Qmect, Inc. v. Burlingame Capital Partners II, L.P. (In re Qmect, Inc.)

Good Law
2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3328·359 B.R. 266
United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 16, 2006Bankruptcy Nos. 04-41044 T, 04-46443 T; Adversary Nos. 04-4190 AT, 04-4365 AT, 04-4366 ATCalifornia1,370 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tchaikovsky, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR POST-PETITION ATTORNEYS’ FEES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendant Burlingame Capital Partners II, L.P. (“Burlingame”) seeks an award of post-petition attorneys’ fees and costs as part of its judgment in the above-captioned consolidated adversary proceedings. For the reasons stated below, the request will be denied without prejudice.

The above-captioned adversary proceedings were filed in two related chapter 11 cases — i.e., the case of Qmect, Inc. (“Qmect”), a corporation, and the case of *268 Fred and Linda Koelling (the “Koellings”), shareholders of Qmect and guarantors of some of its obligations. In one of the adversary proceedings, Qmect sought to equitably subordinate Burlingame’s claim and objected to the claims filed by Burlin-game and its affiliate, Electrochem Funding, LLC (“Funding”). This proceeding was filed as an original matter in the bankruptcy court. The other two adversary proceedings were filed in state court initially, either by or against Qmect and/or the Koellings. Cross-complaints were filed in each proceeding. Both proceedings were removed to the bankruptcy court after Qmect’s and the Koellings’ chapter 11 cases were filed.…

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.