Union Home and Industrial, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PACER Cover Sheet
for Electronically Filed Documents
Any data shown here are current as of 	. Any element of information on this form,
except the received date, is subject to change as changes may be made to the Court's official docket.
Case Title:
Case Number:
Document Information
Description:
Date Filed:
Date Entered On
Docket:
Filer Information
Submitted By:
If this form is attached to the document identified above, it serves as an endorsed copy of the
document as it existed on the above date. To confirm that nothing has changed since then,
review the docket.
06/10/06
Union Home and Industrial, Inc.
04-15755
Memorandum Opinion in Support of [85-1] Order on Debtor in Possession's Motion
to Employ Counsel.
Received on: 2005-04-01 14:21:44.000
2005-04-01 00:00:00.000
2005-04-02 00:00:00.000
James Burke
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re:
UNION HOME AND INDUSTRIAL,
Debtor. NO. 11-04-15755 SR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN SUPPORT OF ORDER
ON DEBTOR IN POSSESSION’S
MOTION TO EMPLOY COUNSEL
The debtor in possession (“Debtor”) has filed its Motion
to Employ Counsel (“Application”) to employ the Behles Law
Firm, P.C. (“Firm”) as its chapter 11 counsel at specified
rates (doc 5). The Application seeks employment of the Firm
under the terms of the retainer and at the rate of $250 per
hour for the services of its senior attorney (“Senior
Counsel”). It is that proposed rate of compensation that is
the primary focus of the decision to be made, although this
decision also addresses the lack of a Rule 2014(a) statement
and certain terms of the employment agreement. The Court will
set aside the employment order already entered (doc 38), and
will partly grant the Application, effective upon the
immediate filing by the Firm of a Rule 2014(a) statement but
retroactive to March 1, 2005, and partly deny the Application.
Facts:
The Debtor filed its voluntary chapter 11 petition on
August 9, 2004 (doc 1). The Application was filed August 10,
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 2 of 46

1 The Application contains no prayer for relief as such,
but that it immaterial.
2 Unless otherwise specified, all references are to Title
11 of the United States Code and to the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure. This memorandum opinion constitutes
findings of fact and conclusions of law as may be required by
Rule 7052.
3 A copy of the retainer or employment agreement is also
attached to the Application. The last page of the employment
agreement is an Exhibit A, setting out the rates for the
services of counsel and paralegals, including the $250 per
hour for Senior Counsel. Although Exhibit A has approval
lines for signatures of counsel and client, neither counsel
nor the Debtor have initialed or signed. The Court assumes
that the Debtor is fully aware of this litigation and so the
Court does not take the lack of initials or signatures on the
rate sheet as a material omission.
Page -2-
2004 (doc 5)1. The Firm also filed the compensation
disclosure statement required by § 329(a) and Rule 2016,2 to
which is attached a copy of the Firm’s proposed employment
agreement with the Debtor (doc 4)3. However, a review of the
docket discloses that the Firm has not filed the verified Rule
2014(a) statement. At the Court’s request for a response or
comment from the office of the United States Trustee (“UST”),
the UST filed the United States Trustee’s Limited Objection to
Debtors’ [sic] Motion to Employ Counsel (doc 17). On November
17, 2004, following a preliminary hearing on the Application,
the Court entered an order approving the Firm’s employment
effective August 10, 2004, permitting the Firm to bill for
Senior Counsel’s services at the rate of $200 per hour,
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 3 of 46

4 The bulk of the affidavits and related charts had been
submitted previously in support of the application of Law
Office of George (Dave) Giddens, P.C. to be paid $225 per hour
in another case. In re Mach 2 Machining and Manufacturing,
Inc., No. 11-04-13983 SA. The Court agreed that those
affidavits could be re-used in this case. The affidavits in
the Giddens materials were from Mr. Giddens, William F. Davis,
William J. Arland, III, Paul M. Fish, David H. Kelsey, Senior
Counsel, Charles A. Pharris, Robert A. Johnson, and Ranne
Miller. Additional affidavits were submitted from Messrs
Davis, Arland and Louis Puccini, Jr., and directly addressed
Senior Counsel’s experience and abilities for this case. The
latter three affidavits were filed (docs 31, 32 and 40); the
Giddens materials have been treated as exhibits submitted at a
hearing.
5 ACE (Advanced Court Engineering) is the program of the
United States District/Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Mexico which is the District’s equivalent of the ECF
system of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. It is the system which the court staff and all others
Page -3-
allowing the Debtor to pay the Firm 75% of its monthly fees
and 100% of its costs on an interim basis (standard practice
in the District of New Mexico), and taking under advisement
the request for an hourly rate of $250 per hour for Senior
Counsel. Doc 38.
In support of the Application, the Firm submitted the
affidavit of Senior Counsel describing her experience and
explaining the characteristics and pitfalls of bankruptcy
practice. The Firm also submitted affidavits from a variety
of local counsel about hourly rates of compensation.4 The
Court has prepared a summary of chapter 11 counsel rates taken
from the ACE docket5 for all cases filed from calendar year
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 4 of 46

use to access case files and to file to those cases. Thus,
the table is based on publicly available documents, of which
the Court takes notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, and the
data and the conclusions drawn can be verified by anyone.
6 A copy of that table, with comments, is attached to this
memorandum as Appendix 1.
7 Mr. Kelsey practices family law, but at a level that
constitutes in good part commercial litigation.
8 In In re Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc., No. 11-01-10779 SA
(since converted to a chapter 7 case), the Court allowed
hourly rates for up to $275 per hour for local counsel and up
to $675 per hour for counsel who have a national (or
Page -4-
2002 through March 30, 2005.6 And the Court has taken into
account published decisions that address the Firm’s or Senior
Counsel’s fees in other cases and the Firm’s performance so
far in this case.
Senior Counsel has been licensed to practice law since
1970. The affidavits established that a number of commercial
litigation and bankruptcy attorneys engaged in this district
with twenty and more years of experience charge rates of
approximately $225 to $275 per hour.7 And the three
affidavits that specifically addressed Senior counsel’s
employment in this case said that Senior Counsel’s skills are
“excellent” and “above average”, including in complex
bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy cases.
The ACE docket table shows hourly rates that, with the
exception of the Furrs case8, range from a low of $90 to a
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 5 of 46

