Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: actions in defense of HWB

Text: Hawaii Ventures argues that a substantial amount of fees and costs charged by Receiver Park and her professionals were for the specific defense of pre-receivership claims against HWB. Hawaii Ventures specifically contends that: Only in the January 9, 2002 fee application[, i.e., the second fee application, ] were thousands of dollars of charges revealed for defending a federal action against HWB. . . . The legal bills contain repeated references to HWB['s] matters and assistance to Otaka. Denied any accounting from the attorneys, [the] Lender cannot know what they actually defended. (Emphasis added.) (Citations to the record omitted.) In other words, Hawaii Ventures appears to maintain that, because Receiver Park was not the receiver for the Otaka's affiliate, i.e., HWB, fees for any work performed by the Receiver and her professionals on behalf and in defense of HWB should not have been at the cost to the Estate and, therefore, should have been disallowed. Hawaii Ventures, however, did not point to any portion of the January 9, 2002 fee application (the second fee application) to support its contention. Rather, Hawaii Ventures cites to several portions of the third fee application  namely, the invoices from the law firm of Ning, Lilly & Jones, the real estate firm of Ron Tom Realty LLC, and the accounting firm of PKF. Those portions, however, do not appear to contain any entries relating to the federal action against HWB, except for one entry in PKF's December 10, 2001 invoice: DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS 11/08/01 Analyze November 7, 2001 letter from Anna Elento Sneed and October 5, 2001 1.25 complaint in ILWU v. HWB (.25); investigate electronic docket (.25); e-mail to Ke-Ching Ning about Pat Park about same (.25); telephone call from Ning about same; e-mails from Park about same; analyze ILWU statement of position (.50). (Emphases added.) Nonetheless, an examination of the cumulative fee application reveals additional related entries. For example, Receiver Park's invoice, dated January 8, 2002, contained the entry numbered 1. below and an invoice from Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore & Hetherington, dated February 13, 2002, contained the entries numbered 2. through 4. below: DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS 1. 12/20/01 Telephone call to Ms. Ning on billings to court; status; status of sale of KSR 0.30 equipment and federal court action re. [HWB]. 2. 01/09/02 Outline and draft motion for instructions that Receiver not defend complaint in 3.25 Civil No. 01-00653 DAE LEK (D.Haw.) on behalf of [HWB] (1.0); update research about same (.75); revise and finalize same (.5); telephone call from Ke-Ching Ning about same (.25); e-mail and phone mail from Jeanne Jang about October 12, 2001 letter from Michael Murata (.25); analyze jurisdictional statement by plaintiff (.25). 3. 01/30/02 Further analyze Otaka's opposition to motion for instructions that [Receiver] 1.00 not defend [HWB] (.25); draft reply memorandum in support of motion (.65); e-mail to Pat Park and Ke-Ching Ning about same (.10). 4. 01/30/02 Work on response to Otaka['s] memo[randum] in opp[osition] to Receiver's 1.00 motion not to defend complaint to compel arbitration. As previously stated, Receiver Park, as a precautionary measure, filed a motion for instructions, on August 3, 2001, that she not defend HWB against the complaint to compel arbitration in the federal action. Receiver Park indicated that she did not represent HWB and, thus, was not the proper party to defend HWB. The circuit court granted the motion. See also section I.B., Procedural History, 08/03/01 entry. The appointment order expressly authorized Receiver Park to institute, prosecute and defend, compromise, adjust, intervene in or become a party to such actions or proceedings in state or federal court as the Receiver may in the Receiver's reasonable judgment deem necessary or proper for the management, protection, care, maintenance or preservation of the Estate or the carrying out the Receiver's duties [.] (Emphases added.) Consequently, had Receiver Park not expended her time to obtain guidance from the circuit court regarding the scope of her duty to defend, she risked being found in breach of her duties to maintain and preserve the Estate, as well as potentially exposing the Estate to additional burdens. Accordingly, we do not believe the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the fees incurred as a result of Receiver Park's efforts to secure such guidance from the court. [28]