Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: activities to correct wrongful payments

Text: Hawaii Ventures' argument, in its entirety, with respect to the correction of wrongful payments is that, [u]nder the supervision of the Receiver, with advice from the Receiver's highly-paid accountants, the Estate was severely damaged by many wrongful and misrepresented payments. A substantial amount of fees approved to be paid to the Receiver and her professionals were incurred to correct their initial and misleading accountings in the face of growing indications of false statements and denials of payment of pre-receivership obligations. (Emphases added.) In support of its contention, Hawaii Ventures points to an affidavit of its New York counsel, K.C. McDaniel, and to the Special Master's report. Specifically, the affidavit was attached to Hawaii Ventures' memorandum in opposition to Receiver Park's motion for order approving settlement with one of the Estate's creditors, intervenor-defendant/appellee/cross-appellee Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut). [26] Therein, McDaniel provided, inter alia, her view concerning workers' compensation insurance policies. [27] Hawaii Ventures also points to those sections within the Special Master's report wherein he explained each payment as being justified or a receivable. However, neither McDaniel's affidavit nor the identified sections of the Special Master's report provide any assistance in clarifying Hawaii Ventures' contention. A party opposing a fee application must carry the burden of explaining what therein is unreasonable or, at least, what would be reasonable under the circumstances. Absent such evidence by the objectant, the opposition fails. It is not for the [c]ourt to supply such evidence or the detail required to support the objectant's overly general pleading. Thus, just as the court should not justify a fee for the applicant, it should not have to fashion an objection for a complaining party. In re Blackwood Assocs., L.P., 165 B.R. 108, 112 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1994) (internal quotation marks, citations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); In re Hunt's Health Care, Inc., 161 B.R. 971, 982 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1993) ([T]his court should not heed a creditor's unexplained dissatisfaction. . . . The objector must, at some point, identify any allegedly improper, insufficient, or excessive entries and direct the court's attention to them.). Thus, Hawaii Ventures' general opposition, without more, must fail.