international) practice, such as Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
and Flom, and Pepper Hamilton. Furr’s was a so-called
“megacase” (and not so “mega” at that), with assets of about
$120 million, liabilities of about $500 million and about
19,000 creditors. There were serious questions what the
relevant market was for professional fees and whether any
single firm in this District had the capacity and expertise to
handle that case. Nevertheless, one might question whether
those rates, far above the local norm, were proper. See Ramos
v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 555 (10th Cir. 1983) (in a civil rights
case, the fee rates of the local area should be applied to
lawyers from other areas seeking fees except in unusual
circumstances), cited in Miller v. United States Trustee, 288
B.R. 879, 882 (10th Cir. BAP 2003); Garb v. Marshall (In re
Narragansett Clothing Company), 210 B.R. 493, 498 (1st Cir. BAP
1997) (“The bankruptcy court is required to consider
prevailing market rates in determining the lodestar, based on
usual and customary rates in the jurisdiction”, citing Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984) for the proposition that
“reasonable fees” in federal civil rights cases are to be
calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the
relevant community). In any event, the Court considers Furrs
to have been sui generis in this District, and will not
consider it as a precedent.
Page -5-
high of $250 per hour as allowed by Judge McFeeley and $225
per hour as allowed by this judge in one case.
The Firm or Senior Counsel has engaged in a number of
litigated matters concerning its or her fees or related
matters that appear in published or otherwise available
decisions. These include the following:
Miller v. United States Trustee, 288 B.R. 879 (10th Cir.
BAP 2003) (in Chapter 12 case, affirming hourly rate of no
more than $200 and affirming award for fees for total number
of hours spent confirming the plan); In re Bennett, 283 B.R.
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 6 of 46

Page -6-
308 (10th Cir. BAP 2002) (setting out the drawn out conduct of
the chapter 12 case and denying the petition for mandamus
seeking to disqualify the judge on the grounds, among others,
of permitting no more than a $200 hourly rate and of raising
sua sponte Debtors’ failure to file chapter 12 plan or obtain
an extension of time to do so timely); Behles-Giddens, P.A. v.
Raft (In re K.D. Company, Inc.), 254 B.R. 480 (10th Cir. BAP
2000) (affirming requirement that Behles-Giddens, P.A.
disgorge approximately $40,000); In re Love, 163 B.R. 164
(Bankr. D. Montana 1993) (second DIP attorney fee application
for $71,000 in fees and $20,000 in costs denied in full for
lack of full disclosure in Rule 2014 statement, actual charge
for services exceeded estimate and services benefitted DIP
personally rather than estate); and In re Ewing, 167 B.R. 233
(Bankr. D. N.M. 1994) (chapter 7 case in which Senior Counsel
represented the debtor; fees of $40,000 sought and $6,500
awarded).
Finally, two components of this chapter 11 case provide a
further basis for a ruling. The Firm’s handling of motions to
extend exclusivity and to employ an accountant have resulted
in a denial of the relief sought in one instance and the
unnecessary expenditure of resources by the Firm, the Court,
the United States Trustee and a creditor in both instances.
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 7 of 46

9 The Debtor erroneously calculated the exclusive period
for filing a plan to end on December 8, 2004, but this error
turned out to be immaterial.
10 To be clear, the Court is not saying that the notice
had not been sent, but only that the docket did not reflect
that the notice had been sent because the Firm had failed to
file a certification of the mailing of the notice.
Nevertheless, the Court would not have entered the order until
the record had been corrected.
Page -7-
The petition was filed on August 9, 2004 (doc 1). The
Debtor’s exclusive right to file a plan would therefore expire
on December 7, 2004.9 On December 3, the Firm filed a motion
to extend exclusivity through January 8, 2005, and to extend
the deadline to confirm a plan through March 7 (“First
Exclusivity Motion”) (doc 41). By mistake, the Firm failed to
file a certificate of service that it had noticed the
creditors of the deadline to object to the requested relief
and instead filed the First Exclusivity Motion again on
December 7 (doc 43). After the deadline for objections to the
first extension of exclusivity had expired, the Firm submitted
a proposed order extending exclusivity, which order recited
that notice had been given. The Court, taking at face value
the recitation in the order, did not check the docket, and
entered the order on February 9 (doc 53).10 But before the
proposed order approving the First Exclusivity Motion was
submitted to the Court, the Firm on January 6, 2005 filed a
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 8 of 46

Page -8-
second motion seeking to further extend exclusivity through
March 8, 2005, with a confirmation deadline of July 7 (doc 46,
complete image at doc 55) (“Second Exclusivity Motion”). On
February 15, the Court, having reviewed the docket in
connection with the Second Exclusivity Motion and noticing the
lack of certification of service for the First Exclusivity
Motion, entered an order withdrawing approval of the First
Exclusivity Motion for the apparent lack of notice and also
therefore denying the Second Exclusivity Motion (doc 58). On
February 17, the Firm promptly filed a motion to set aside the
order denying exclusivity (doc 60) and a supporting affidavit
(doc 61). The motion and affidavit stated that notice had
been sent to creditors but that by mistake the First
Exclusivity Motion had been refiled instead of the
certification of service to creditors. That motion was
scheduled for a preliminary hearing for March 7. Senior
Counsel failed to appear at that hearing and later graciously
explained that the non-appearance occurred because of a
calendaring mistake in her office (doc 75). In the meantime,
March 8 passed without the filing of a plan; on March 9, the
Firm filed a third motion for the extension of exclusivity
(doc 71). At a preliminary hearing conducted on March 29
(continued from March 7 to March 21 because of the failure to
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 9 of 46

11 The application was signed by Mr. Jones, the proposed
accountant, instead of by the Debtor. Given the disposition
of the application, this anomaly is also immaterial.
Page -9-
appear and then to March 29 at the request of the Debtor (docs
70 and 76)), the Court denied the Third Exclusivity Motion
because the exclusivity period for filing a plan had already
passed by the time the motion was filed. By implication the
motion to set aside the order denying the First Exclusivity
Motion was also denied as moot. A written order to that
effect has now been entered.
On September 27, 2004, the Debtor filed an application to
employ Charles R. Jones as accountant for the estate (doc
27).11 Attached to the application was the proposed employment
agreement between the Debtor in Possession and Mr. Jones'
firm. The application recites in part in paragraph 6 that
"None of the compensation previously received or to be
received for services rendered by the applicant in or in
connection with this case has been shared with any
professional...", but does not describe any specific payments
or debts between the Debtor and Mr. Jones or his firm. Mr.
Jones filed no verified statement pursuant to Rule 2014 at
that time. The notice of the application filed September 27,
2004 (doc 28) recites in part that "Pre-petition fees will not
be collected." There is no mention of any pre-petition fees
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 10 of 46

