. 

In addition, the Fee Examiner moves the Court for an Order determining certain issues of 

general application to interim and final fee applications. 

III. MOTION TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING HEARINGS ON 

INTERIM FEE APPLICATIONS 

Three documents control the Court’s consideration of Interim Fee Applications. These are: 

1) Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 331 and 105(a) and FRBP 2016 for Authority to 

Establish Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of 

Professionals, Entered February 28, 2019 [Doc. No. 701] (the “Interim Procedures 

Order”). 

2) Order Appointing Fee Examiner and Establishing Procedures for Consideration of 

Requested Fee Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses, Entered May 29, 2019 

[Doc. No. 2267] (the “Order Appointing Fee Examiner”). 

3) Notice by Fee Examiner of the Terms of Protocol Regarding Submission of Fee 

Applications As Required by Order Employing Fee Examiner, Entered August 30, 

2019 [Doc. No. 3762] (the “Protocol”). 

The Interim Procedures Order provides that “At four-month intervals or such other 

intervals convenient to the Court, Retained Professionals may file with the Court an application 

(an “Interim Application”). See Interim Procedures Order P.5. The Interim Procedures Order 

goes on to set the first opportunity to file an Interim Application as July 15, 2019 (45 days 

following May 31, 2019, defined as “The Initial Interim Fee Period”). See Interim Procedures 

Order ¶ 5. 

Under the Order Appointing Fee Examiner, a process is established whereby the Fee 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 3 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 4 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

Examiner produces an “Initial Report.” See Order appointing Fee Examiner, ¶ 6(e). After 

discussions with the Applicant, the Fee Examiner is to file a “Final Report.” See Order 

Appointing Fee Examiner, ¶ 6(g). Applicant then may file a “Final Response.” See Order 

Appointing Fee Examiner, ¶ 7. Thereafter, a hearing is scheduled as follows: “If applicable, 

hearings on the Applications shall be scheduled by the Court in consultation with Debtor’s 

Counsel after the filing of the applicable final reports by the Fee Examiner.” See Order 

Appointing Fee Examiner, ¶ 9. 

As it turns out, the Retained Professionals have been inconsistent in their adherence to 

these orders. No professional for the debtor, or any other professional, has thus far undertaken the 

task of coordinating hearings on interim applications. By this Motion, the Fee Examiner 

reluctantly assumes the role of coordinating this process. 

As of this writing, there are 23 retained professionals in these cases. Of these, only 9 have 

filed interim fee applications. Some filed by July 15, others filed later. Some followed the correct 

course and set no hearing dates while others set a hearing date. Employment Applications and 

Interim Fee Applications are summarized in the Chart attached as Exhibit 1. 

Wherefore, in light of the foregoing, the Fee Examiner asks the Court to order as 

follows: 

As to any currently pending interim fee application (defined as any interim fee application 

filed before October 8, 2019); 

 Only the Fee Examiner shall have authority to set a hearing date, and such dates 

shall be set under the provisions of Paragraph 9 of the Order Appointing Fee 

Examiner, i.e., after a final report, in coordination with the Debtors counsel, and 

grouped to advance judicial economy. 

 If a fee applicant and the Fee Examiner have reached a compromise, then a hearing 

should be set on the same basis and be coordinated with other fee hearings, so that 

hearings are grouped to advance judicial economy. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 4 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 5 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

As to future cycles of interim fee applications, the following procedures should be ordered; 

 Interim fee applications shall be considered every four months, as provided for in 

the Interim Procedures Order. Under that order the first interim fee applications 

were to be filed by July 15, 2019. Future interim applications may be filed at four 

month intervals commencing with that date. The next deadline to file an interim 

fee application shall be November 15, 2019, followed by March 15, 2020, and so 

on every four months. If an interim fee application is filed after the deadline, it will 

be deemed filed at the next interval. Each application will cover fees and expenses 

incurred through the end of the second full month preceding the deadline. For 

example, the applications filed November 15 shall cover time and expenses through 

September 30; the applications due March 15, 2020 will cover time and expenses 

through January 31, 2020. 

 In the discretion of the Fee Examiner, the hearing dates on the interim applications 

will be grouped into three blocks as follows: 

o The “core” debtors’ counsel and committee counsel (Keller Benvenutti, 

Weil Gotschal, Cravath, Milbank, and Baker Hostetler); 

o Debtors’ other legal counsel subject to fee examination; and 

o Non-legal professionals. 

