southern district of florida securities and … · united states district court southern district...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL LAUER,

LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and

LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP II, LLC,

Defendants,

and

LANCER OFFSHORE, INC., LANCER PARTNERS, LP,

OMNIFUND, LTD., LSPV, INC., and LSPV, LLC,

Relief Defendants.

___________________________________________/

COLSON HICKS EIDSON’S FINAL FEE APPLICATION

AND REQUEST FOR FINAL FEE RECOVERY AWARD

Colson Hicks Eidson (“CHE”) submits its final fee application in this matter and its

request for a final fee recovery award pursuant to the terms of CHE’s original retention in this

matter by the Receiver. CHE has consulted with the Receiver prior to the filing of this Final Fee

Application, and the Receiver supports this application. In addition, CHE has consulted with

counsel for the Group Plaintiffs prior to the filing of this Final Fee Application, and counsel has

indicated that they do not oppose the request set forth below.

Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 of 15


-2-

FINAL FEE APPLICATION

Pursuant to the Receivership Order, and with the approval of the Court, the Receiver has

engaged and employed the law firm of CHE to act as Special Counsel to the Receivership

Entities. CHE was retained by the Receiver, with the approval of the Court, effective March 1,

2004.

This is CHE’s final fee application. This fee application covers the work done over a past

sixteen-month period, from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009 (the “Application Period”).

By this Application, CHE respectfully requests compensation for the Application Period in the

amount of $8,855.00 fees and $633.23 in costs for a total of $9,488.23, to be paid by the

Receivership. These fees represent an agreed upon 50% reduction of CHE’s normal hourly rates

for attorneys, reflecting a savings of $6,425.00 for the Application Period.1

The exhibits attached to this application include Exhibit 1-A – Summary of Professional

and Paraprofessional Time; Exhibit 1-B – Summary of Professional and Paraprofessional Time

by Activity Code; Exhibit 2 – Summary of Requested Reimbursement of Expenses; and Exhibit

3 – Detailed Time Entries (redacted where necessary to protect the attorney-client privilege

and/or attorney work product privilege).

During the Application Period, CHE has rendered services for and on behalf of the

Receivership estate. The following categories describe the services rendered by CHE during the

Application Period.

1 On July 13, 2004 CHE entered into an agreement with the Receiver in which CHE agreed to

reduce its customarily hourly rates for its attorneys by 50%, with the opportunity to apply to the Receiver and,

thereafter the Court for a “results accomplished” enhanced fee, up to 20%, which agreement was attached as Exhibit

“B” to the Receiver’s Notice of Intention to Retain Roberto Martínez and Colson Hicks Eidson as Special Counsel

to the Receivership Entities Effective as of December 1, 2007 [D.E. 436]. This Court, after reviewing Receiver’s

Notice [D.E. 436], the Group Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Notice [D.E. 455] and the Receiver’s Reply to the Group

Plaintiffs’ Objection [D.E. 471], entered an Order Granting Receiver’s Request [D.E. 614].



-3-

Litigation ─ Fraudulent Transfers: CHE is requesting $8,855.00 in attorney’s fees for

39.20 hours in attorney and paralegal time in connection with the category “Litigation ─

Fraudulent Transfers.” CHE’s time during the Application Period was primarily spent in

continuing to assist the Receiver in prosecuting claims for the recovery of fraudulent transfers

against a number of investors who received “net redemptions” from the Lancer funds. During

the Application Period, this action was being litigated against three remaining defendants, each

of which had previously filed a motion to dismiss raising a number of different issues. The

Court denied these motions in whole or in part, and the parties subsequently engaged in

settlement negotiations. CHE spent time negotiating and eventually documenting and finalizing

settlements with the remaining defendants, which resulted in the completed settlements that will

be discussed below.

Fee/Employment Applications: This is CHE’s Fourth Fee Application, having filed only

three other fee applications to date, both covering lengthy periods of work (over 2 years for the

first application, over 1 year for the second application, and over 8 months for the third

application). CHE is not requesting any attorney fees in connection with any of the time spent

on this application.