12 The date of this e-mail to Senior Counsel does not
appear on the copy that was docketed; the Court has obtained
it from consulting its e-mail records which are not available
generally to the public. The source of the specific date of
the e-mail is relatively unimportant since the specific date
is itself immaterial for purposes of this decision.
Page -10-
(debt) incurred by the Debtor to Mr. Jones or his firm in
schedule F or in the Statement of Financial Affairs or the
amended Statement of Financial Affairs (although a party such
as a creditor or the United States Trustee should not be
expected to have to look there to find out about payments like
this). On November 10, 2004 the Debtor filed an amended
notice, with the same language about pre-petition fees not
being collected (doc 36). On November 12, 2004 an "amended"
Rule 2014(a) statement was filed, generically asserting no
conflicts of interest and that the firm was disinterested (doc
37). There was no mention in the statement of any prepetition
payment. It does not appear that Mr. Jones or his firm filed
a Rule 2016(a) statement. At some point the deadline for
objections passed with none being filed, and on February 10,
2005 Senior counsel submitted a proposed form of order
approving the employment that recited as part of the relief
ordered that “[t]he accountant shall not collect any pre-
petition fee owed by the Debtor as set forth in the
application." By e-mail on February 11, 2005 (doc 56)12, to
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 11 of 46

Page -11-
which Senior Counsel responded the same day (doc 57), the
Court rejected the proposed order on the ground that there had
been insufficient disclosure for the employment. The Court
also offered the Debtor the opportunity to employ Mr. Jones or
his firm by starting the process over again with the filing of
an application, a complete verified statement that would
provide the full disclosure necessary, and notice to the
parties on the mailing matrix. The Court scheduled a
preliminary hearing at the request of the Debtor (doc 63), to
take place on March 7. That hearing also was rescheduled to
March 21 and then March 29, 2005. At the March 29 hearing the
Court ordered that Mr. Jones file an amended verified
statement that addressed the existence of a prepetition $150
claim against the estate and Mr. Jones’ prepetition or
postpetition agreement to waive the claim. Upon the filing of
the statement and of any amended schedule or statements, the
employment of Mr. Jones would be approved. A written order to
that effect has now been entered.
Discussion:
Failure to file verified Rule 2014(a) statement:
To begin with, the Court has already entered an order
employing the Firm at the rates sought in the Application with
the exception of the $250 for Senior Counsel. Doc 38. A
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 12 of 46

13 The last sentence of Fed. R. Bank. P. 2014(a) states:
“The [employment] application shall be accompanied
by a verified statement of the person to be employed
setting forth the person’s connections with the
debtor, creditors, any other party in interest,
their respective attorneys and accountants, the
United States trustee, or any person employed in the
office of the United States Trustee.” (Emphasis
added.)
14 The United States Trustee appears not to have
independently confirmed the (non)existence and contents of the
Rule 2014 statement before filing the limited objection (doc
17). The Court considers it the duty of the United States
Trustee to check for Rule 2014/2016 statements in all non-
trusteed chapter 11 cases (although a quick check of recent
chapter 11 filings shows that counsel in every other case but
one has complied with Rules 2014 and 2016). To be fair to
that office, the United States Trustee’s limited objection was
filed in response to the Court’s specific request for a
comment from that office about the requested rate of
compensation. And obviously the Court itself did not check
the docket before entering the employment order (doc 38), or
indeed until shortly before preparing the final draft of this
memorandum opinion. Nevertheless, filing a verified Rule
Page -12-
problem arises from the fact that, although the Firm appears
to have filed no Rule 2014 statement13, the form of order
submitted by Senior Counsel and signed by the Court recites
that the Court “finds” that a Rule 2014 statement had been
filed. In approving the order the Court relied on Senior
Counsel’s representation in the proposed order without
independently confirming the representation. Compare order
withdrawing approval of first motion for extension of
exclusivity, the motion to set aside that order, and the
supporting affidavit (docs 58, 60 and 61 respectively).14 Thus
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 13 of 46

2014(a) statement remains fundamentally and unquestionably the
obligation of the professional and no one else. And
accurately representing the status of the filing of such a
statement in any order submitted to opposing counsel and the
Court remains fundamentally and unquestionably the obligation
of the person submitting the order.
Page -13-
the Court finds itself having entered an employment order when
one of the most basic disclosure requirements of employment
has not been met. See, e.g., In re Love, 163 B.R. at 170
(failure to make Rule 2014 disclosure may result in
disqualification of counsel altogether). The lack of the Rule
2014 statement is all the more serious because of the
consequences of setting aside the initial employment order
(doc 38); unlike the order setting aside the approval of the
First Exclusivity Motion, which was entered while it appeared
that there was little danger of any other entity filing a
plan, setting aside the employment order could have the effect
of depriving the Firm of its employment status throughout this
case at least until a Rule 2014 statement is filed. The Court
is fully aware, and regrets, that the financial consequences
to the Firm could be severe.
It may be that everyone, including the Firm, was
inadvertently lulled into thinking that a verified Rule 2014
statement had been filed because of the recitations in the
Application that closely resemble a Rule 2014(a) statement.
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 14 of 46

Page -14-
And in fact Rule 2014 requires that the professional and the
Debtor each certify that no disqualifying connections exist.
Fed. R. Bank. P. 2014(a); In re 245 Associates, LLC, 188 B.R.
743, 750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995). However, the employment
application, whether signed directly by the debtor or through
the debtor’s counsel, is signed and filed subject to Rule
9011(b). That certification of good faith is not the
equivalent of a “verification”. Rule 9011(e) states that
“[w]henever verification is required by these rules, an
unsworn declaration as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1746 satisfies
the requirement of verification.” Section 1746 provides
language that satisfies the requirement: “I declare (or
certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.” Whereas violating Rule
9011(b) may lead to court-imposed sanctions, a false
verification could lead to a criminal prosecution for perjury.
The difference is not a minor one, and thus the Rule 9011(b)
representations in the Application signed by Senior Counsel on
behalf of the Debtor cannot substitute for a verified
statement from Senior Counsel on behalf of the Firm.
Rule 2014(a) requires that a debtor in possession apply
to the court to hire counsel, Land v. First National Bank of
Alamosa (In re Land), 943 F.2d 1265, 1266 (10th Cir. 1991), and
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 15 of 46

