In Re Chips 'N Twigs, Inc.
OPINION
One of the most vexing issues confronting the court in the distribution of administrative expenses in Chapter 11 cases is that of priority. In the instant case, for instance, the query presented is whether counsel to a creditors’ committee may be paid in full the interim compensation awarded him when there are insufficient assets to pay in full all other administrative claimants. On the basis of the reasons set forth below, we conclude that interim fees cannot be paid.
The facts of this controversy are as follows: 1 The debtor filed a petition for reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”). We appointed a committee of unsecured creditors and authorized the committee’s employment of counsel. After several months passed, a creditor, GST Corporation (“GST”), filed an application for the payment of administrative expenses on the basis that it supplied goods in the ordinary course of business to the debtor after the filing of the petition. Counsel to the creditors’ committee also filed an application for interim counsel fees. Another creditor, Frederick Wholesale Corp. (“Frederick”), filed an objection to the payment of any administrative expenses on the basis that there were insufficient assets in the estate to pay all administrative expenses, and thus, payment of the requested expenses would be in derogation of the Code since some administrative claimants would be paid in full, others might be paid in part, while others might never be paid. Frederick and the creditors’ committee acquiesce in the belief that the estate’s assets are insufficient to pay all administrative expenses in full.
With the passage of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, of which the Code is the major part, Congress incorporated authority for the allowance of interim compensation:
§ 331. Interim compensation.
A trustee, an examiner, a debtor’s attorney, or any professional person employed under section 327 or 1103 of this title may apply to the court not more than once every 120 days after an order for relief in a case under this title, or more often if the court permits, for such compensation for services rendered before the date of such an application or reimbursement for expenses incurred before such date as is provided under section 330 of this title. After notice and a hearing, the court may allow and disburse to such applicant such compensation or reimbursement.
However, the authority for the actual
payment
of administrative expenses — as
*111
opposed to their mere
allowance
— is within the sound discretion of the court, subject to the principles discussed below.
In Re Kors,
As to the application of the creditors’ committee, the committee contends that the principle of parity in the payment of administrative expenses under
The position of the creditors’ committee, which we explicitly reject, is unequivocally supported by one case which originated in the bankruptcy court in Utah.
2
In Re Callister,
Judge Mabey’s concern that competent counsel could not be attracted unless
Attorneys may, as Levin & Weintraub did here, secure a portion of their fee in advance. If attorneys need more encour *112 agement than this to participate in chapter 11 proceedings, Congress, not the courts, must provide it. Under the law as it presently exists, knowledgeable bankruptcy attorneys must be aware that the priority ordinarily given to administrative expenses may prove illusory in light of the various provisions in the Code for competing or super-priorities.
Flagstaff,
As to GST’s application for the payment of administrative expenses, the authority cited above likewise applies. GST’s support for immediate payment of its administrative expense notwithstanding the insufficiency of funds to pay all administrative expenses, is
In Re Western Farmers Assoc.,
Since it currently appears that there are insufficient assets in the estate to pay all administrative expenses in full, we will enter an order sustaining Frederick’s objection to the payment in full of those expenses and deny both GST’s application for the payment of expenses and the application of the creditors’ committee for the disbursement of interim fees.
Notes
. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Bankruptcy Rule 7052.
. In addition to
Callister
the creditors’ committee also cites
Citibank, N.A.
v.
Official Creditors’ Committee of Wilson Freight
(In Re Wilson Freight Co.),