REQUEST FOR FEE RECOVERY AWARD

CHE was originally retained, with the Court’s approval, at a substantially reduced hourly

rate with the opportunity to apply at the conclusion of the matter for a fee award based on the

results obtained. The fee reductions made by CHE have totaled approximately $185,562. CHE

is making its application for a final fee recovery at this time. CHE has not treated any of the

time spent on this application as time billable to the Receivership. Although the terms of CHE’s

retention would allow it to seek a percentage of the recoveries that resulted from its litigation



-4-

efforts, CHE is not seeking a fee enhancement but is only seeking only to recover the amounts of

its fee reductions in this manner – a significantly lower amount.

The Initial Retention of Colson Hicks Eidson

The Receiver was appointed in July 2003 to wind down the affairs of the Lancer hedge

funds. Hunton & Williams was retained to be the Receiver’s primary counsel. CHE was

retained to be special counsel to the Receiver on specific litigation matters where Hunton &

Williams had potential conflicts. The terms of CHE’s retention were that CHE would bill its time

at a discount of 50% of its customary hourly rates. However, CHE would be permitted to

apply to you, as Receiver and Responsible Person, and thereafter

the Court for a “results accomplished” enhanced fee calculated by

considering all factors set forth in Section 4-1.5 of the Rules of

Professional Conduct for determining a reasonable fee, up to 20%

of any recovery to the receivership estates of the Receivership

Entities and the bankruptcy estate of the Partners, from those

defendants assigned to us for prosecution.

[D.E. 436 at ¶ 13.] The Court approved of the Receiver’s retention of CHE by Order entered

November16, 2004. [D.E. 614].

Overview of the Funds Recovered For the Receiver By CHE

Although CHE is not seeking an award based on a percentage of the recoveries that

resulted from its litigation efforts, the purpose of this section is to highlight what CHE considers

to be the key results it has achieved in this matter in support of its application to recover the

amount of its fee reductions only. CHE has worked with the Receiver to varying degrees to

recover assets from certain defendants in this matter in fraudulent conveyance actions and in an

action against PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”), the former auditors of the Lancer funds. The

total recoveries from the actions against the fraudulent conveyance defendants have added

$1,234,673 to the Receivership’s asset pool. The action against PWC, in conjunction with



-5-

actions brought by certain individual plaintiffs and the investor class action, has resulted in a

$22,250,000 global settlement. As of September 30, 2009, the Receiver has collected a total of

$112,476,947 in assets, consisting of: (i) initial cash deposits of $2,852,766; (ii) sales of

securities of $73,424,656; (iii) sales of other assets of $2,663,470; (iv) litigation and settlement

recoveries of $11,731,704; (v) GGK/Amex litigation and settlement recoveries of $12,500,000;

(vi) PWC litigation and settlement recoveries of $3,150,394; (vii) interest and dividend income

of $5,944,436; and (viii) miscellaneous receipts of $209,521. See Notice of Filing Receiver’s

Thirteenth Status Report, Dated October 30, 2009 [D.E. 2334], at p.15.

The Fraudulent Transfer Actions

The following is a brief summary of the fraudulent transfer actions pursued by CHE that

resulted in recoveries to the Receivership:

Settlement with New Cavendish Finance Corporation (“NCFC”). On November 24,

2008, CHE filed its Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement with New Cavendish

Finance Corporation [D.E. 2174]. The Stipulation of Settlement required NCFC to pay

$409,674.00 to the Receiver. The Court approved the Receiver’s settlement with NCFC on

January 23, 2009 [D.E. 2215]. The settlement funds have been received by the Receiver.

Settlement with Credit Agricole Indosuez Luxembourg (“CAIL”). On May 13, 2009,

CHE filed a Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement with Credit Agricole Indosuez

Luxembourg [D.E. 2263]. The Stipulation of Settlement required CAIL to pay $350,000.00 to

the Receiver. The Court approved the Receiver’s settlement with CAIL on June 8, 2009 [D.E.

2274]. The settlement funds have been received by the Receiver.

