Securities & Exchange Commission v. Illarramendi et al

Filing 823

ORDER Approving 769 Receiver's Fifth Application for Cost and Fees. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 2/12/2014. (Morril, Gregory)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO ILLARRAMENDI et al., Defendants. Civil No. 3:11cv78 (JBA) February 12, 2014 ORDER The Court has reviewed the unopposed Fifth Application for Costs and Fees [Doc. # 769] for the Receiver John Carney, the Receiver’s legal advisors Baker & Hostetler LLP (“B&H”), Higgs & Johnson (“H&J,” Cayman Islands counsel for the Receiver), Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes, Richardson & Fitzgerald, independent review counsel (“the Garrison Firm”), and forensic accountants FTI Consulting, Inc. (“FTI”), represented to confirm with the Billing Instructions for Receivers in Civil Actions Commenced by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC Guidelines”), and the Commission’s Response to the Receiver’s Fifth Fee Application [Doc. # 822]. In light of the nature and scope of the work reflected in the Application, the Court APPROVES the application, subject to the twenty percent hold-back, which will be considered in a future fee application, and subject to the reductions in the Commission’s Response. Accordingly, the Receivership Estate is authorized to pay to the Receiver and B&H compensation for legal services rendered in the amount of $3,324,167, and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $35,137; to FTI, compensation for services rendered in the amount of $1,738,844, and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $230,940; to H&J, compensation for services rendered in the amount of $9,233; and to the Garrison Firm, compensation for services rendered in the amount of $4,180. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 12th day of February, 2014. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?