 The Fee Examiner will determine when each block is set for hearing, attempting to 

do so in a manner respecting judicial economy and the efficient use of Fee 

Applicant’s time. The Fee Examiner may set each block on a different day. The 

goal is to group applications such that duplication of effort can be more easily 

detected (if it exists), and to also spread out the work of the Fee Examiner and his 

limited staff. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 5 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 6 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

IV. MOTION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ISSUES OF COMMON APPLICATION

ACROSS ALL INTERIM FEE APPLICATIONS 

A) Duplication and Overlap 

The Fee Examiner has informed all counsel that issues of duplication and overlap as 

between firms cannot be evaluated until all counsel have submitted interim fee applications, and 

maybe not until final fee applications. The Fee Examiner cannot evaluate duplication and overlap 

as between firms until the universe of fees is known and must reserve analysis of the issues of 

duplication and overlap until these issues have ripened. 

The Fee Examiner asks this court to order that any interim award of fees to any fee 

applicant does not waive or otherwise limit the Fee Examiner’s right to object at a future 

date based upon his determination of duplication or overlap as between multiple firms. 

B) Compensation for Non-Working Travel 

1. The Issue in This Case 

The Interim Fee Applications filed thus far contain time for “non-working travel.”1

 The 

numbers are large, especially since these Applications concern only the first four months. Indeed, 

for just the four major firms in the case, Weil, Cravath, Milbank, and Baker,2

 an aggregate of 

2,780 hours representing over $1 million in charges to the estate have been submitted, as shown 

by this chart: 

1

 One exception is Jenner & Block, which has chosen to follow its prepetition agreement and not 

bill for non-working travel. 

2

 In the chart, the time for Baker’s non-working travel is not taken from Baker’s application. It is 

the Fee Examiner’s estimate from an independent review of Baker’s time records. Baker’s first 

interim fee application requests $175,158.50 in reimbursement for 402.4 hours of non-working 

travel. In discussions with Baker over its interim fee application, the Fee Examiner’s estimate has 

formed the basis of discussions. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 6 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 7 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

Firm Hours Undiscounted Charge to Estate 

Weil 516.6 $337,370 

Cravath 1,581.20 $1,274,315 

Baker 496.1 $223,992 

Milbank 186.8 $205,946 

 Totals 2,780.70 $2,041,623 

 Discounted by 50% $1,020,812 

Many other professionals are also billing for travel to and from San Francisco. The travel 

is not only from New York, but also from Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and other parts of 

California. Many firms charge not only for travelling to Court, but also for travelling between 

offices of the same firm. 

2. The Fee Examiner’s Position 

The Fee Examiner does not object to billing while traveling if the professional is engaged 

in activity that benefits the estates. There are tasks that can be done while sitting, such as working 

on or reading briefs, studying financial projections, or other similar activities. The Fee Examiner 

also does not object to reasonable expense reimbursement for amounts paid to air carriers and 

other transportation companies. 

What the Fee Examiner does object to is billing for travel time when the professional is 

doing nothing else for an estate. In this regard, the Fee Examiner understands non-working travel 

to be time spent in transit to an estate-related activity during which the professional does nothing 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 7 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 8 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

else related to the estate. It is sitting on a plane watching a movie while flying to San Francisco; it 

is billing time going cross-town to meet a client or a witness.

The Fee Examiner’s Protocol states explicitly and succinctly that he will object to nonworking travel. Section 5.1.8 of the Protocol states: 

“Non-working travel time is not compensable. See ¶ 17 of the Local Guidelines.” 

The reference to the Local Guidelines was intentional. Paragraph 17 of the Local 

Guidelines states: 

Airplane Travel Time - Airplane travel time is not compensable, but work 

actually done during a flight is compensable. If significant airplane travel time is 

expected in a case, specific guidelines should be obtained for that case.3

This Court had indicated a possible modification of this prescription in its Practices and 

Procedures in Judge Montali’s Court (July 2018). Section III.I of that document states: 

Travel: Judge Montali generally will allow up to two hours of compensation for 

non-working airplane travel time to account for inevitable delays for security and 

administration involved in air travel. Other air travel time is not likely to be 

compensable, as set forth in Guideline 17 of the Guidelines for Compensation and 

Expense Reimbursement of Professionals and Trustees for the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (available on the court’s 

website) 

Although this guideline states what “generally” will be allowed, no professional at this 

stage has adopted this two-hour standard in its applications. All have charged their full time, and 

then the firms have applied for half of the time billed, basing this reduction on asserted United 

States Trustee guidance, which the Fee Examiner does not believe exists, please see below. 