Page -15-
failure to do so may result in the attorney being required to
return all compensation. Id. at 1267. The disclosure
requirements of Rule 2014 are not discretionary, Winship v.
Cook (In re Cook), 223 B.R. 782, 790 (10th Cir. BAP 1998), and
“[a]bsent the spontaneous, timely and complete disclosure
required by §327(a) and Rule 2014, court-approved counsel
proceed at their own risk. Id. at 794. (Citation omitted.)
“At their own risk” can mean disqualification and disgorgement
of all fees. Id. See also Jensen v. United States Trustee
(In re Smitty’s Truck Stop, Inc.), 210 B.R. 844, 848, 850 (10th
Cir. BAP 1997) (same holding for counsel who failed to fully
disclose as required by Rules 2016(b) and 2014(a)). Even a
negligent or inadvertent failure to disclose is sufficient to
deny fees. Id. at 849.
The failure to file the requisite disclosure along with
the employment application means that the application process,
so to speak, is incomplete. That can reasonably be compared
with a failure to file an application altogether. Although
other courts, especially outside the Tenth Circuit, may take a
more relaxed approach to defects in the application process,
the Court believes that using the analogy of the failure to
file an application provides a bright line test for parties to
assess the status of the employment process and to predict the
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 16 of 46

Page -16-
consequences. There is a substantial body of law that
predicts what happens when no employment application has been
filed, even when, as here, the failure to file is a mere
oversight. E.g., In re Land, 943 F.2d at 1268-69 (“[N]unc pro
tunc employment of professionals is only appropriate in the
most extraordinary circumstances. Simple neglect will not
justify nunc pro tunc approval of a debtor’s application for
the employment of a professional.”) (Citations omitted.)
In consequence, the Court is regretfully compelled to set
aside the order employing the Firm (doc 38). See Michel v.
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. (In re Federated Dep’t Stores,
Inc., 44 F.3d 1310, 1320 (6th Cir. 1995) (professional could
not continue to be employed when it was an interested person
from the beginning of the case and thus never validly employed
to begin with); Kravit, Gass & Weber, S.C. v. Michel (In re
Crivello), 134 F.3d 831, 837 (7th Cir. 1998) (same); In re EWC,
Inc., 138 B.R. 276, 281 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1992) (employment
of person with conflict of interest is void ab initio).
Therefore the Firm’s employment application will be denied
until the Firm files a sufficient Rule 2014(a) statement.
Upon the filing of the statement, the Firm may submit an order
on behalf of the Debtor employing the Firm.
The effect of the withdrawal of the employment order
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 17 of 46

Page -17-
could be to allow the bankruptcy court to weigh the equities
in determining what the sanction should be. In re Crivello,
134 F.3d at 837-38 (bankruptcy court had discretion but not
obligation to deny all compensation); In re Tomczak, 283 B.R.
730, 736 (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. 2002) (“flexible approach of
balancing the needs for sanctions with the inequity which
would otherwise result from a complete denial of all fees and
disbursements”); In re Combe Farms, Inc., 257 B.R. 48, 55, 56
(Bankr. D. Idaho 2001) (inadequate Rule 2014 disclosure and
untimely Rule 2016 filing resulted in two discretionary 10%
reductions in the fees requested); In re Glenn Electric Sales
Corp., 99 B.R. 596, 599-600, 602 (D. N.J. 1988) (“purely
technical” failure to comply with Rule 2014 required
revocation of order employing counsel since subjective good
faith to comply is irrelevant; equities tipped in favor of
disqualification of firm). The Tenth Circuit rule is
apparently stricter or more punitive. In re Smitty’s Truck
Stop, Inc., 210 B.R. at 850 (failure to disclose all potential
conflicts warrants a denial of all fees; Tenth Circuit has
taken a stricter view of conflicts of interest). However, it
is not necessary to decide at this time what exactly the
consequences will be of setting aside the order; e.g., whether
there should be disgorgement of fees or some other sanction.
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 18 of 46

15 The parties agreed that the matter would be considered
submitted when William Arland filed his affidavit. Doc 38.
That happened on November 29, 2004. Doc 40. Since the Court
had already entered an order employing the Firm and the only
issue was whether Senior Counsel would be receiving the
additional $50 per hour, the Court did not perceive an unusual
urgency to decide this matter, although of course any decision
ought to be made promptly. In addition to reviewing and
considering the affidavits from counsel, personnel from the
Court’s staff and the Clerk’s office were assembling the
information that makes up Appendix 1. Upon discovering and
then confirming the lack of a Rule 2014 statement, the Court
speeded up its work on this decision and has issued it as soon
as reasonably possible after discovering the lack of the Rule
2014 statement. Nevertheless, upon discovering and verifying
the lack of a Rule 2014 statement, the Court inadvertently did
not notify the Firm of the deficiency immediately. Although
the Court had no obligation to do so, the Court is still
frustrated that had it immediately notified the Firm, the Firm
might have filed the Rule 2014 statement and thereby reduced
the time during which it was not qualified to be employed.
Since the Court discovered the deficiency some time in March
(to the best of its recollection), the Court will permit the
re-employment of the Firm effective March 1, 2005, if it
promptly cures the lack of the Rule 2014 statement.
Page -18-
What is critical to decide now is whether the Firm can or
should be (re)employed, and the Court has decided that it can
and should, upon compliance with Rule 2014.15
Deficiencies of attorney-client agreement:
Portions of the employment agreement between the Debtor
and the Firm, attached to the Application, should be stricken
as contrary to common bankruptcy practice, as follows:
“Additional deposits may be required from time to
time. The failure of Client to pay any additional
deposit within fourteen (14) days of a request for
such a deposit shall constitute a breach of this
agreement.
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 19 of 46

Page -19-
“The hourly rates may change from time to time upon
twenty (20) days written notice to Client.
“The failure of the Client to give such a notice to
Attorneys [of any part of a monthly bill which the
Client thinks is unreasonable or in error within
twenty days of the date of the bill] shall be deemed
an admission of the reasonableness of the charge.
“All fees, gross receipts tax, and costs are due in
full within twenty (20) days of the date Client is
billed. Failure of Client to pay all sums owing
within twenty (20) days after filling constitutes a
breach of this agreement. Balances unpaid after
thirty (30) days are charged interest at a rate of
twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded monthly.
“Client’s...breach of this Agreement [entitles]
Attorneys...to terminate the
representation...subject only to the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
“Attorneys’ Charging Lien [in its entirety].
“Disputes [concerning the agreement or billing shall
be submitted to court-annexed arbitration in the
Second Judicial District Court for the State of New
Mexico, County of Bernalillo].”
Hourly rate for Senior Counsel:
Concerning the rates of compensation, 11 U.S.C. §§ 328(a)
and 330(a)(3)(A)(E) [sic] respectively provide in relevant
parts as follows:
“The trustee, ... with the court’s approval, may
employ ... a professional person under section 327
..., on any reasonable terms and conditions of
employment, including on a retainer, on an hourly
basis, or on a contingent fee basis.
Notwithstanding such terms and conditions, the court
may allow compensation different from the
compensation provided under such terms and
conditions after the conclusion of such employment,
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 20 of 46

