Objection to Approval of Disclosure Statement Filed

Just a quick note:

We just received a copy of Creditor Bratton’s Objection To Approval Of Disclosure Statement (see link below).  Although our copy is not stamped we understand that it has been filed.  In addition, creditors Monika Lee and David Simon have also stated that they also object to the Disclosure Statement (see last page).

Finally, we’ve also been told that Judge Montali vacated the November 9th hearing just before midnight on November 2nd.

Bratton Obj to Discl Statement

Joint Statement – Class Action Representatives

[Editor’s Note:  As you probably know, the Heller Ehrman LLP estate and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee recently filed a Joint Plan of Liquidation http://hellerdrone.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/plan.pdf, that incorporates a proposed settlement of the employee Class Action litigation.  See Exhibit C to the Plan (the Compromise and Settlement Agreement) http://hellerdrone.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/plan-ex-c.pdf, especially pp. 13-23.  You should also note that Exhibit A to the Plan (Assumed Contracts) http://hellerdrone.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/plan-ex-a.pdf, while currently blank, will eventually provide details of the payout for individual class members.  We expect that Heller Ehrman LLP’s law firm, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, will be transmitting shortly to each class member his or her individual proposed payout details.

The Class Action counsel at Blum Collins will shortly post here at Heller Highwater some answers to FAQs related to the proposed settlement.  In the next few weeks, each member of the class will receive more information by mail about the plan and the settlement.

The following article was jointly authored by the four class representatives, who express some thoughts on their involvement in the litigation.]

* * *

Why We Support the Proposed Settlement

by Debora Biggers, Carl Goodman, Marjorie Norris and Anna Scarpa

As the four named plaintiffs in the employee class-action matter triggered by the collapse of Heller Ehrman, we’d like to provide our views on the proposed settlement.

Background

We each relished working at Heller Ehrman.  We felt blessed to be associated with such talented attorneys and staff.  Heller Ehrman’s culture really did seem to distinguish itself from other law firms.  We worked hard, believed in our product and our clients, and we were proud of the significant commitment Heller Ehrman made to a wide variety of pro bono matters in the United States and abroad.

Our tenures at the firm ranged from a few years to more than two decades.  The demise of Heller Ehrman was a shock.  But even more shocking was the way in which the firm violated basic state and federal employment statutes, including the payment of accrued vacation and adherence to WARN Act regulations.

We haven’t been shy about asking questions.  Participating as the named plaintiffs in this class action has required having a bit of backbone.  The excuses offered by management for its inability to pay wages could not be taken seriously.  How could a law firm with a notable 118-year history suddenly collapse and then deny the payment of statutorily mandated staff wages?

The Class Action

Back in the fall of 2008, most employees were clearly reluctant to challenge publicly the pronouncements of the Heller Ehrman Executive and Dissolution Committees, as they feared that so doing could jeopardize their future employment prospects.  But, out of a sense of conviction, each of us did raise our hands and became known as the named plaintiffs in an attempt to secure the wages owed to us and to every other member of the class.  We were definitely of the opinion then, and remain convinced of the view now, that facing the cadre of attorneys representing the Heller Ehrman estate without our own counsel would not produce a favorable result.  We did not think that the mere act of filing a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court would provide either corporate accountability or a just result.

Our class includes all special counsel, associate attorneys, and non-attorney professional staff – that’s a pretty varied bunch.  As it turned out, no attorney volunteered to serve as a named class rep, resulting in all of the named class reps being non-attorney staff members.

Reading through the large number of comments posted on the Heller Highwater blog over the past year, a lot of self-righteous ire about the firm’s demise has been expressed (anonymously) by attorneys and staff members alike, with much denigration directed at the final set of shareholder leaders at Heller Ehrman.  Our motivation to become the public face of the litigation was premised not on ire but on a more straightforward desire simply to recover our statutorily mandated wages.  So we stuck out our necks as class reps and tried to engage in a fairly basic dispute-resolution process with the Heller Ehrman estate.

Blum Collins

Working at Heller Ehrman, we naturally didn’t have much personal familiarity with plaintiffs’ law firms.  But now we were in need of hiring one.  We were fortunate to find and select a terrific one:  Blum Collins.  Each of the four principal attorneys who has worked on our matter has had considerable prior litigation experience at large and prestigious law firms.  In fact, one of them, Steve Blum, got his professional start at Heller Ehrman in the 1980’s after graduating from Yale.  Among his co-workers at that time was a stalwart Heller Ehrman secretary, who remained at the firm until its October 2008 demise and who serves now as one of the named plaintiffs.  Another of our core counsel, Doug Thorpe, was for many years the managing partner of the L.A. office of Perkins Coie.