3

 The Fee Examiner has also indicated in Section 5.2.2 of the Protocol that “Reasonable economy 

airfare (including “economy plus” or similar seating for transcontinental flights) is normal and 

reasonable.” The designation of “economy plus” as reasonable was intended, in part, to permit 

traveling professionals to be able to have some additional room in which to work while flying long 

distances. After review of the expenses of many firms, however, it appears that many 

professionals are flying first class, and then writing down the expense. Such choices reinforce the 

availability of a space while traveling within which reasonable work can be done. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 8 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 9 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

Building on these local rules and guidelines, the Fee Examiner has extended the limitation 

on non-working travel to any travel time (not just time traveling on planes) during which the 

professional is not engaged in matters related to these cases. The Protocol, however, does not 

incorporate the “general” two-hour allowance. 

The Fee Examiner understands that his position is controversial and not supported by the 

majority of cases. See In re Babcock & Wilcox Co., 526 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2008) (“there is 

not a consensus regarding the billing of travel time under § 330”; and collecting cases); 3 Collier 

on Bankruptcy ¶ 330.03[16][b] (Henry Sommers & Richard Levin, eds., 16th rev. ed. 2019). 

Nothing in any prior case or precedent, however, limits the discretion and authority of this 

court to construe what reasonable compensation is in these cases. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Fee Examiner believes that non-working travel should not be compensated. 

3. Non-Working Travel and Section 330(a) 

As an initial matter, Section 330(a)(1) of the Code states that the Court may award 

“reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services.” Non-working travel is not reasonable, 

for at least three reasons: 

 it results in hidden increases to hourly rates, 

 it compensates the attorney for opportunity cost, rather than for services rendered, and 

 it is random in its application. 

a. Hidden Increases in Hourly Rates 

The hidden increase to hourly rates is patent. A task – a court appearance – will cost more 

per hour if the attorney is flying in from New York, than if the lawyer were in San Francisco to 

begin with. The hourly cost of the true benefit – the lawyer’s actual court time – will not be the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 9 of

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 10 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

lawyer’s stated billing rate. It will have to be grossed-up to take into account the time to fly in and 

out of San Francisco. And with lawyers billing at $1,600 an hour, and with five-hour 

transcontinental flights, this could add as much as $16,000 to the cost of an appearance. 

b. Paying for Lost Opportunity Costs Is Not Beneficial to the Estate 

Firms have argued that while engaged in travel, the attorney cannot work on other matters, 

or enjoy leisure time, and thus the lost opportunity costs for these travels should be a charge to the 

estate. But that argument fails to employ Section 330(a)’s true test: whether there is benefit to the 

estate. Under that standard, it is irrelevant that a lawyer or the lawyer’s firm incurs lost 

opportunity cost. 

c. Non-Working Travel Time Calculation is Random with Respect to Benefit to 

the Estate 

Finally, even if lost opportunity costs can justify some compensation for non-working 

travel, the tracking of that time is random. This lack of logic for billing travel time can be seen by 

examining one of the key assumptions: billing for travel time assumes that the professional would 

otherwise be billing for just the time traveled; not less or more. In short, there is no connection 

between the length of travel – which is what is being billed – and the loss of a professional to 

other endeavors. True opportunity costs would look to when the professional would otherwise end 

his or her billing day. No firm has provided that information.

It is also random in that billing for non-working travel picks out one activity – travel – and 

marks it for compensation simply because the lawyer is getting ready to do work that benefits the 

estate. The same logic that sustains allowing such compensation would also allow lawyers to 

charge for time for going and coming to work, especially if they are working exclusively on one 

case. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 10

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 11 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

4. Other Justifications 

Although paragraph 17 of the Local Guidelines offers professionals the option to suggest 

other rules or guidelines, no professional has brought to the Fee Examiner’s attention any proposal 

for specific guidelines. 

Rather, all professionals have offered that they will reduce non-working travel by 50%. 

The Fee Examiner rejects this offer. The 50% markdown is loosely defended as either “approved 

by the United States Trustee in other cases” or “a market-based charge.” Neither justification is 

persuasive. 

As far as the Fee Examiner can determine, the United States Trustee does not have a 

formal 50% discount provision. In its “Guidelines for Reviewing Applications for Compensation 

and Reimbursement of Expenses Filed under 11 U.S.C. § 330 by Attorneys in Larger Chapter 11 

Cases Effective as of November 1, 2013”, the Office of the United States Trustee mentions “nonworking travel,” and leaves open the possibility that it could be allowed at discounted rates, but 

never sets a flat 50%, or any other number for that matter. See UST Guidelines ¶¶ B.2.k.; 

B.8.b.xvi. 

