Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adams et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING 41 Fee Application by Receiver. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 09/18/2018. (CL)

Download PDF
____________________ Cause No. 3:18-cv-252-CWR-FKB SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ARTHUR LAMAR ADAMS AND MADISON TIMBER PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants. ____________________ ORDER GRANTING FEE APPLICATION ____________________ Before CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge. Before the Court is the Receiver’s fee application for work performed from June 22, 2018 to July 31, 2018. Docket No. 41. The Securities and Exchange Commission has reviewed the application and no party has filed any objections. 1 1 In evaluating fee applications, “[o]pposition or acquiescence by the SEC to the fee application will be given great weight.” S.E.C. v. Striker Petroleum, LLC, No. 3:09-CV-2304-D, 2012 WL 685333, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2012) (citing S.E.C. v. Byers, 590 F. Supp. 2d 637, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). “In general, a reasonable fee is based on all circumstances surrounding the receivership.” S.E.C. v. W. L. Moody & Co. et al., 374 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D. Tex. 1974), aff'd sub nom., 519 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court has reviewed the fee application and the Receiver’s invoices, provided in camera. Based upon this review, the Court finds that the Receiver has completed reasonable and necessary work on behalf of the Receivership Estate. Therefore, the fee application is GRANTED. Further, the Court amends its previous Order, Docket No. 33, which established that the Receiver shall apply for reimbursement with “Monthly Fee Applications.” Beginning on August 1, 2018, Fee Applications shall be due within 30 days after the end of every 60-day period while the Receivership is in effect. SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of September, 2018. s/ CARLTON W. REEVES United States District Judge 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?