Law Offices of Wake v. Joint Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

Good Law
21 F. App'x 723
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 1, 2001No. 00-15769; D.C. No. CV-99-00855-PGR; Bankr.Case Nos: B-92-08152-PHX-RTB and B-93-02133-PHX-RTBCalifornia809 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Law Offices of Neil Vincent Wake (“Wake”) argues that both the bankruptcy court and the district court erred by denying his application under 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b) to recover as an administrative expense of the bankruptcy estate the fees he incurred preparing a motion to appoint a trustee or an examiner with expanded powers. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts integral to our decision.

The bankruptcy court denied Wake’s application on two independent grounds: (1) Wake’s work on the Examiner/Trustee and Trustee Motions did not make a substantial contribution to the bankruptcy proceedings; and (2) Wake’s fees had not been “incurred by” the Handel Group, who had no obligation to pay Wake absent allowance of his fees as an administrative expense under § 503(b). The United States District Court for the District of Arizona affirmed both grounds for the bankruptcy court’s decision. Because we affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision that Wake did not make a substantial contribution to the bankruptcy proceedings, we do not address the merits of the alternative ground for the decision.

“The inquiry concerning the existence of a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.