Indeed, when challenged by a comment that the market permitted undiscounted hourly 

rates for non-working travel, the Guideline’s response was that “These commenters did not 

provide any support for the contention that sophisticated clients routinely pay . . . full rates for 

non-working travel.” 

The United States Trustee has not communicated to the Fee Examiner any understanding 

or agreement to not object to full or discounted rates for non-working travel in this case. And, to 

the fee examiner’s knowledge, no attorney professional has provided any indication that their 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 11

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 12 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

practices on non-working travel in this case is accepted by any, let alone all or even a majority, of 

their non-bankruptcy clients. 

The Fee Examiner believes that the Local Guidelines should be followed. They were in 

place when all professional were hired, thus reducing or eliminating any reliance argument that 

professional may have that they expected a more favorable, set of standards. 

For the reasons outlined above, the Fee Examiner asks the Court to order that no 

compensation is allowed to professionals for non-working travel time. 

C) Treatment of Redacted Time Entries 

A number of fee applicants have objected to the Fee Examiner’s Protocol in that it 

disallows all time that is redacted. See Protocol at 5.1.4. The Fee Examiner believes such time 

can only be allowed when unredacted, or when, subject to appropriate confidentiality and privilege 

controls, the court (or designate) can review the substance of the redacted entry without destroying 

any claimed privilege. 

The Fee Examiner has encouraged fee applicants to seek relief from this Court if they 

disagree with the Protocol. The Fee Examiner has also incorporated into the Protocol citation to 

In re Las Vegas Monorail, 458 B.R. 553 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2011). The Fee Examiner believes this 

opinion sets forth useful suggestions on obtaining approval of redacted time entries and expenses. 

The Fee Examiner asks this Court to Order that redacted time entries are not 

compensable unless and until they are unredacted, or the fee applicant has sought and 

obtained a Court order approving a different procedure, or unless the fee applicant and the 

Fee Examiner reach an agreement whereby the Fee Examiner can review the redacted time 

entries subject to an agreement which maintains confidentiality and privilege. 

D) Compensation for Preparation of Employment Applications 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 12

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 13 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

For the purposes of this Motion, the Fee Examiner is concerned with the fees incurred 

obtaining court approval of employment, and ongoing billing activities. The Fee Examiner 

assumes that other, related issues must be decided in the future, specifically fees incurred in the 

fee application process, fees incurred responding to objections and fees incurred responding to the 

Fee Examiner. 

As regards employment applications, the Fee Examiner’s position is that most billing 

matters are overhead, and ought not to be charged to the client. It is double-dipping to charge a 

client for charging a client. This is particularly the case with employment applications. 

Although Section 330(a)(6) provides that “compensation awarded for the preparation of a 

fee application shall be based on the level and skill reasonably required to prepare the 

application,” and thus at least impliedly authorizing charging the estate for a lawyer’s billing, in 

this case firms have charged significantly large amounts related to the threshold act of 

employment of professionals. The following chart indicates the requests from the four major law 

firms for time related to Employment Applications and ongoing billing activities: 

Firm Hours Fees 

Weil 409.6 $283,017 

Cravath 671.10 $480,411 

Baker 823 $796,780 

Milbank 111.1 $80,814 

 Totals 2,014.80 $1,641,022 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 13

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 14 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

The Fee Examiner wants to make clear that not all of this time was incurred preparing 

employment applications. For example, as the Court may recall, Baker Hostetler incurred a 

substantial amount of time addressing disputes concerning the employment of a financial advisor. 

This makes the amount of time in this category unfairly lopsided as regards Baker Hostetler. 

However, the Fee Examiner does believe a substantial portion of the time reflected in this chart 

was incurred for preparation of employment applications and ongoing, routine billing matters, 

such as preparing fee applications and monthly statements under the Interim Procedures Order, 

and reviewing the fees of other professionals. 

The Fee Examiner objects to the majority of this time as unnecessary. It is particularly 

troublesome if the firm had previously represented the client prepetition. In these cases, all issues 

of conflicts should already have been addressed and resolved. 

This Court’s chambers guidelines are clear that such activity typically should not be 

allowed. Section III.I. of this Court guides states: 

Conflicts Checks/Ethical Walls/Change of Firms: Judge Montali expects counsel 

to write off, and will normally disallow, time spent identifying, clearing and 

avoiding conflicts and complying with FRBP 2014(a). Such time is similar to a 

firm absorbing the time expended on its own efforts to secure a new client, which 

Judge Montali doubts any professional would bill. . . . 

The Fee Examiner is aware that in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 327, both 

diligence and effort are required, and thus in a case of this size would allow some compensation in 

order to account for the magnitude of diligence. But not at the levels charged. As a result, the Fee 

Examiner requests the Court to set presumptive guidelines on billing for retention and billing 

activities. 