Over the past year, Blum Collins gave each of us an intensive tutorial in employment, class-action, bankruptcy, and partnership law.  Without a doubt, that tutorial, combined with a real sense of unity and fellowship among the named-plaintiff group (who previously did not know each other), was the best thing about our sometimes-stressful involvement as named reps in a class-action lawsuit.  We think we’ve put that knowledge and cohesiveness to good use to collaborate closely with Blum Collins, resulting in the achievement of the current proposed settlement.

The Reality of 100% Recovery

Throughout our involvement in this matter, we think we’ve taken a pragmatic approach.  Given our understanding of the context of the players arrayed against us and our developing knowledge of bankruptcy law, we never expected to achieve 100% of what we are owed.

Among other things, Blum Collins educated us on the politics of the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee.  Blum Collins tried mightily to obtain Committee representation by a non-shareholder employee, but did not succeed.  Membership on that Committee could have provided insight on what was being done to collect debts owed to Heller Ehrman.

In addition to what are now very old accounts receivable, we understand that other significant sources of potential revenue for the Heller Ehrman estate include the reversion into the non-priority bucket of some of the $50 million paid to Bank of America after its UCC security interest lapsed; funds from potential malpractice claims against Greenberg Traurig and Ernst & Young; monies potentially recoverable from various Jewel v. Boxer successor-liability arguments; and theories such as piercing the corporate veil to achieve independent shareholder liability.

Of course, we don’t know how successful, if at all, the estate or the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee will be in achieving revenue from any of these sources.

Simultaneously, we also understood that hundreds of non-employee creditors also have valid claims against the estate, and that our employment priority amounts can reach a maximum of only $10,950, leaving us to fight with the various landlords, vendors (e.g., Williams Lea), retired shareholders, and others for the remainder.  Some of us felt that our litigation would drag out for numerous years and, ultimately, we’d end up receiving perhaps 10 cents on the dollar.

The Proposed Settlement

We feel that Blum Collins has succeeded in reaching a richer and much quicker settlement for the employee class than we originally expected.  Significantly, because of our involvement as named plaintiffs representing California, New York, the District of Columbia and Washington state, Blum Collins negotiated hard and won the estate’s agreement to pay the class several million dollars of WARN Act damages.  And, as we all know, we’re fighting over wages that should have been paid in 2008.  Each additional month that we wait for an eventual payout reduces the present-day value of that payout, and bankruptcy court does not assess interest on any awards that it orders to be made.  The rapidity of our settlement helps us all.

While we still don’t have the exact figures for the individual payouts we should be receiving under the proposed settlement, the estimates we’ve seen reinforce our belief that we achieved a significant victory in the face of long odds.  The proposed settlement will result in a good number of us and our former co-workers, especially those who did not have that many hours of accrued-but-unused vacation and whose annual salary was in the lower half, receiving close to 100% of their owed wages (excluding any waiting-time penalties given that the proposed settlement treats those as subordinated claims).

Others of us won’t fare as well percentage-wise, but will receive larger overall awards.  Bankruptcy court treats employment claims in excess of $10,950 as non-priority.  Given that, when the final distributions from the non-priority buckets are made, some of us in the highest income brackets and with lots of hours of accrued-but-unused vacation still will have received tens of thousands of dollars, even if such awards won’t be much more than 20-30% of our respective entitlements.

But like a progressive taxation scheme, it seems equitable that some of our lower-paid brethren will receive a higher percentage of their wages under the proposed settlement.  Further, and highly significantly, in our proposed settlement, we achieved payment of the Blum Collins fees and costs from the estate, rather than from the employee class, meaning that we won’t have to discount our individual payouts to pay for our attorney representation.

Conclusion

We hope you share most of our sentiments and agree that the proposed settlement is a decidedly positive development and worth accepting.  We have been truly impressed by the advocacy and talent devoted on our behalf by our counsel at Blum Collins and feel that the proposed settlement provides us with much more timely relief, and with a richer payout, than we had expected.

