In re Barry Yao Co.

Respondents move for a rehearing of the petition for review, which resulted in an order denying Messrs. Quittner and Zimmerman any compensation for their services as special counsel for the receiver on the ground that their failure to set forth fully and accurately in their petition for fees “the value and extent of the services rendered,” as required by § 62, sub. d of the Bankruptcy Act, amounted to a material misrepresentation of the facts. 11 U.S.C.A. § 102 , sub. d; see In re Barry Yao Co., D.C.S.D.Cal.1959, 172 F.Supp. 375 .

In support of this motion it is first argued that, upon the review of a referee’s order allowing fees, the court is restricted to a consideration of issues; raised before the referee and by the petition for review, and may not properly consider other questions sua sponte. This, contention is without merit. Both precedent and policy sustain the rule that a “District Court is empowered at any time before the estate is closed to review, without petition, the action of the referee in administrative matters such as the allowance of compensation.” Goodman v. Street, 9 Cir., 1933, 65 F.2d 686, 687 ; In re F. P. Newport Corp., D.C.S.D.Cal.1955, 137 F.Supp. 58,…