Settlement with Credit Suisse (Luxembourg) , S.A. (“CS Luxembourg”). On May 11,

2009, CHE filed its Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement with Credit Suisse



-6-

(Luxembourg), S.A. [D.E. 2262]. The Stipulation of Settlement required CS Luxembourg to pay

$154,449.37 to the Receiver. The Court approved the Receiver’s settlement with CS

Luxembourg on June 8, 2009 [D.E. 2273]. The settlement funds have been received by the

Receiver.

Settlement with Credit Suisse A.G. On June 8, 2009, CHE filed a Motion for Approval

of Stipulation of Settlement with Credit Suise A.G. [D.E. 2275]. The Stipulation of Settlement

required Credit Suisse A.G. to pay $320,550.63 to the Receiver. The Court approved the

Receiver’s settlement with Credit Suisse A.G. on June 29, 2009 [D.E. 2291]. The settlement

funds have been received by the Receiver.

Settlement with PwC

CHE also conducted an in-depth investigation of the Receiver’s potential claims against

PwC, the former outside auditors of the Lancer Funds. On December 2, 2004, CHE filed a 52-

page Complaint in Receiver v. PricewaterhouseCooopers (Netherlands Anitlles), et al., Case No.

04-23023-Civ-Marra, asserting claims for professional malpractice against PwC. Joint

settlement discussions, including other parties who had filed actions against PwC, were

eventually held with PwC. On July 18, 2007, CHE filed a Motion to Approve Stipulation and

Agreement of Settlement on behalf of the Receiver [D.E. 1923]. This settlement was achieved as

a result of actions brought and prosecuted by the Group Action Plaintiffs (The Pension

Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC,

et al., Case No. 05-CIV-09016 (S.D.N.Y.) and the Class Action Plaintiffs (Bruhl v.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers International Limited, et al., Case No. 03-23044-Civ-Marra), in

addition to the action brought by CHE for the Receiver.



-7-

The Stipulation of Settlement required PwC to pay $22.25 million to settle all of the

claims against it. The settlement is comprised of two parts. The Group Action Plaintiffs receive

$16.25 million (minus attorneys’ fees), and the Receiver receives $6 million for distribution to

the members of the settlement class (less varius holdbacks). The Court approved in part and

denied in part the Receiver’s settlement with PwC on March 31, 2008 [D.E. 2044]. The Court

further approved the Settlement with PwC in its Order dated July 17, 2009 [D.E. 2298].

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

The leading case in this District regarding an award of attorney’s fees in a comparable

receivership case is Walco Investments, Inc. v. Thenen, 975 F. Supp. 1468 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

(Moreno, J.), known as the Premium Sales Receivership. In that case, the receiver and his

counsel and plaintiffs’ class counsel worked together to obtain recoveries for victim investors

who had been defrauded into investing in a grocery diverting operation that was in fact a Ponzi

scheme. The receiver’s counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel worked under a “hybrid fee arrangement

whereby the attorneys would receive interim payments at a substantially reduced hourly rate with

a final enhancement or reduction of fees based on the amount recovered.” Id. at 1470.

In determining the fee enhancement award in Walco, the Court relied on the analysis set

forth in Camden I Condominium Association, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774-75 (11th Cir.

1991). In Camden I, the Eleventh Circuit held that attorneys’ fees in common fund-type cases

should be based on a reasonable percentage of the fund established for the benefit of the victims.

The Eleventh Circuit noted that while “[t]here is no hard and fast rule mandating a certain

percentage of a common fund which may reasonably be awarded as a fee,” 25% of the common

fund is a “benchmark” which “may be adjusted in accordance with the individual circumstances

of each case.” Id.


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991173087&ReferencePosition=774



-8-

The Eleventh Circuit discussed the non-exclusive factors a court should consider in

selecting the appropriate percentage of a common fund which may reasonably be awarded as a

fee. These factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the

questions; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other

employment; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time

limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results

obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of

the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12)

awards in similar cases. See Camden I, 946 F.2d at 775. 2

ANALYSIS OF THE “CAMDEN I FACTORS.”