As you read through the Plan of Liquidation and companion documents, as well as the upcoming FAQ that Blum Collins is preparing, feel free to address any questions directly to either Steven Blum or Craig Collins at blum@blumcollins.com or collins@blumcollins.com.

Compromise and pragmatism are not always thought of as virtues, but in this instance, we feel that our voices have been heard and that we have achieved a significant victory, not just for the four of us but for our former colleagues as well.  We’re at the threshold of concluding our battle and we hope you join us in celebration of that feat.  Best of success to all in your post-Heller Ehrman endeavors!

Proposed Class Settlement – Timeline and Process

[Editor's note: We've received the following information from Blum Collins as to the timeline and process involved with the pending class action settlement which is part of the Plan of Liquidation.]

The proposed Class Settlement and Plan of Liquidation in bankruptcy court are proceeding together on two simultaneous tracks.

The Class Action Settlement

For the proposed class settlement, the Court will hold a hearing on October 29, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. to decide several things, including whether to give preliminary approval to the Class Settlement and to approve a notice to the Class regarding the preliminarily approved settlement.

As soon as the Court approves the Notice to the Class, you will receive notice by mail of the terms of the proposed settlement and how the general terms apply to you specifically.  You will then have a fixed period of time, which will be included in the Notice, to consider whether to share in the settlement or go it on your own.  You will also have the option to object to the settlement before it receives final approval.

The dates for those events also will be included in the Notice, and you do not need to do anything with respect to the settlement until you receive the Notice.

The Plan of Liquidation

For the Plan of Liquidation, the first step will be for the Court to approve a disclosure statement, which explains the plan and gives creditors information to help them decide how to vote on the plan.  The Court will hold a hearing on November 9, 2009 to consider approving the disclosure statement to be sent to creditors with the plan.  Objections to the adequacy of the proposed disclosure statement must be filed with the Court by November 2, 2009.

At the November 9, 2009 hearing, the Court will not make any decision about whether the plan should be approved; the Court will only decide what information must be sent to creditors with the plan.  Once the disclosure statement is approved, you should receive a copy of the plan, the disclosure statement, a ballot, and information about your particular treatment under the plan.

You do not need to anything with respect to the plan until you receive these documents; the disclosure statement will tell you the deadlines for returning your ballots and voting on confirmation of the plan.

The Court-approved disclosure statement will be the official explanation of the plan.  The draft disclosure statement and plan that you may have already read will be revised before the Court approves their distribution.  As soon as the final documents are distributed, we will address the benefits and disadvantages of your options.

Thank You

Thank you for your continued patience as we move forward as promptly as possible to obtain compensation for all former Heller employees.

© 2009, copyright Thomas MacEntee

Update on Plan of Liquidation and Settlement

I know many ex-Heller Ehrman employees are waiting for more information on the Plan of Liquidation and Settlement.

First, Judge Montali issued a 7-page letter concerning the plan (see below).  It appears that there are still some minor issues to be tweaked.

Second, Blum Collins is working on two vital pieces of information to be post:

- Process and Timeline which will map out how the process will work and important dates and deadlines

- FAQ which will take many of the questions from the comments and others that I’ve received via email and answer them as best as possible.

Third, the Name Plaintiffs in the Class Action will be posting a statement concerning settlement shortly

Finally, thanks for your patience.  There are no immediate deadlines to be met – we’ve been pretty good in the past about giving everyone a heads up as to dates and deadlines.

Judges Letter Tentative re Plan

© 2009, copyright Thomas MacEntee

Joint Plan of Liquidation Filed

A joint plan of liquidation – basically a settlement of all bankruptcy claims – was filed very late Thursday evening, October 8, 2009 with the bankruptcy court.  The documents are listed below.

Part of the plan is a settlement of the Heller Ehrman employee claims.  Right now I am still reading and processing the information.  I will probably have a summary later this weekend.  But if others have a take on the plan and what it means to employees, please feel free to weigh in on the comments.

