UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL LAUER,
LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and
LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP II, LLC,
Defendants,
and
LANCER OFFSHORE, INC., LANCER PARTNERS, LP,
OMNIFUND, LTD., LSPV, INC., and LSPV, LLC,
Relief Defendants.
___________________________________________/
COLSON HICKS EIDSON’S FINAL FEE APPLICATION
AND REQUEST FOR FINAL FEE RECOVERY AWARD
Colson Hicks Eidson (“CHE”) submits its final fee application in this matter and its
request for a final fee recovery award pursuant to the terms of CHE’s original retention in this
matter by the Receiver. CHE has consulted with the Receiver prior to the filing of this Final Fee
Application, and the Receiver supports this application. In addition, CHE has consulted with
counsel for the Group Plaintiffs prior to the filing of this Final Fee Application, and counsel has
indicated that they do not oppose the request set forth below.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 1 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-2-
FINAL FEE APPLICATION
Pursuant to the Receivership Order, and with the approval of the Court, the Receiver has
engaged and employed the law firm of CHE to act as Special Counsel to the Receivership
Entities. CHE was retained by the Receiver, with the approval of the Court, effective March 1,
2004.
This is CHE’s final fee application. This fee application covers the work done over a past
sixteen-month period, from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009 (the “Application Period”).
By this Application, CHE respectfully requests compensation for the Application Period in the
amount of $8,855.00 fees and $633.23 in costs for a total of $9,488.23, to be paid by the
Receivership. These fees represent an agreed upon 50% reduction of CHE’s normal hourly rates
for attorneys, reflecting a savings of $6,425.00 for the Application Period.1
The exhibits attached to this application include Exhibit 1-A – Summary of Professional
and Paraprofessional Time; Exhibit 1-B – Summary of Professional and Paraprofessional Time
by Activity Code; Exhibit 2 – Summary of Requested Reimbursement of Expenses; and Exhibit
3 – Detailed Time Entries (redacted where necessary to protect the attorney-client privilege
and/or attorney work product privilege).
During the Application Period, CHE has rendered services for and on behalf of the
Receivership estate. The following categories describe the services rendered by CHE during the
Application Period.
1 On July 13, 2004 CHE entered into an agreement with the Receiver in which CHE agreed to
reduce its customarily hourly rates for its attorneys by 50%, with the opportunity to apply to the Receiver and,
thereafter the Court for a “results accomplished” enhanced fee, up to 20%, which agreement was attached as Exhibit
“B” to the Receiver’s Notice of Intention to Retain Roberto Martínez and Colson Hicks Eidson as Special Counsel
to the Receivership Entities Effective as of December 1, 2007 [D.E. 436]. This Court, after reviewing Receiver’s
Notice [D.E. 436], the Group Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Notice [D.E. 455] and the Receiver’s Reply to the Group
Plaintiffs’ Objection [D.E. 471], entered an Order Granting Receiver’s Request [D.E. 614].
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-3-
Litigation ─ Fraudulent Transfers: CHE is requesting $8,855.00 in attorney’s fees for
39.20 hours in attorney and paralegal time in connection with the category “Litigation ─
Fraudulent Transfers.” CHE’s time during the Application Period was primarily spent in
continuing to assist the Receiver in prosecuting claims for the recovery of fraudulent transfers
against a number of investors who received “net redemptions” from the Lancer funds. During
the Application Period, this action was being litigated against three remaining defendants, each
of which had previously filed a motion to dismiss raising a number of different issues. The
Court denied these motions in whole or in part, and the parties subsequently engaged in
settlement negotiations. CHE spent time negotiating and eventually documenting and finalizing
settlements with the remaining defendants, which resulted in the completed settlements that will
be discussed below.
Fee/Employment Applications: This is CHE’s Fourth Fee Application, having filed only
three other fee applications to date, both covering lengthy periods of work (over 2 years for the
first application, over 1 year for the second application, and over 8 months for the third
application). CHE is not requesting any attorney fees in connection with any of the time spent
on this application.
REQUEST FOR FEE RECOVERY AWARD
CHE was originally retained, with the Court’s approval, at a substantially reduced hourly
rate with the opportunity to apply at the conclusion of the matter for a fee award based on the
results obtained. The fee reductions made by CHE have totaled approximately $185,562. CHE
is making its application for a final fee recovery at this time. CHE has not treated any of the
time spent on this application as time billable to the Receivership. Although the terms of CHE’s
retention would allow it to seek a percentage of the recoveries that resulted from its litigation
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 3 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-4-
efforts, CHE is not seeking a fee enhancement but is only seeking only to recover the amounts of
its fee reductions in this manner – a significantly lower amount.