Page -20-
if such terms and conditions prove to have been
improvident in light of developments not capable of
being anticipated at the time of the fixing of such
terms and conditions.”
“In determining the amount of reasonable
compensation to be awarded, the court shall consider
the nature, the extent, and the value of such
services, taking into account all relevant factors,
including – whether the compensation is reasonable
based on the customary compensation charged by
comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than
cases under this title.”
One of the values of the last sentence of § 328(a) is
that it allows a professional to more reliably estimate what
its income will be, knowing that the rate of compensation will
almost certainly not be changed. That is a value and
prerequisite for the operation of any business, including one
that provides professional services. Another value is that it
allows the Debtor, the creditors and others to better account
for professional fees in making determinations about how to
reorganize the debtor’s business. See, e.g., In re Love, 163
B.R. at 171 (excess fees denied which considerably exceeded
the amount estimated as part of the prepackaged chapter 11
plan which creditors accepted). Thus the Court intends that
the rate of compensation approved at the beginning of the
employment will ordinarily continue in effect throughout the
case with the exception of annual increases that a firm
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 21 of 46

16 Such increases may only be applied in the bankruptcy
case pursuant to Court order following the filing and notice
of a supplemental employment application.
Page -21-
applies to all of its clients.16
Concerning the rates of compensation, the Court does not
dispute the affidavits which describe hourly rates exceeding
$200 for counsel of twenty or more years of experience. What
the affidavits do not include is information from other
counsel who do bankruptcy work representing secured creditors
who work for flat fees that effectively are far less than $200
per hour. But because those rates are not part of the
evidence of record in this matter, the Court will not consider
them. However, the Court may rely on the data taken from the
case files as set out in Appendix 1, which show a range of
rates for bankruptcy counsel in this district that seldom
exceed $200 and frequently are less
than that. See Miller, 288 B.R. at 883 (trial court properly
considered hourly rates of bankruptcy attorneys in its
jurisdiction). What the rates are for comparably skilled
counsel performing nonbankruptcy work is only one part of the
calculation, id. at 882, and not the only or even the primary
factor to be considered. Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin
Capital v. Unsecured Creditors’ Liquidating Trust (In re
Commercial Financial Services, Inc.), 298 B.R. 733, 751 (10th
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 22 of 46

17 Again to be clear, the Court is not saying that Senior
Counsel is the functional equivalent of a first-year attorney;
indeed, far from it.
Page -22-
Cir. BAP 2003).
A critical part of the calculation is whether the
professional is “comparably skilled”, or at least exercises
skills comparable to nonbankruptcy practitioners. Years of
experience per se are not determinative; after all, one
attorney can have twenty years of consistently becoming more
skilled and another can repeat the first year of practice
twenty times.17 What has happened so far in this case does not
demonstrate the skills or case management of an attorney
entitled to more than $200 per hour. In fact, the failure to
file a Rule 2014(a) statement, an attorney-client employment
agreement rife with provisions that run contrary to bankruptcy
practice, a record of published cases that demonstrate a
number of billing disputes, a months-long brouhaha in this
case over exclusivity that ultimately must be denied for
failure to meet the Debtor’s own deadlines, and the drawn-out
process to hire the accountant because of a simple failure of
disclosure, coupled with the extra work that those missteps
cause other parties and the Court, strongly suggest that $200
per hour is too high. Whether the work has been done by
Senior Counsel or by someone under her supervision (or perhaps
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 23 of 46

18 Ordinarily upon the expiration of the deadline for
objections and no objections having been filed, proposed
counsel promptly submits a proposed order for employment
setting out the rates of compensation. When that order
(pursuant to the application) proposes an hourly rate in
excess of $200, the Court will approve the order at $200 per
hour without a further hearing, and provide that counsel may
seek a specific hearing on the issue of a higher rate. See,
e.g., In re Bennett, 283 B.R. at 312. And the Court usually
also inserts a provision that if Counsel seeks a higher rate,
the result could in fact be a rate lower than $200 per hour.
See, e.g., In re Gilliland, no. 11-05-10492 SA, Order
Authorizing Debtors to Employ Counsel (doc 17) and In re
Silver Bird, LLC, no. 11-05-10618 SA, Order Authorizing Debtor
to Employ Counsel (doc 30). Because the Application in this
case was handled differently (counsel did not submit an
employment order but instead requested a preliminary hearing
followed by another preliminary hearing in turn followed by
the entry of the employment order prepared by counsel), the
Firm received no such “warning” in this particular case of the
possibility of a lower hourly rate.
Page -23-
not), the management of the case so far is more characteristic
of a less experienced lawyer in the $150 per hour range.
Nevertheless, given that the Court initially allowed the Firm
to bill $200 per hour for Senior Counsel’s time, the Court
will now not reduce the rate for Senior Counsel below the $200
level.18
Finally, the Firm and other counsel, through the Giddens
materials, argue that the collection rate in bankruptcy cases
is so consistently low – 72% and 61% respectively for Puccini
& Meagle, P.A. and Mr. Giddens -- that the Court should award
higher rates of compensation so that collections are higher.
Of course the Court as a former attorney recalls a number of
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 24 of 46

Page -24-
such instances of low or no collections (one of which is
summarized in In re Bennett, 283 B.R. at 311-12) and thus
sympathizes with counsels’ position. And indisputably a fact
of life about representing the estate or a debtor in
possession is that the rate sometimes turns out to be a
“contingent hourly” rate; i.e., payment on an hourly basis
that may or may not get paid.
Nevertheless, there are problems with the collection-rate
argument. First, no data are presented that show that the
collection rates outside of bankruptcy are any higher.
Indeed, the Court assumes that relatively few attorneys
collect 100% of their fees in every case or engagement,
whether in or out of bankruptcy. Second, no data was
presented showing what the collection percentage was for
counsel generally in bankruptcy cases, as opposed to for those
two firms. Third, the allegedly relatively low collection
rates in bankruptcy may depend on a number of factors,
including whether counsel overbilled in various cases and thus
was not able to collect on fees because they were not allowed
or because the bills were simply too high and the client
refused to pay. And finally, allowing higher rates of
compensation may not per se increase the gross revenue
received from any given case if there are simply not enough
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 25 of 46