1. The Time and Labor Required.

CHE was retained by the Receiver effective March 1, 2004, and so has been working on

this matter for over five and one-half years. Measured purely on the number of hours involved, a

total of 1,141.30 hours have been spent on this matter by CHE. More importantly though, CHE

submits that the time spent has been extremely efficient in light of the nature and complexity of

this Receivership and the results achieved. The fees paid to CHE, over this lengthy time period,

total only $182,381 -- for which, among other things, recoveries of $1,234,673 have been

2 Rule 4-1.5(b)(1) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which was referenced in the initial

retention of CHE, also sets forth factors to be considered as guides in determining a reasonable fee. These factors

largely overlap with the Camden I factors and are: (A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and

difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (B) the likelihood

that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (C) the fee, or rate

of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature; (D) the significance

of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation,

and the results obtained; (E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between

attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client; (F) the nature

and length of the professional relationship with the client; (G) the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of

the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual

providing of such services; and (H) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to amount or rate, then

whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation.




-9-

obtained in fraudulent conveyance actions and substantial assistance in achieving the

$22,250,000 million global settlement with PwC was rendered.

2. The Novelty and Difficulty of the Questions.

This Receivership required a high level of skill. The investigation and filing of claims

against PwC in particular required analysis of complex accounting issues and auditing standards,

as well as analysis of the complicated trading practices and other financial issues relating to the

Lancer Funds. In addition, the fraudulent conveyance actions in this case were far from routine

and required analysis of complex insolvency issues and litigation in order to establish personal

jurisdiction over foreign defendants, many of which had limited contacts with the United States.

3. The Skill Required to Perform the Legal Services Properly.

In order to perform the services in this complex matter, CHE’s legal skills and experience

in the areas of securities fraud, federal receivership litigation, plaintiffs’ litigation, commercial

transactions and accounting malpractice were required. CHE submits that these actions, and

particularly the action against PwC, were complex civil actions that required a substantial degree

of skill and specialized experience.

4. Preclusion from Other Employment.

CHE has not been precluded from accepting any other engagements as a result of the

privilege of working on this matter for the Receiver.

5. The Customary Fee.

The customary fee for a matter of this size and complexity would be the normal fee

charged by commercial lawyers and litigators experienced enough to handle this type of matter,

which in the customary legal market could either be in the form of a straight hourly rate or a

hybrid of a reduced hourly rate combined with a contingency fee. The Receiver retained CHE,



-10-

with the Court’s approval, at 50% of CHE’s normal hourly rates for attorneys with the ability to

seek a fee enhancement of up to 20% of any recovery at an appropriate juncture – a fairly

standard “hybrid fee” arrangement in commercial litigation. CHE has reduced its bills to the

Receivership by approximately $185,562 through December 31, 2009. See Exhibit 4 (CHE Fee

Application History Chart). Without even taking into account its role in the PwC litigation,

CHE’s litigation efforts resulted in recoveries of $1,234,673 (20% of which is $246,935). As a

result of the PwC litigation, the Receiver will also have an additional $6 million to distribute to

the investors.

6. Whether the Fee Was Fixed or Contingent.

A portion of CHE’s compensation was fixed at a reduced hourly rate (50%), and a

portion of the compensation was in the form of the opportunity to apply for a fee enhancement at

the conclusion of the matter based on the results obtained. The Receiver’s professionals thus

had, on the one hand, the security of knowing that they would at a minimum receive a

(substantially) reduced hourly fee for their effort. CHE has been paid a total of $182,381 for all

of its work. However, CHE also bore the risk that it would not be fully compensated for its work

if it did not achieve successful results for the Receiver. The reduced bills resulted in

approximately $185,562 in fee reductions for CHE from its normal rates, so CHE was at risk of

foregoing that amount if its litigation efforts were not successful on behalf of the Receivership.

7. Time Limitations Imposed by the Client or the Circumstances.

Although there have been periods during which CHE has been required to devote

significant time to this matter on an expedited basis, CHE has not as a general matter been

subject to significant limitations in its work in this matter.