Given the diversity of professionals, and their prior experience with the debtors, the Fee 

Examiner would request a ruling that the presumptively reasonable charge for retention should be 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 14

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 15 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

no more than the blended hourly rate for the firm (if the firm partner to associate ratio was 33%) 

times 40 hours. One person working full time for a week. Amounts above that (or, from the Fee 

Examiner’s perspective, below that) are simple overhead for a firm. These costs are best 

categorized as a cost of doing business, not unlike the computer used to generate the billing itself, 

that the firm should absorb. 

In a similar fashion, the Fee Examiner believes that ongoing billing activities, such as 

preparing fee applications and monthly statements, should be limited to a monthly maximum 

equal to the blended hourly rate times 20 hours. A reasonably organized firm (and the rates 

charged by the firms in this case are rates that only a reasonably organized firm should charge) 

should not take more than half a week to prepare a bill, and to monitor other firms’ billing 

activities. 

The Fee Examiner requests the Court order these as presumptions. Some cases, especially 

for Committee Counsel, may warrant additional time. But it should be the applicant’s burden to 

justify the necessity for exceeding the presumptive amount. And that justification has to be more 

than simply “the time was spent.” The estates are entitled to know why excessive time was spent, 

and to be provided with a reasonable and supportable justification for the excess. 

V. SUMMARY 

Wherefore, in light of the foregoing, the Fee Examiner asks the Court to order as 

follows: 

As to any currently pending interim fee application (defined as any interim fee application 

filed before October 8, 2019); 

 Only the Fee Examiner shall have authority to set a hearing date, and such dates 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 15

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 16 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

shall be set under the provisions of Paragraph 9 of the Order Appointing Fee 

Examiner, i.e., after a final report, in coordination with the Debtors counsel, and 

grouped to advance judicial economy. 

 If a fee applicant and the Fee Examiner have reached a compromise, then a hearing 

should be set on the same basis and be coordinated so that hearings are grouped to 

advance judicial economy. 

As to future cycles of interim fee applications, the following procedures should be ordered; 

 Interim fee applications shall be considered every four months, as provided for in 

the Interim Procedures Order. Under that order the first interim fee applications 

were to be filed July 15, 2019. Future interim applications may be filed at four 

month intervals commencing with that date. The next opportunity to file an interim 

fee application shall be November 15, 2019, followed by March 15, 2019, and so 

on. These dates are to be considered deadlines. If an interim fee application is 

filed after the deadline, it will be deemed filed at the next interval. 

 In the discretion of the Fee Examiner, the hearing dates on the interim applications 

will be grouped into three blocks as follows: 

o The “core” debtors’ counsel and committee counsel (Keller Benvenutti, 

Weil Gotschal, Cravath, Milbank, and Baker Hostetler); 

o Debtors’ other legal counsel subject to fee examination; and 

o Non-legal professionals. 

 The Fee Examiner will determine when each block is set for hearing, attempting to 

do so in a manner respecting judicial economy and the efficient use of Fee 

Applicant’s time. 

The Fee Examiner asks this court to order that any interim award of fees to any fee 

applicant does not waive or otherwise limit the Fee Examiner’s right to object at a future date 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 16

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 17 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

based upon his determination of duplication or overlap as between multiple firms. 

The Fee Examiner asks the Court to order that no compensation is allowed to professionals 

for non-working travel time. 

The Fee Examiner asks this Court to Order that redacted time entries are not compensable 

unless and until they are unredacted, or the fee applicant has sought and obtained a Court order 

approving a different procedure, or unless the fee applicant and the Fee Examiner reach an 

agreement whereby the Fee Examiner can review the redacted time entries subject to an agreement 

which maintains confidentiality and privilege. 

The Fee Examiner asks the Court to Order that the fees incurred for the purpose of 

securing employment are presumptively limited to 40 hours billed at the firms blended hourly rate 

(assuming a partner to associate ratio of 33%, subject to adjustment to reflect the actual ratio). As 

for ongoing billing activities, these are limited to a monthly maximum of 20 hours billed at the 

firm’s blended hourly rate (as defined in the preceding parenthetical). 

DATED: September 19, 2019 SCOTT H. MCNUTT 

 By: /s/ Scott H. McNutt 

 Scott H. McNutt 

Counsel to the Fee Examiner 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 17

of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 18 MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURE 

 EXHIBIT 1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3950 Filed: 09/19/19 Entered: 09/19/19 18:34:46 Page 18

of 18