19 If the United States Trustee will not approve the
Order, the Court will conduct a hearing on extremely short
notice.
Page -25-
resources to pay the higher fees. In other words, it is this
judge’s observation that the primary reason attorneys and
other professionals do not receive more compensation on the
whole from bankruptcy practice is simply that a number of
cases can’t bear the fees that result from the professionals’
efforts regardless of how useful the work is.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the Firm’s application to be
paid more than $200 per hour for Senior Counsel’s work is
denied, although the rate of $200 is allowed. The previous
order approving the Application and allowing the employment
(doc 38) is set aside. Once the Firm has filed the requisite
Rule 2014(a) statement and served it on the United States
Trustee, and assuming it does so within five business days of
the entry of this memorandum opinion and order, the Firm may
submit an order, approved by the United States Trustee19,
employing it effective March 1, 2005, pursuant to footnote 15
above. If the Rule 2014 statement is filed later than the
five days, any employment will be effective retroactive to the
date of the filing of the Rule 2014 statement. The order to
be submitted by counsel may incorporate the remainder of the
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 26 of 46

Page -26-
provisions of the first employment order such as monthly
interim payments (doc 38), but it must include the changes to
the attorney-client employment agreement as specified in this
Memorandum Opinion. An order will enter.
Honorable James S. Starzynski
United States Bankruptcy Judge
I hereby certify that on April 1, 2005, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted, faxed,
delivered, or mailed to the listed counsel and/or parties.
Jennie D Behles
PO Box 7070
Albuquerque, NM 87194-7070
Alice Nystel Page
PO Box 608
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0608
Michael Newell
PO Box 1599
Lovington, NM 88260-1599
Rod M Schumacher
PO Box 700
Roswell, NM 88202-0700
Stephen Stuart Shanor
PO Box 700
Roswell, NM 88202-0700
Michael R Enright
280 Trumbull St
Hartford, CT 06103-3509
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 27 of 46

1 Assets and Liabilities are stated in millions. “NS” indicates no amount stated on petition.
2 Case status: F - final decree entered, P - pending, not confirmed, C - confirmed, D -
dismissed, CV - converted.
3 Rate: * indicates no Order entered setting rates, ‡ indicates no motion to employ filed, V
indicates that employment was denied (and no other attorney entered appearance).
APPENDIX 1.
Chapter 11 cases in the District of New Mexico, Jan. 1, 2002 through Mar. 30, 2005
This table lists all cases filed under or converted to Chapter 11 in the District of New Mexico
from January 1, 2002 through March 30, 2005. The “Rate” column is the rate approved, either in
the Order itself, or by reference to the Motion to Employ Attorney. Approval of the Rate does
not necessarily mean the Court will award that rate for all work done. Furthermore, in several
cases no fee applications were ever filed and/or no fees were ever awarded.
Case Number Case Title Assets1 Liabs1 Status2 Attorney(s) Rate3
02-10035
SS Francisco Leon Rios 1-10 1-10 F M. Chappell 175
02-10188 MA Salvador R. Guzman and
Patricia A. Guzman
1-10 NS CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
225
175
150
125
125
02-10475
MA Independent Utility
Company
1-10 .1-.5 P G. Velarde 175
02-10476
SA Randy C. Lykins .1-.5 1-10 P Pro Se -
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 28 of 46