-11-

8. Amount Involved and the Results Obtained.

As a result of CHE’s work, the Receiver has obtained $1,234,673 in recoveries against

fraudulent transfer recipients. In addition, CHE provided the Receiver with substantial

assistance in bringing claims against PwC. The various claims brought against PwC resulted in a

global settlement of $22.5 million, of which $6 million was allocated to the Receiver for

distribution to the settlement classes (less various holdbacks). Although the Lancer Receivership

is an extraordinarily large Receivership in terms of the amounts at issue, these recoveries

nonetheless represent substantial litigation recoveries for the benefit of the Receivership’s

creditors. Moreover, CHE submits that these recoveries were obtained in an extremely cost-

effective manner. Over the course of the roughly five-and-one-half years that CHE has worked

for the Receiver on this matter, it has submitted fee applications for only $191,284 (including

this final fee application). This included time spent on a number of other tasks beyond the

litigation described above, including assistance in pursuing discovery from a wide variety of

sources on behalf of the Receiver. CHE submits that, from a cost-benefit perspective, its work

for the Receiver has been extremely effective.

9. Experience, Reputation, and Ability of the Attorneys.

The attorneys at CHE enjoy a fine reputation among the bench and bar in this District for

their professionalism and work ethic. The attorneys at CHE are particularly experienced at

receivership-related litigation and plaintiffs’ class action litigation. CHE has served as counsel

to receivers, and as class counsel in many of the most noteworthy receiverships in this District,

including SEC v. Mutual Benefits Corp., In re U.S. Oil & Gas, and In re Premium Sales Corp.



-12-

10. The “Undesirability” of the Case.

This case was not undesirable. CHE has been privileged to work on this matter. CHE

regularly represents the victims of fraud and other wrongdoing and takes pride in their efforts to

assist their clients in these types of matters.

11. Nature and Length of the Professional Relationship with the Client

CHE did not have a professional relationship with the Receivership Entities, or its

principal prior to the institution of this proceeding.

12. Awards in Similar Cases.

As set forth above, the Court has the discretion to award fees and costs to CHE. Other

federal judges in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, have in similar cases awarded

fees at higher hourly rates or full hourly rates for the same quantity and quality of work

expended in receivership cases of similar complexity and magnitude.

CHE’S FINAL FEE RECOVERY REQUEST

Based on all of the information set forth above, CHE is requesting the Court make a final

fee recovery award in the amount of $185,562.

The terms of the CHE’s retention would allow it to seek a fee enhancement award of 20%

of the amount of the recoveries in the litigation that it handled. As a point of reference, 20% of

the recoveries in the fraudulent transfer actions pursued by CHE amounts to $246,935. In

addition, CHE substantially assisted in the recovery obtained from PwC, which has resulted in

the net recovery of $3,150,394 to the Receiver to date. However, CHE is only seeking to recoup

the amount of its fee reductions in this matter – a significantly smaller amount.

As with any request for fees from a fund that is intended to be distributed to compensate

the victims of a fraud, there is an inherent tension between maximizing the recovery for the



-13-

victims and fairly compensating the professionals whose work generated the pool of funds to be

distributed. CHE is mindful of this tension. However, CHE also respectfully submits that,

through its successful work, the amounts that are available to distribute to the victim investors

have been materially increased in a very cost effective manner.

CONCLUSION

CHE respectfully requests that this Court authorize the Receiver to compensate CHE for

its attorneys’ fees for the reasonable and necessary services rendered during this Application

Period in the amount of $8,855.00 for fees and $633.23 in costs for a total of $9,488.23, to be

paid by the Receivership. CHE also respectfully requests that this Court award CHE with a fee

recovery award in the amount of $185,562. The total amount request is therefore $195,050.23.

Respectfully submitted,

COLSON HICKS EIDSON

255 Aragon Avenue, 2nd

Floor

Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008

Telephone Number: 305-476-7400

Facsimile Number: 305-476-7444

By: s/Roberto Martinez___________

Roberto Martínez

Florida Bar No. 305596

Curtis B. Miner

Florida Bar No. 885681

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by

CM/ECF upon all parties listed on the attached Service List this 26th day of March, 2010.

s/ Curtis B. Miner___________

Curtis B. Miner



-14-

LANCER RECEIVERSHIP

CASE O. 03-80612 MARRA/JOHNSON

MASTER SERVICE LIST

Christopher Martin

Senior Trial Counsel

U.S. Securities & Exchange

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite

1800

Miami, FL 33131

[email protected]

Drew M. Dillworth, Esq.