Joint Plan of Liquidation of Heller Ehrman LLP documents

Plan

Plan Ex A

Plan Ex B

Plan Ex C

Plan Ex D

Plan Notice

Plan Disclosure Statement

Holiday Shopping – Heller Ehrman Art Collection

It has come to our attention that the art collected over the years by Heller Ehrman will be dispersed in two separate auctions next month:

“TO: ALL FORMER SHAREHOLDERS AND OTHERS WHO HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT THE DISPOSITION OF HELLER EHRMAN’S ART COLLECTION:

Heller Ehrman’s art collection will be sold by Bonhams & Butterfields in a series of public auctions commencing at 1:00 pm on November 10, 2009 in New York City and 10:00 am on November 17, 2009 in San Francisco (and via simulcast in Los Angeles). All lots will be listed online at Bonhams & Butterfields’ website as the catalog for each auction is published. Absentee bids can be placed online, and telephone bids may be accepted. There is no live internet bidding.

If you would like information about the specific items to be sold, and future auction dates, please contact Bonhams & Butterfields directly.
Please do not contact the Heller Ehrman Dissolution Committee.

Thank you.
Paul Sugarman”

Currently only eight items for the New York sale are listed on the Bonhams & Butterfields site – the San Francisco sale items will be posted at a later date.

So start your holiday shopping early and pick up a few bargains.  But if that ugly scary clown from the San Francisco lobby shows up just say no.

© 2009, copyright Thomas MacEntee

Former Shareholder Defense Brief

As reported at LegalPad and in The Recorder via Law.com, an ad-hoc group of former Heller Ehrman shareholders has filed a brief in bankruptcy court.  The document (here) asks that the Unsecured Creditors Committee not be appointed as representing the estate as representative for any and all claims against the Heller Ehrman LLP Retirement Plan.

The document disputes claims by the Unsecured Creditors Committee concerning under-capitalization of the firm and subsequent fraudulent transfers.  It attempts to pin the blame for the demise of Heller Ehrman on several issues such as unexpected shareholder departures or the current recession.

From what insiders have told us, the reason for the increase in shareholder departures was based on a management decision to dramatically change the way compensation was paid beginning in 2008.  The adjustment was an attempt to get under-producing (and over-paid) shareholders to leave.

Perhaps this new compensation plan was not made public in order to let those departing shareholders leave with a little bit of dignity.  Well they left with quite a bit more dignity than the employees who remained in late 2009 and were shown the door without payment for accrued vacation and other benefits – and in a very public way.

This latest spin by the former shareholders just adds more insult to the injury all to protect their own interests and to avoid responsibility for the hard-earned wages of their former employees.

© 2009, copyright Thomas MacEntee

A Low-Ball Settlement Offer

I’ve received several e-mails from ex-Hellerites concerning a settlement offer made by the employment lawyer for Heller Ehrman LLP (John C. Fox of Manatt).

Blum Collins – the firm representing the class action lawsuit group – has been in contact with its clients in the form of two letters:

• the settlement offer letter from John C. Fox dated August 27, 2009; and

• a summary and recommendation letter from Craig M. Collins of Blum Collins dated September 4, 2009

For those ex-Heller Ehrman employees who have not yet signed up with Blum Collins as part of the class action lawsuit, I wanted to convey some of the information as to the settlement and why acceptance of such settlement is not recommended:

• The offer is too low.  The Heller Ehrman LLP offer is less than 25% of the $23.4 million in claims owed to its former employees.

• Heller Ehrman LLP has the ability to pay much more than the offered amount.  Besides having over $10 million in its bank accounts right now, according to the Unsecured Creditors Committee, there was a fraudulent conveyance of $106 million to Heller’s former shareholders prior to the firm’s collapse.  This money should be returned to the estate to take care of claims and bills.  And the $50 million which Bank of America took out of the firm despite not having a perfected security interest should also be returned to the estate.  Former clients of the firm still owe it over $50 million.  This is over $206 million total and yet we’ve being offered pennies on the dollar for our claims.

• The former shareholders are looking out for themselves.  The settlement offer has been designed by the Dissolution Committee to protect the shareholders from having to return any of the $106 million mentioned above.  Instead of taking responsibility in paying former employees their hard-earned wages and benefits, the shareholders, by way of the Dissolution Committee, engage in bankruptcy maneuvers and delaying tactics to get out of such responsibility.

• Taking advantage of desperation.  The Dissolution Committee is confident that there are enough former Heller employees who will be desperate to take any amount of money as a settlement no matter how insulting the amount.

• Threats are part of the settlement offer.  It has been made clear by Heller Ehrman LLP that if the current offer is not accepted, they will use various banruptcy maneuvers, including a plan of reorganization, to try to force the ex-Heller employees to accept the low ball amount to settle the claims.