Page -2-	Appendix 1.
Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
02-10592
MA Waltice Benjamin Ham III
and Shari Linn Ham
.5-1 1-10 F B. Davis
C. Pierce
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
175
150
125
120
02-10667
MA Calmar, Inc. .5-1 1-10 F R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
190
170
170
02-10678
MA Hoffmantown Body Shop,
Inc.
.1-.5 .1-.5 F B. Gordon
S. Long
Associates
180
180
165
02-10752
SA Moonlight Enterprises,
LLC
NS NS D G. Moore
A. Berkson
175
90
02-10927 SR Burton S. Gammill NS 1-10 CV G. Moore
A. Berkson
175
90
02-10970 MA Archies Lounge, Inc. 0-.05 .5-1 CV J. Rocha de
Gandara
H. Payne
125
125
02-11070 SS Price’s Ilfield Hardware
Co., Inc.
NS NS CV L. Fields 200
02-11481
MA Monarch Broadcast
Services, Inc.
NS .5-1 P W. Reardon 150
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 29 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -3-	Appendix 1.
02-11659 MA Hillary P. Paul and Mary
B. Paul
.05-.1 .1-.5 CV P. Becht 175
02-11660
SA John T. Fox .1-.5 .5-1 D P. Becht 175
02-11826
SR Smith Enterprises, Inc. 0-.05 0-.05 D P. Montoya *
02-11831
MA Rural Housing, Inc. 1-10 1-10 D D. Becker 175
02-11881 MA General Waste Corporation .05-.1 .5-1 CV B. Gordon
S. Long
Associates
180
180
165
02-11882 MA Bruce F. Glaspell NS 0-.05 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
200
175
150
125
02-11883 MA Viviana E. Cloninger NS .1-.5 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
200
175
150
125
02-11970
SS Oliver C De Baca .5-1 1-10 D Pro se -
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 30 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -4-	Appendix 1.
02-12182
SA Septien & Assoc., Inc. 0-.05 .1-.5 D S. Turpen *
02-12274
SS Carolyn Still Takhar 1-10 NS C G. Moore
A. Berkson
175
90
02-12552 SL Rio Grande Mills, Inc. 0-.05 .5-1 CV D. Giddens
Associates
200
110
02-12925 SA Loraca International,
Inc.
1-10 1-10 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
175
175
150
150
125
02-12926 MA Lexus Companies, Inc. 0-.05 1-10 D B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
V
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 31 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -5-	Appendix 1.
02-12927 SA Calumet Securities Corp. 0-.05 1-10 D B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
V
02-12928 MA HomeLoan.com, Inc. 0-.05 1-10 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
V
02-12968 MA PINS Stillwater, Inc. .1-.5 .1-.5 CV R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
190
170
170
02-13758 MA PMR Construction
Services, Inc.
1-10 1-10 CV R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
190
170
170
02-13809
SA Assist/Care New Mexico,
Inc.
0-.05 .1-.5 D S. McIlwain 175
02-14214
MR Dewey M. Runnels and Judy
C. Runnels
.1-.5 .05-
.1
P S. Diamond 200
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 32 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -6-	Appendix 1.
02-14217
MR Runnels Broadcasting
Systems, LLC
0-.05 .1-.5 P J. Behles 200
02-14552
SA Filandro R Anaya and
Odette Chavez-Anaya
1-10 .5-1 P D. Giddens
Associates
200
120
02-14553
SL Meteor Stores, Inc. .1-.5 .5-1 D L. Ramirez *
02-15145
MS Phase-1 Molecular
Toxicology, Inc.
.1-.5 .1-.5 F R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
190
170
170
02-15335
SR Ali M. Ghaffari Sr. and
Linda Ghaffari
0-.05 .1-.5 D D. Webb 200
02-15336
SR Buena Vista Retirement
Center, Inc.
0-.05 .05-
.1
D M. Daniels *
02-15485
SA Tingley's Grill, LLC 0-.05 .1-.5 D Pro se -
02-15740
MS Thomas N. White Jr. 1-10 1-10 D Pro se -
02-16342
MR MDP, Inc. .1-.5 .1-.5 D D. Giddens 200
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 33 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -7-	Appendix 1.
02-16431 MA Advantage Printing
Specialists Corp.
.1-.5 .1-.5 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
175
175
150
125
125
02-16432
SA TEWA Techonology
Corporation
0-.05 .1-.5 D G. Velarde 175
02-16567
SL Rodney S. Pino and Janet
L. Pino
.1-.5 .1-.5 CV R. Holmes 145
02-16868
ML Adventure Aviation, Inc. .1-.5 1-10 D S. Mazer 175
02-17007
MA Equity Holding
Corporation
1-10 1-10 D E. Kanter *
02-17127
SA Central Park Limited NS NS D D. Behles 175
02-17828
SA Brisket House, Inc. 0-.05 0-.05 C S. McIlwain 175
02-17878
SA Investment Company of the
Southwest, Inc
1-10 1-10 C D. Behles 195
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 34 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -8-	Appendix 1.
02-17903
MR Hemmingsway Hotel, LLC 1-10 1-10 D B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
225
175
175
150
125
125
02-17934
SS David Weckerly, Inc., a
New Mexico Corp.
NS 1-10 D G. Moore *
02-18034
MA Rudolfo Joseph Sandoval
and Eufelia Sandoval
NS NS D G. Moore
A. Berkson
175
90
02-18752
MA R.B. French Fire & Sound,
Inc.
.5-1 1-10 C W. Reardon 175
02-18779
SA Virginia S. Silva and
Bradford H. Zeikus
NS .1-.5 F D. Behles 195
03-10082
SL Tomlin Farms, L.L.C. 1-10 10-50 C R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
190
170
170
03-10083
ML Seven L Bar, L.L.C. 1-10 1-10 C B. Given 205
03-10524
SR High Energy Access Tools,
Inc.
NS NS P G. Moore
A. Berkson
195
110
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 35 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -9-	Appendix 1.
03-11161 MA Colony Information
Technology Corp.
1-10 1-10 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
175
175
150
125
125
03-11238
ML Star Concrete, Inc. NS .1-.5 D J.
Bartholomew
*
03-11510 SA R.G. Cantina Ltd. Co. .1-.5 .5-1 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
175
175
150
150
125
03-11697
SA Allied Discount
Corporation
.1-.5 .1-.5 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
195
110
03-11772
MR Jack Leroy Muse 1-10 1-10 D L. Bloom 190
03-11787 SF NewCo Aggregate Company,
L.L.C.
0-.05 .5-1 CV M. Daniels 150
03-11984
SS D IV Designs, Inc. NS NS P G. Moore *
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 36 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -10-	Appendix 1.
03-12228
SA Superior Pest Control,
Inc.
0-.05 1-10 P G. Velarde 175
03-12274 SA Smith-Everett Homes, Inc. 1-10 1-10 CV D. Behles 195
03-12715
ML Reginald Nease 1-10 .1-.5 F D. Giddens
Associates
200
150
03-12960
MR The Melodie Corporation .5-1 1-10 P R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
195
175
175
03-12990 MA Pavement Maintenance Co.
Inc.
.1-.5 .1-.5 CV A. Chisholm ‡
03-13879 SA Felix Gomez .1-.5 1-10 CV R. Holmes 145
03-13944 MA Colony Information
Services Corp.
.1-.5 1-10 CV R. Lowe *
03-14485
SA B & B Management, Inc. .05-.1 .5-1 C G. Velarde 175
03-14646
ML James Alford 1-10 .1-.5 P W. Reardon 175
03-14717
SA DB Kelly De Vargas, Inc. NS NS D G. Moore
A. Berkson
195
119
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 37 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -11-	Appendix 1.
03-14871
SA Donna M. Smith and Bruce
R. Smith
.5-1 1-10 P G. Velarde 175
03-15163
SA Tito's Tavern, Inc. .1-.5 .1-.5 D R. Lowe *
03-15314
SL Sun Products, Inc. NS NS F D. Behles 195