Stearns Weaver Miller

150 W. Flagler St., #2200

Miami, FL 33130

[email protected]

Andrew Zaron, Esq.

David E. Bane, Esq.

Hunton & Williams

1111 Brickell Avenue

Suite 2500

Miami, FL 33131

Counsel for Receiver

Ms. Nina Fiskaaen

Controller, Nordea Liv Norge

AS

Folke Bernadottes vie 38

5147 Fyllingsdalen

1201 Bergen – Norway

Kristina Bakardjiev, Esq.

Goldstein, Tanen & Trench

PA

One Biscayne Tower, #3700

2 So. Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131

[email protected]

James Sowka

Office of the Assistant U.S.

Trustee

51 S.W. 1st Avenue

Suite 1204

Miami, FL 33130

Gregory L. McClelland

McClelland & Anderson

1305 S. Washington

Avenue, Suite 102

Lansing, MI 48910

Paul Gentilozzi

Rocketsports, Inc.

3400 West Road

East Lansing, MI 48823

David Blaylock, Esq.

Glankler Brown, PLLC

1700 One Commerce Sq.

Memphis, TN 38103

Trisha D. Sindler

Special Counsel

U.S. Securities & Exchange

Commission

801 Brickell Ave, Suite 1800

Miami, FL 33131

Jimmy Tsakni

c/o Shari A. Brandt,

Richard Spear Kibble

One World Financial Ctr

New York, NY 10281

Michael Lauer, pro se

7 Dwight Lane

Greenwich, CT 06831

[email protected]

Frank P. Terzo

Katz Barron Squitero Faust

2699 S. Bayshore Dr., 8th

FL

Miami, FL 33133

Sheldon Toll

Law Offices of Sheldon S. Toll,

2000 Town Center,

Suite 2550

Southfield MI 48075

Noah J. Schafler, Esq.

Law Offices of David W.

Rubin

600 Summer St.,

Suite 201

Stamford, CT 06901

Kenneth B. Robinson, Esq.

Rice, Pugatch, Robinson

101 NE Third Ave, Suite 1800

Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301

Robert M. Dombroff, Esq.

Jonathan Alter, Esq.

Bingham McCutchen LLP

One State Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Barry E. Steiner

Ladenburg Thalman & Co.

4400 Biscayne Blvd, 14th

FL

Miami, FL 33137

[email protected]

Ronald B. Ravikoff,

Matthew Davidson,

Zuckerman Spaeder

201 S. Biscayne Blvd,

Suite 900

Miami, FL 33131

Jane Serene Raskin

Raskin & Raskin

2601 S. Bayhore Dr., #725

Miami, FL 33133

Joshua W. Cohen

Cummings & Lockwood

1 Audubon St, Suite 601

New Haven, CT 06511

Jonathan M. Borg

Piteny Hardin Kipp, et al

7 Times Square

New York, NY 10036-7311

Thomas D. Goldberg

Day, Berry & Howard

One Canterbury Green

Stamford, CT 06901

Barbara H. Katz

Law Office of Barbara H.

Katz

57 Trumbull St

New Haven, CT 06510

Michael R. Magasin

Law Offices of Michael R.

Magasin

3415 So. Seplveda Blvd, PH

#1200

Los Angeles, CA 90034-6072

Joseph P. Moodhe

Debevoise & Plimpton

919 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

James M. Nugent, Esq.

KFO Inv. Partnerhips

Harlow, Adams & Friedman,

PC

300 Bic Drive

Milford, CT 06460

Clayton Cunningham

P.O. Box 1796

El Segundo, CA 90245

Thaddeus E. Delonis CPA

290 Towne Center Drive

Troy, MI 48084-1774

Heidi Lauer f/k/a Heidi Carens

4 East 89th

Street

Apt 6A

New York, New York 10128

Timothy W. Walsh

Piper Rudnick LLP

1251 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Garry M. Graber

c/o Joseph Galda, Esq.