The Initial Retention of Colson Hicks Eidson
The Receiver was appointed in July 2003 to wind down the affairs of the Lancer hedge
funds. Hunton & Williams was retained to be the Receiver’s primary counsel. CHE was
retained to be special counsel to the Receiver on specific litigation matters where Hunton &
Williams had potential conflicts. The terms of CHE’s retention were that CHE would bill its time
at a discount of 50% of its customary hourly rates. However, CHE would be permitted to
apply to you, as Receiver and Responsible Person, and thereafter
the Court for a “results accomplished” enhanced fee calculated by
considering all factors set forth in Section 4-1.5 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for determining a reasonable fee, up to 20%
of any recovery to the receivership estates of the Receivership
Entities and the bankruptcy estate of the Partners, from those
defendants assigned to us for prosecution.
[D.E. 436 at ¶ 13.] The Court approved of the Receiver’s retention of CHE by Order entered
November16, 2004. [D.E. 614].
Overview of the Funds Recovered For the Receiver By CHE
Although CHE is not seeking an award based on a percentage of the recoveries that
resulted from its litigation efforts, the purpose of this section is to highlight what CHE considers
to be the key results it has achieved in this matter in support of its application to recover the
amount of its fee reductions only. CHE has worked with the Receiver to varying degrees to
recover assets from certain defendants in this matter in fraudulent conveyance actions and in an
action against PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”), the former auditors of the Lancer funds. The
total recoveries from the actions against the fraudulent conveyance defendants have added
$1,234,673 to the Receivership’s asset pool. The action against PWC, in conjunction with
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 4 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-5-
actions brought by certain individual plaintiffs and the investor class action, has resulted in a
$22,250,000 global settlement. As of September 30, 2009, the Receiver has collected a total of
$112,476,947 in assets, consisting of: (i) initial cash deposits of $2,852,766; (ii) sales of
securities of $73,424,656; (iii) sales of other assets of $2,663,470; (iv) litigation and settlement
recoveries of $11,731,704; (v) GGK/Amex litigation and settlement recoveries of $12,500,000;
(vi) PWC litigation and settlement recoveries of $3,150,394; (vii) interest and dividend income
of $5,944,436; and (viii) miscellaneous receipts of $209,521. See Notice of Filing Receiver’s
Thirteenth Status Report, Dated October 30, 2009 [D.E. 2334], at p.15.
The Fraudulent Transfer Actions
The following is a brief summary of the fraudulent transfer actions pursued by CHE that
resulted in recoveries to the Receivership:
Settlement with New Cavendish Finance Corporation (“NCFC”). On November 24,
2008, CHE filed its Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement with New Cavendish
Finance Corporation [D.E. 2174]. The Stipulation of Settlement required NCFC to pay
$409,674.00 to the Receiver. The Court approved the Receiver’s settlement with NCFC on
January 23, 2009 [D.E. 2215]. The settlement funds have been received by the Receiver.
Settlement with Credit Agricole Indosuez Luxembourg (“CAIL”). On May 13, 2009,
CHE filed a Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement with Credit Agricole Indosuez
Luxembourg [D.E. 2263]. The Stipulation of Settlement required CAIL to pay $350,000.00 to
the Receiver. The Court approved the Receiver’s settlement with CAIL on June 8, 2009 [D.E.
2274]. The settlement funds have been received by the Receiver.
Settlement with Credit Suisse (Luxembourg) , S.A. (“CS Luxembourg”). On May 11,
2009, CHE filed its Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement with Credit Suisse
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 5 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-6-
(Luxembourg), S.A. [D.E. 2262]. The Stipulation of Settlement required CS Luxembourg to pay
$154,449.37 to the Receiver. The Court approved the Receiver’s settlement with CS
Luxembourg on June 8, 2009 [D.E. 2273]. The settlement funds have been received by the
Receiver.
Settlement with Credit Suisse A.G. On June 8, 2009, CHE filed a Motion for Approval
of Stipulation of Settlement with Credit Suise A.G. [D.E. 2275]. The Stipulation of Settlement
required Credit Suisse A.G. to pay $320,550.63 to the Receiver. The Court approved the
Receiver’s settlement with Credit Suisse A.G. on June 29, 2009 [D.E. 2291]. The settlement
funds have been received by the Receiver.
Settlement with PwC
CHE also conducted an in-depth investigation of the Receiver’s potential claims against
PwC, the former outside auditors of the Lancer Funds. On December 2, 2004, CHE filed a 52-
page Complaint in Receiver v. PricewaterhouseCooopers (Netherlands Anitlles), et al., Case No.