03-15868 MR AST West, Inc. .5-1 .5-1 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
200
175
150
150
125
03-15930
MS Fine Fare and Fowl, Inc. .05-.1 .1-.5 D B. Gordon
S. Long
A.
Yarrington
175
190
165
03-16263
SA Tao Te, Inc. .1-.5 .1-.5 D R. Lowe *
03-16402
MA Dale S. Stull and
Charlotte F. Stull
.5-1 1-10 C B. Gordon
S. Long
A.
Yarrington
175
190
165
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 38 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -12-	Appendix 1.
03-16462
SS The Inn, LLC. 1-10 1-10 C J. Thomason 150
03-18437
MA CAD Drafting & Design,
LLC
.1-.5 .1-.5 P L. Puccini
S. Meagle
250
140
03-18462
SA Brock B. Parker .1-.5 .05-
.1
C E. Thunberg 125
03-18842
MA Pioneer Mobile Homes
Service, LLC
0-.05 .05-
.1
D S. Mazer 180
03-19023
MS Juan Ramon Gonzales and
Rosemary Gonzales
.5-1 .1-.5 D G. Ottinger 175
03-19457 MA Gregory M. Dotson and
Mary J. Dotson
1-10 1-10 CV B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
200
175
150
150
125
04-10050 SS Russell Wolfe and Vivian
B. Wolfe
.1-.5 .1-.5 P D. Becker 175
04-10100
MA Donnie R. Owens 1-10 1-10 P R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
190
170
170
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 39 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -13-	Appendix 1.
04-10194
MA Djahangir Davoudzadeh .1-.5 .5-1 D S. Mazer *
04-10341
MA Rocky Mountain Brewing
Co., Ltd.
NS NS P D. Behles 195
04-10461
SR William C. Davis and
Sandra M. Davis
1-10 1-10 P R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
S. Schaeffer
190
170
170
110
04-10711
SA Uniflex Southwest, LLC 1-10 10-50 D R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
S. Schaeffer
195
175
175
110
04-11048
SS John Henry Rippe 0-.05 0-.05 D L. King *
04-11150
SR Thomas Ace Appling and
Mary Helen Appling
.5-1 1-10 P B. Gordon
S. Long
175
190
04-11226
MA Gaim-Ko, Inc. 10-50 1-10 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
200
125
04-11243
MA Ray A. Gallegos and
Charlotte Gallegos
.1-.5 .1-.5 P D. Giddens
Associates
225
120
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 40 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -14-	Appendix 1.
04-11283
MA Edward B. Madrid .05-.1 .1-.5 P G. Velarde 185
04-11495
MS Thomas Neil Perez Sr. and
Sandra Laurie Perez
.5-1 1-10 C B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
P. Barber
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
200
200
175
175
150
150
04-11562
MA Recognition Plus Corp. 0-.05 .1-.5 P G. Ottinger 175
04-11649 SA Chemmet Laboratory and
Refinery Corp.
0-.05 0-.05 CV S. Mazer 180
04-11971
MA Beta Corporation
International, Inc.
.1-.5 1-10 P B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
P. Barber
C. Tessman
M. Garcia
225
200
175
175
150
150
04-12155
SA Albuquerque Chemical
Company, Inc.
1-10 1-10 CV W. Reardon 175
04-12175
MA Equus Albuquerque Airport
LLC
0-.05 0-.05 D J. Behles
L. Higgins
?
150
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 41 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -15-	Appendix 1.
04-12390
SR Lorenzo A. Ramirez and
Ramona G. Ramirez
0-.05 0-.05 P T. Arvizu 140
04-13152
SA System One Satellite,
Inc.
0-.05 .1-.5 D S. Mazer 180
04-13371
SL Star Concrete Inc. .05-.1 .1-.5 P J.
Bartholomew
*
04-13378
SL Joel T. Danley .1-.5 1-10 P R. Lowe 200
04-13379
ML J.D. Materials, Inc. 1-10 1-10 D R. Lowe *
04-13983
SA Mach 2 Machining &
Manufacturing Inc.
0-.05 1-10 P D. Giddens
Associates
225
150
04-13998
MR Buena Vista Retirement
Center
.1-.5 .5-1 P S. Mazer 180
04-14417
MA Gary George Spatta and
Linda Kathaleen Spatta
1-10 1-10 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
200
125
04-15468
SA Old Abe Company 0-.05 0-.05 P M. Daniels *
04-15469
SA Lincoln Gold & Tungsten,
Inc.
.5-1 .1-.5 P M. Daniels *
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 42 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -16-	Appendix 1.
04-15755
SR Union Home and
Industrial, Inc.
0-.05 .1-.5 P J. Behles
H. Meade
___
125
04-15914
ML The Flashing Company,
Inc.
0-.05 .1-.5 P T. Arvizu *
04-15974
MA New Mexico Golf Academy,
LLC
0-.05 1-10 P D. Giddens
Associates
225
150
04-15995
MS Texas Reds, Inc. .5-1 .5-1 P D. Becker 175
04-16394
MA Academy Printers, Inc. 1-10 1-10 P R. Lowe *
04-16431
MA Murell Hogan and June E.
Hogan
.1-.5 .1-.5 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
200
125
04-16866
SF Double P Investments,
Inc.
.1-.5 .1-.5 P S. Long 200
04-16879
SL Alco Fabricators, Inc. 0-.05 .5-1 P T. Arvizu *
04-17080
SA Kenneco Custom Roofing,
Inc.
.5-1 .5-1 P J.
Bartholomew
150
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 43 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -17-	Appendix 1.
04-17376
SA Escala, LLC NS NS P R. Jacobvitz
D. Thuma
T. Walker
195
195
195
04-17520
MA Gary Edward Martinez and
Mary Jo Martinez
.1-.5 .1-.5 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
200
125
04-17555
SA Robert F. Belfon and
Teresa I. Belfon
0-.05 .05-
.1
P D. Webb 200
04-17704
SA Daniel William Cook and
Yolanda T. Cook
1-10 1-10 P Pro se -
04-17848
SA Sutro-Sandia Corporation 0-.05 .05-
.1
P T. Rice *
04-17960
MS Hendrickson Consulting,
Inc.
.05-.1 .1-.5 P A. Schimmel *
04-18146
ML Zia Shadows, LLC, a New
Mexico Limited
1-10 1-10 P S. Mazer 180
04-18302
ML David Holguin and Maria
Holguin
.05-.1 1-10 P D. Giddens
Associates
225
120
04-18786
SA Iniquities LLC .1-.5 .1-.5 P J.
Bartholomew
150
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 44 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -18-	Appendix 1.
04-19427
SL Villages At Ranchers
Club, Inc.
1-10 .1-.5 P T. Arvizu *
05-10034
MS Guadalupe Station, LLC .1-.5 .1-.5 P B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
M. Garcia
Associates
200
175
175
150
125
05-10262
SS Lobo Land, LLC 1-10 1-10 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
*
05-10321
MS Brenda C. Price 1-10 1-10 P M. Chappel *
05-10323
MA James Coplan Williams III
and Sandra Gail Williams
.5-1 .5-1 P D. Becker 175
05-10492
SA Alvie D. Gilliland and
Sharon Ann Gilliland
.1-.5 .1-.5 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
B.
Gandarilla
200
145
145
05-10618 SA Silver Bird, LLC NS NS P G. Moore
A. Berkson
B.
Gandarilla
200
145
145
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 45 of 46

Case Number Case Title Assets Liabs Statu
s
Attorney Rate
Page -19-	Appendix 1.
05-10678 SA Scott G. Smith .1-.5 .1-.5 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
*
05-10788 ML TNM Services Company, LLC 1-10 1-10 P L. Puccinni
S. Meagle
250
175
05-10903 MA The Zoo Animal Hospital,
Inc.
.05-.1 .1-.5 P D. Webb 200
05-11126 MA ABC Cake, Inc. .1-.5 .1-.5 P L. Puccinni
S. Meagle
*
05-11248 MS George Espinosa and Mary
Espinosa
1-10 .5-1 P G. Moore
A. Berkson
B.
Gandarilla
*
05-11276 MA Ronald W. Ziemann .5-1 .5-1 P L. Puccinni
S. Meagle
*
05-11304 MA Fox .1-.5 .5-1 P P. Becht ‡
05-11876 SF San Juan River Tank, Inc. .1-.5 .1-.5 P B. Davis
C. Pierce
A. Goodman
Associates
*
Case 04-15755-s11 Doc 87 Filed 04/01/05 Entered 04/02/05 17:58:00 Page 46 of 46