497 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, NY 14202


mailto:[email protected]






-15-

Leonard H. Hect

1270 Avenue of the Americas

Suite 214

New York, NY 10020

W. Todd Boyd, Esq.

Boyd Mustelier Smith

100 S.E. Second St., 36 FL

Miami, FL 33131

Mr. Morton Sherman

560 Landsdowne Ave

Westmount (Quebec)

H3Y 2V6

Kenneth G.M. Mather,

Hinshaw & Culbertson

100 S. Ashley Dr, #830

Tampa, FL 33602-5348

Mark A. Salzberg

Foley & Lardner

Washington Harbour, #500

3000 K Street N.W.

Washington, D .C. 20007

[email protected]

William J. Barrett

Barack Ferrazzano, et al.

333 W. Wacker Drive, #2700

Chicago, IL 60606

[email protected]

Peter Vigeland

Wilmer Hale

399 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10022

[email protected]

m

Scott M. Berman, Esq.

Anne Beaumont, Esq.

Friedman, Kaplan, et al.

1633 Broadway, 46th

FL

New York, NY 10019

[email protected]

[email protected]

Paul Wallace

9701 S. Bexley Drive

Littleton, CO 80126

[email protected]

David Cimo, Esq.

Genovese Joblove & Battista

Bank of Tower, 36th

FL

100 SE 2nd

Street

Miami, FL 33131

[email protected]

Mr. Helge Syrstad

Vesta Forsikring AS

P.O. Box 7070

5020 Bergen - NORWAY

[email protected]

David P. Milian, Esq.

Harley S. Tropin, Esq.

Kozyak Tropin, et al.

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd

Suite 900

Coral Gables, FL 33134

[email protected]

[email protected]

Eric A. Henzy, Esq.

Reid & Riege, P.C.

One Financial Plaza

Hartford, CT 06103

[email protected]

Aaron Podhurst, Esq.

Podhurst, Orseck, et al.

25 W. Flagler St., Suite 800

Miami, FL 33130

[email protected]

Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.

Labaton Sucharow,

140 Broadway 23rd

FL

New York, NY 10005

[email protected]

Carol Felicetta

Reid & Riege P.C.

195 Church St, 15th

FL

New Haven, CT 06510

[email protected]

David L. Snyder, Esq.

Neuberger, Quinn, et al.

One South Street, 27th

FL

Baltimore, MA 21202

[email protected]

[email protected]

Rudolph F. Aragon, Esq.

White & Case

Wachovia Fin. Ctr, #4900

200 So. Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131

[email protected]

Lewis N. Brown

Dyanne E. Feinberg

Gilbride, Heller & Brown

One Biscayne Tower #1570

Miami, FL 33131

[email protected]

Richard E. Johnston

Fasken Martineau, et al.

Patent & Trade Mark Agents

P.O. Box 20,

Toronto Dominion Centre

66 Wellington St. W.

37th FL

Toronto, Ontario

M5K 1N6 Canada [email protected]

Mr. Dylan Wolff

Managing Director

Norges Investor Value

P.O. Box 1863 Vika

0124 Osio – NORWAY

[email protected]

Seth M. Schwartz, Esq.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, et al.

Four Times Square

New York, NY 10036

[email protected]

John Hochman, Esq.

Schindler Cohen & Hockman

LLP

100 Wall Street, 15th

FL

New York, NY 10005

[email protected]

Paul Steven Singerman

Berger Singerman

200 S. Biscayne Blvd

Suite 1000

Miami, FL 33131

Singerman@bergersingerman.

com

Robert T. Wright, Esq.

Coffey & Wright, LLP

Grand Bay Plaza

2665 S. Bayshore Dr PH2B

Miami, F 33133

[email protected]

William R. Maguire, Esq.

Jeffrey Grelsheimer, Esq.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

[email protected]

Jacqueline Wilson

British Virgin Islands

Financial Svcs Comm.

Pasea Estate, Road Town

Tortola, British Virgin Islands

[email protected]

Kevin E. Gunther

27 Reid Street, 1st FL

P.O. Box HM 3051

Hamilton HM NX

Bermuda

[email protected]

William S. Fish, Esq.