• The Unsecured Creditors Committee is no friend of ex-Heller employees.  Despite our various attempts to secure a representative set on the committee, we still have no voice.  The Unsecured Creditors Committee has still not offered an explanation as to why it has not sued the former shareholders to recover the $106 million in alleged fraudulent transfers.  Any attempt for information has been blocked by the committee’s attorney and the committee seems to operate under an unhealthy cloak of secrecy. In addition, the committee has not offered an explanation for the delay in collecting the remaining over $50 million in accounts receivable owed to the firm.

What You Can Do

Not only is Heller Ehrman LLP’s low-ball settlement offer unreasonable and unacceptable, it is an insult as it incorporates desperate divide-and-conquer tactics used with its former loyal employees.

• E-mail me at hellerdrone@gmail.com if you are a former Heller employee and would like to see a copy of the settlement offer and the Blum Collins response.

• Go to http://www.blumcollins.com and sign up for the email list to receive future communications on the settlement offer and upcoming maneuvers by the Unsecured Creditors Committee.

• Stay tuned right here at Heller Highwater for the latest information.

* * *

The former shareholders cannot be allowed to avoid their responsibilities to its former employees by way of inadequate settlement offers and bankruptcy maneuvers.  There must be a much fairer resolution for all ex-employees.

© 2009, copyright Thomas MacEntee

Don’t Drop The Soap

Some readers in the past have pointed out how the Republic Windows and Doors case (where employees were suddenly let go around Thanksgiving 2008) has many similarities to our situation here with Heller Ehrman.

One update on the Republic case is the fact that the CEO of the company has been charged in a plot to loot the company and move assets.

I wonder if other inept management teams of former firms and companies should be worried?  Especially given recent accusations of funny accounting.

Updated Docket Sheet – Everyone’s Gettin’ Fat ‘Cept . . .

. . . the ex-employees of Heller Ehrman. Quelle suprise, no?

I’ve posted an updated Docket Sheet over in the Bankruptcy section today.  Please keep in mind that this is a partial docket sheet and only lists activity from May 1 through August 10, 2009.

Besides mention of the Second Interim Status Report Filed by Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on August 7, 2009, there are some interesting entries:

• August 3, 2009 – Withdrawal of Claim #823 by PNC Real Estate Finance.  The original claim was in the amount of $10,500,000.  Anyone have more info on this and the basis for the original claim? Was there a settlement of the claim with PNC?
• August 3, 2009 – There is a hearing on Monday, August 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm PDT in Courtroom 22 regarding Notice of Debtor’s Motion for Order Authorizing Assumption of Certain Licenses, Contracts and Leases Relating to the Debtor’s China Offices Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a) and 365(a).
• June 26, 2009 – Debtor’s Motion for Order (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Assign Certain Licenses, Contracts and Leases Relating to the Debtor’s China Offices to Winston & Strawn LLP Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a) and 365(f)(2), and (II) Approving Reconciliation of Various Bank Accounts, Expenses and Deposits in Connection Therewith.
• July 29, 2009 – Ex Parte Application for Order Authorizing the Debtor to Transfer Employee Benefit Plan Administrator Duties Under 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(7) to Keith Betzina Filed by Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP.
• June 11, 2009 – Order approving motion to approve compromise of controversy with attorneys handling Unum Litigation. Anyone have info on this? I think this is related to the trial for Unum that was ongoing during the implosion and the ex-Heller attorneys put out their own money to ensure the clients were properly represented – correct?

And let’s see how the vultures who feed on the Heller Ehrman carcass are doing:

• July 30, 2009 – Application for Compensation – Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin’s Cover Sheet Application For Allowance and Payment of Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses For the Period June 1, 2009 Through June 30, 2009 for Pamela Phillips, Debtor’s Attorney, Fee: $6397.20, Expenses: $237.24.
• July 29, 2009 – Application to Employ Trucker Huss as Special Benefits Counsel Filed by Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP.
• July 29, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application Of Lovitt & Hannan, Inc. For Approval Of Compensation And Reimbursement of Expenses. Fees awarded: $120,912.50, expenses awarded: $2,563.52 for Lovitt & Hannan, Inc.
• July 21, 2009 – Adjustment of Hourly Billing Rates for Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Counsel to the Debtor and Debtor in Possession Filed by Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP.
• July 21, 2009 – Order Granting Application For Compensation. Fees awarded: $8210.00, expenses awarded: $18.09 for Lovitt & Hannan, Inc.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application Of Olswang LLP. Fees awarded: $18,254.23.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application Of Schiff Hardin LLP For Approval Of Compensation And Reimbursement Of Expenses For The Period Ended April 30, 2009. Fees awarded: $78,680.00, expenses awarded: $71.43 for Schiff Hardin LLP.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Granting Application For Compensation. Fees awarded: $324,902.50, expenses awarded: $46,020.73 for Development Specialists, Inc.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application Of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Fees awarded: $393,882.76, expenses awarded: $10,158.80 for Keith J. Shapiro.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re Motion Of Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby & Pascuzzi LLP For First Interim Allowance Of Attorney’s Fees And Reimbursement of Expenses As Counsel Of Unsecured Creditors. Fees awarded: $331,480.50, expenses awarded: $7,171.97 for Thomas A. Willoughby.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, For Allowance And Payment Of Compensation And Reimbursement Of Expenses For The Period December 29, 2008 Through April 30, 2009. Fees awarded: $673,831.75, expenses awarded: $65,935.11 for Pachulski Stang Ziel & Jones LLP.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application of Eichstaedt & Devereaux LLP For Approval of Compensation And Reimbursement of
• Expenses For The Period of December 29, 2008 Through April 30, 2009. Fees awarded: $3303.00, expenses awarded: $0.00 for Eichstaedt and Devereaux LLP
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application Of Folger Levin & Kahn LLP For Approval of Compensation And Reimbursement Of Expenses For The Period Ended April 30, 2009. Fees awarded: $14,080.50, expenses awarded: $284.46 for Folger Levin & Khan.
• July 1, 2009 – Order Re First Interim Application For Allowance And Payment Of Compensation And Reimbursement Of Expenses of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP For the Period of December 28, 2008 Through April 30, 2009. Fees awarded: $133,535.25, expenses awarded: $2248.62 for Ivan L. Kallick.
• June 30, 2009 – Interim Application for Compensation /Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP’s Cover Sheet Application for Allowance and Payment of Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expense for the Period May 1, 2009 Through May 31, 2009 for Pachulski Stang Ziel & Jones LLP, Debtor’s Attorney, Fee: $152148.80, Expenses: $9135.10. Filed by Attorney Pachulski Stang Ziel & Jones LLP.
• June 29, 2009 – Application to Employ Cohen Milstein as Special Counsel, Nunc Pro Tunc to April 1, 2009 Filed by Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP.
• June 24, 2009 – Joint Motion for Approval of Joint Investigation Agreement and Application to Expand Employment of Lovitt & Hannan, Inc., as Special Litigation Counsel Filed by Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP.
• June 24, 2009 – Application for Compensation SCHIFF HARDIN LLPS COVER SHEET APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2009 for Schiff Hardin LLP, Special Counsel, Fee: $7,164.00, Expenses: $57.27. Filed by Creditor Schiff Hardin LLP.
• June 24, 2009 – Application for Compensation MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS COVER SHEET APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2009 for Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Special Counsel, Fee: $62,231.40, Expenses: $659.77. Filed by Spec. Counsel Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.
• June 24, 2009 – Application for Compensation LOVITT & HANNAN, INC.S COVER SHEET APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2009 (FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS) for Lovitt & Hannan, Inc., Special Counsel, Fee: $81,394.00, Expenses: $91.42. Filed by Spec. Counsel Lovitt & Hannan, Inc.
• June 24, 2009 – Application for Compensation LOVITT & HANNAN, INC.S COVER SHEET APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2009 (FOR THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES CASES) for Lovitt & Hannan, Inc., Special Counsel, Fee: $1,688.00, Expenses: $0. Filed by Spec. Counsel Lovitt & Hannan, Inc.
• June 24, 2009 – Application for Compensation EICHSTAEDT & DEVEREAUX, LLPS COVER SHEET APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF MAY for Eichstaedt and Devereaux LLP, Other Professional, Fee: $2,816.00, Expenses: $0. Filed by Other Prof. Eichstaedt and Devereaux LLP.
• June 24, 2009 – Application for Compensation /DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC.S COVER SHEET APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2009 for Development Specialists, Inc., Financial Advisor, Fee: $62,777.60, Expenses: $5,719.77. Filed by Consultant Development Specialists, Inc.