Court Opinion

ID: 9960986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 17:02:01.922427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:06.949625
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 17 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PETER SZANTO,                            No.    22-60015

                Debtor.                         BAP No. 21-1118

_______________                                 MEMORANDUM*
PETER SZANTO,

                Appellant,

 v.

CANDACE AMBORN, Chapter 7 Trustee;
LANE POWELL PC.,

                Appellees.

            Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
                               of the Ninth Circuit
      Scott H. Gan, Julia W. Brand, and Gary A. Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges

                             Submitted April 17, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Peter Szanto appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP)

judgment affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order to award professional compensation

to Lane Powell PC in the amount of $14,551.88. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s decision on appeal from the Bankruptcy

Court. In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002). We review a Bankruptcy Court’s

order awarding compensation to an attorney under 11 U.S.C. § 330 for abuse of

discretion. Hale v. United States Tr., 509 F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007); see also In

re Salgado-Nava, 473 B.R. 911, 915 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

      The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding compensation

to Lane Powell PC. The Bankruptcy Court authorized the Chapter 7 trustee to employ

David Criswell of Lane Powell to assist in recovering estate assets, and determined

that Criswell’s efforts were necessary and reasonably likely to benefit the estate.

      On August 16, 2016, Szanto filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition. In 2017, the

Bankruptcy Court converted the case to one under chapter 7. Around the time of

conversion, Szanto transferred significant funds to banks in Singapore. After an

evidentiary hearing, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order holding Szanto in contempt

and requiring him to turn over the transferred assets and to grant the Chapter 7 trustee

access to the Singapore accounts. Szanto refused to comply, resulting in two

additional contempt orders and, ultimately, a denial of Szanto’s discharge. The

Chapter 7 trustee initiated a proceeding in Singapore to enforce the Bankruptcy

                                          2
Court’s orders (the “Singapore Action”). The Bankruptcy Court then authorized the

Chapter 7 trustee to employ David W. Criswell (“Criswell”) of Lane Powell PC to

serve as an expert witness in the Singapore Action.

      Szanto argues 1) the Singapore Action was improper under Singaporean law

and 2) the Singapore court had sole authority to award compensation to Lane Powell

PC. Neither argument is persuasive.

      The propriety of the Singapore Action is a matter for the Singapore court to

decide. But for the purpose of awarding compensation for professional services, what

matters is that the Bankruptcy Court authorized the Chapter 7 trustee to employ Lane

Powell PC to assist in recovering estate assets, after determining that those services

were necessary and reasonably likely to benefit the estate. Trustees often must litigate

in courts besides the Bankruptcy Court on behalf of the estate, and professionals

employed to assist in such litigation are compensated under § 330(a). See In re

Mednet, 251 B.R. 103, 108 (9th Cir. BAP 2000).

       Szanto bases his argument that the Singapore court had sole jurisdiction to

award compensation on Singapore Order 40. But this authority is inapplicable.

Criswell testified before the Singapore court under Order 40A, not Order 40. Order

40A does not reserve the right to award compensation only to the Singaporean court.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3