The Getchell Agency
16-10172
Bankr. D. Me.Jun 22, 2017Background
- The Getchell Agency, Inc. (TGA) and its sole shareholder Rena J. Getchell filed chapter 11 petitions and their cases were jointly administered. TGA retained Point to Point Business Specialists, LLC (Applicant) as financial/management consultants; Retention Order entered April 4, 2016.
- Applicant previously received an interim fee award on a first application; this decision addresses Applicant’s second interim fee application seeking $34,962.00 in fees and $2,546.50 in expenses.
- The Court previously warned about potential duplication among multiple professionals retained by debtor(s); eight professionals had been engaged and interim awards exceeded $520,000.20.
- The Second Fee Application contained minimal narrative and attached invoices with many vague, lumped, or potentially duplicative time entries; the Court requested supplemental detail and received statements from Applicant and TGA.
- The Court evaluated the submission under 11 U.S.C. § 330, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014/2016, and D. Me. LBR 2014-3 / 2016-1, and disallowed certain charges for vagueness, lumping, services outside the retention (personal services to Ms. Getchell), and some potentially duplicative work.
- Result: on interim basis the Court allowed $33,333.40 in fees and $2,546.50 in expenses (total $35,879.90) and disallowed $1,628.60 in fees; warnings were issued about future scrutiny and possible disgorgement at final fee review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of fee detail/time entries | Applicant: historic billing practices limit entry detail; billed only portion of time; supplemental narrative provided some clarifications | Court/TGA: must meet Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016 and local rules; narrative and task records required to assess reasonableness | Court: many entries were insufficient; disallowed portion (10% of vague entries) and warned future insufficiencies may lead to larger disallowances |
| Lumping of multiple tasks in single entries | Applicant: customary practice and difficulty separating varied small tasks | Court: lumping prevents assessment of reasonableness | Court: identified lumped entries and disallowed half of lumped fees (except one also vague entry) |
| Duplication with other professionals (tax, DHHS matters, counsel) | Applicant: financial role justified involvement (e.g., tax benefits, reconciling records) | Court/TGA: other professionals (Purdy Powers, Rudman Winchell, Perkins Olson, counsel) were retained for overlapping matters; must explain unique contribution | Court: found many entries possibly duplicative (27.05 hrs, $5,088.25); required better explanation; did not entirely disallow but warned of final review and potential disgorgement |
| Scope of retention — services to Ms. Getchell personally and political/Governor communications | Applicant: performed work informed by financial data and provided support; some personal matters assisted | Court/TGA: retention authorized only for TGA; services for Ms. Getchell individually or political outreach fall outside scope | Court: disallowed $534.75 for personal services; flagged Governor/letter work as apparently outside scope and subject to future scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- None (opinion relies primarily on statutory and local rule authority: 11 U.S.C. § 330/327/328/331; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014 & 2016; D. Me. LBR 2014-3 & 2016-1).