GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Before the Court are two fee applications by the court-appointed receiver Thomas C. Hebrank (the "Receiver") (ECF No. 1619) and counsel to the Receiver Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP ("Allen Matkins") (ECF No. 1620).
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") filed a non-opposition to both motions on July 13, 2018. ECF No. 1632. The Court finds these motions suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 (d)(1).
In the Twenty-Third Interim Fee Application, the Receiver asserts that he incurred $76,423.50 in fees and $923.94 in costs for the application period covering January 1, 2018, through March 31, 2018 ("Twenty-Third Application Period"). ECF No. 1619 at 1. The breakdown of the fees amassed is as follows:
Id. at 2-4. Receiver now seeks payment of 80% of fees incurred, amounting to $61,138.80, and 100% of the costs, which account for postage, mileage, FedEx shipping, email updates, website maintenance, and copies. Id. at 1 & Exhibit C.
In the Twenty-Third Interim Fee Application, Allen Matkins, counsel for the Receiver, asserts that it incurred $64,172.45 in fees and $1,078.93 in costs for the application period covering January 1, 2018, through March 31, 2018. ECF No. 1620 at 1. The breakdown of the fees amassed is as follows:
Id. at 1-5. Allen Matkins now seeks payment of 80% of the fees incurred, amounting to $51,337.96, and 100% of the costs, accounting for PACER fees, document searches, duplication, filing fees, service processing fees, shipping, and recordation. Id. at 1 & Exhibit A.
"[I]f a receiver reasonably and diligently discharges his duties, he is entitled to fair compensation for his efforts." Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1577 (11th Cir. 1992). "The court appointing [a] receiver has full power to fix the compensation of such receiver and the compensation of the receiver's attorney or attorneys." Drilling & Exploration Corp. v. Webster, 69 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1934). A receiver's fees must be reasonable. See In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 962 F.2d 1402, 1409 (9th Cir. 1992).
As set forth in the Court's prior fee orders, see, e.g., ECF No. 1167, the Court will assess the reasonableness of the requested fees using the factors enumerated in Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, 364 F.Supp. 1220, 1222 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) and In re Alpha Telcom, Inc., 2006 WL 3085616, at *2-3 (D. Or. Oct. 27, 2006). Those factors include: (1) the complexity of the receiver's tasks; (2) the fair value of the receiver's time, labor, and skill measured by conservative business standards; (3) the quality of the work performed, including the results obtained and the benefit to the receivership estate; (4) the burden the receivership estate may safely be able to bear; and (5) the Commission's opposition or acquiescence. See Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, 364 F. Supp. at 1222; Alpha Telecom, 2006 WL 3085616, at *2-3.
The Court finds that the tasks performed by the Receiver during the Twenty-Third Application Period was moderately complex. The Receiver undertook the following tasks during the relevant period:
ECF No. 1619 at 2-4.
The Court finds that the tasks performed by Allen Matkins, counsel for Receiver, during the Twenty-Third Application Period were somewhat complex. Counsel undertook the following tasks during this period:
ECF No. 1620 at 2-6.
The Receiver billed his time at $247.50 per hour and the time of those working for him at $180.00 per hour during both application periods. ECF No. 1619 at 2-5. Allen Matkins billed its time at $256.50 — $702.00 per hour, with the majority of work being billed at $517.50 per hour. ECF No. 1620, Exhibit A. These rates reflect a ten percent discount from the Receiver's, Allen Matkins' ordinary rates. ECF No. 1619 at 1; ECF No. 1620 at 1.
The Court continues to find, as it has in previous fee orders, that the rates charged by the Receiver and Allen Matkins are comparable to rates charged in this geographic area and therefore represent a fair value of the time, labor, and skill provided.
The Court finds that the quality of work performed by the Receiver and Allen Matkins to be above average. The Receiver has, and continues to, competently operate the Receivership as evidenced by Receiver's Twenty-Third Status Report (ECF No. 1611), while at the same time marshalling assets—through capital calls, post-judgment collection, and sales—to support its continued financial integrity. These actions benefit all investors. The Receiver and his counsel have, moreover, complied with the Court's orders and have made every effort to protect investors' interests in the GP properties during the pendency of this litigation.
On August 30, 2016, the Court approved the Receiver's Modified Orderly Sale Process, ECF No. 1359, and the use of the One Pot approach to distribute receivership assets, ECF No. 1304 at 31. These actions were taken for the dual purpose of increasing the value of the receivership estate by selling GP properties and lowering administrative costs. ECF No. 1304 at 30.
The Receiver indicates that the receivership currently holds approximately $16.4 million in cash. ECF No. 1619 at 7. The Court finds that the Receivership estate has sufficient ability to bear the instant fee requests.
On July 13, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a notice that it supported approval of these interim fee applications because they "appear reasonable in light of the work performed." ECF No. 1632.
Considering the above five factors taken together, and considering that "[i]nterim fees are generally allowed at less than the full amount," Alpha Telcom, 2006 WL 3085616, at *2-3, the Court awards fees and costs as set forth in the following table:
After a review of the parties' submissions, the record in this matter, and the applicable law, and for the foregoing reasons,