William H. Champlin, Esq.

Tyler Cooper & Alcorn LLP

555 Long Wharf Dr. 8th

FL

New Haven, CT 06511

[email protected]

[email protected]

Robert E. Grossman

Scott S. Balber

Chadbourne & Parke LLP

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10112

[email protected]

[email protected]

Michael Budwick Esq.

Meland, Russin & Budwick,

P.A. 3000 First Union Fin. Ctr

200 S. Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131

[email protected]

Roberto Martinez, Esq.

Curtis B. Miner, Esq.

Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Aragon Avenue, 2nd

FL

Coral Gables, FL 33134

[email protected]

[email protected]





































EXHIBIT 1-A

Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT 1-A

Summary of Professional and Paraprofessional Time

COLSON HICKS EIDSON

PROFESSIONALS – LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED (TOTAL)

NAME STATUS HOURS RATE

TOTAL FEES

Martinez, Roberto Senior Partner .50 $250

(@ -50%)

$125.00

Miner, Curt Partner 25.20 $250

(@ -50%)

$6,300.00

Roberto, Michelle Paralegal 13.50 $180 $2,430.00

TOTAL 39.20 $8,855.00


EXHIBIT 1-B


EXHIBIT 1-B

Summary of Professional and Paraprofessional

Time by Activity Code

COLSON HICKS EIDSON

ACTIVITY CODE CATEGORY: B590 – LITIGATION – FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS:

NAME RATE HOURS TOTAL FEES

Martinez, Roberto $250

(@ -50%)

.50 $125.00

Miner, Curt $250

(@ -50%)

25.20 $6,300.00

Roberto, Michelle $180 13.50 $2,430.00

TOTAL 39.20 $8,855.00


EXHIBIT 2


EXHIBIT 2

Summary of Requested Reimbursement of Expenses

COLSON HICKS EIDSON

Description Amount

Copying 477.00

Delivery Services/Messengers 14.77

Online Research 65.28

Postage 69.28

Telephone 6.90

TOTAL EXPENSES: $633.23


EXHIBIT 4


EXHIBIT 4

CHE FEE APPLICATION HISTORY CHART

FEE

APP. NO.

DATES

OF

WORK

TOTAL FEES

BILLED

DISCOUNT FROM

NORMAL

HOURLY RATES

TOTAL FEES

PAID

TOTAL

DISCOUNT

1 3/1/04-

8/31/06

$149,906.50

$149,906.50 $149,906.50

$149,906.50

2 9/1/06-

11/30/07

$19,980.50 $19,980.50 $19,980.50 $19,980.50

3 12/1/07-

6/30/08

$12,494.00 $9,250.00 $12,494.00 $9,250.00

4 7/1/08-

12/31/09

$8,903.00 $6,425.00 ---N/A--- $6,425.00

TOTALS $191,284.00 $185,562.00 $185,562.00


PROPOSED ORDER


2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL LAUER,

LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and

LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP II, LLC,

Defendants,

and

LANCER OFFSHORE, INC., LANCER PARTNERS, LP,

OMNIFUND, LTD., LSPV, INC., and LSPV, LLC,

Relief Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING COLSON HICKS EIDSON’S

FINAL FEE APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR FINAL FEE AWARD

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Colson Hicks Edison’s (“CHE”) Final Fee

Application (for payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for Services Rendered as Special Counsel

to the Receivership Entities from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009) and Request for

Final Fee Award (D.E.No. _______), filed on March 26, 2010. The Court has carefully

reviewed the Motion and case file and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly,

after due consideration, it is


3


ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the CHE’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. The

Receiver is directed to pay Colson Hicks Edison’s:

1. Final Fee Application covering the period from July 1, 2008, through December

31, 2009, allowing the payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $____________ and expenses

of $_____________ for a total of $_____________.

2. Request for Final Fee Award in the amount of $__________________.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this day of

_______________, 2010.

HON. KENNETH A. MARRA

United States District Court Judge

Copies furnished to:

All counsel of record


southern district of florida securities and … · united states district court southern district...

Documents