04-23023-Civ-Marra, asserting claims for professional malpractice against PwC. Joint
settlement discussions, including other parties who had filed actions against PwC, were
eventually held with PwC. On July 18, 2007, CHE filed a Motion to Approve Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement on behalf of the Receiver [D.E. 1923]. This settlement was achieved as
a result of actions brought and prosecuted by the Group Action Plaintiffs (The Pension
Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC,
et al., Case No. 05-CIV-09016 (S.D.N.Y.) and the Class Action Plaintiffs (Bruhl v.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers International Limited, et al., Case No. 03-23044-Civ-Marra), in
addition to the action brought by CHE for the Receiver.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 6 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-7-
The Stipulation of Settlement required PwC to pay $22.25 million to settle all of the
claims against it. The settlement is comprised of two parts. The Group Action Plaintiffs receive
$16.25 million (minus attorneys’ fees), and the Receiver receives $6 million for distribution to
the members of the settlement class (less varius holdbacks). The Court approved in part and
denied in part the Receiver’s settlement with PwC on March 31, 2008 [D.E. 2044]. The Court
further approved the Settlement with PwC in its Order dated July 17, 2009 [D.E. 2298].
THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
The leading case in this District regarding an award of attorney’s fees in a comparable
receivership case is Walco Investments, Inc. v. Thenen, 975 F. Supp. 1468 (S.D. Fla. 1997)
(Moreno, J.), known as the Premium Sales Receivership. In that case, the receiver and his
counsel and plaintiffs’ class counsel worked together to obtain recoveries for victim investors
who had been defrauded into investing in a grocery diverting operation that was in fact a Ponzi
scheme. The receiver’s counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel worked under a “hybrid fee arrangement
whereby the attorneys would receive interim payments at a substantially reduced hourly rate with
a final enhancement or reduction of fees based on the amount recovered.” Id. at 1470.
In determining the fee enhancement award in Walco, the Court relied on the analysis set
forth in Camden I Condominium Association, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774-75 (11th Cir.
1991). In Camden I, the Eleventh Circuit held that attorneys’ fees in common fund-type cases
should be based on a reasonable percentage of the fund established for the benefit of the victims.
The Eleventh Circuit noted that while “[t]here is no hard and fast rule mandating a certain
percentage of a common fund which may reasonably be awarded as a fee,” 25% of the common
fund is a “benchmark” which “may be adjusted in accordance with the individual circumstances
of each case.” Id.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 7 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-8-
The Eleventh Circuit discussed the non-exclusive factors a court should consider in
selecting the appropriate percentage of a common fund which may reasonably be awarded as a
fee. These factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other
employment; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of
the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12)
awards in similar cases. See Camden I, 946 F.2d at 775. 2
ANALYSIS OF THE “CAMDEN I FACTORS.”
1. The Time and Labor Required.
CHE was retained by the Receiver effective March 1, 2004, and so has been working on
this matter for over five and one-half years. Measured purely on the number of hours involved, a
total of 1,141.30 hours have been spent on this matter by CHE. More importantly though, CHE
submits that the time spent has been extremely efficient in light of the nature and complexity of
this Receivership and the results achieved. The fees paid to CHE, over this lengthy time period,
total only $182,381 -- for which, among other things, recoveries of $1,234,673 have been
2 Rule 4-1.5(b)(1) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which was referenced in the initial
retention of CHE, also sets forth factors to be considered as guides in determining a reasonable fee. These factors
largely overlap with the Camden I factors and are: (A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (B) the likelihood
that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (C) the fee, or rate
of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature; (D) the significance
of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation,
and the results obtained; (E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between
attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client; (F) the nature
and length of the professional relationship with the client; (G) the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of
the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual
providing of such services; and (H) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to amount or rate, then
whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 8 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-9-
obtained in fraudulent conveyance actions and substantial assistance in achieving the
$22,250,000 million global settlement with PwC was rendered.
2. The Novelty and Difficulty of the Questions.
This Receivership required a high level of skill. The investigation and filing of claims
against PwC in particular required analysis of complex accounting issues and auditing standards,
as well as analysis of the complicated trading practices and other financial issues relating to the
Lancer Funds. In addition, the fraudulent conveyance actions in this case were far from routine
and required analysis of complex insolvency issues and litigation in order to establish personal
jurisdiction over foreign defendants, many of which had limited contacts with the United States.
3. The Skill Required to Perform the Legal Services Properly.
In order to perform the services in this complex matter, CHE’s legal skills and experience
in the areas of securities fraud, federal receivership litigation, plaintiffs’ litigation, commercial
transactions and accounting malpractice were required. CHE submits that these actions, and
particularly the action against PwC, were complex civil actions that required a substantial degree
of skill and specialized experience.
4. Preclusion from Other Employment.
CHE has not been precluded from accepting any other engagements as a result of the
privilege of working on this matter for the Receiver.
5. The Customary Fee.
The customary fee for a matter of this size and complexity would be the normal fee
charged by commercial lawyers and litigators experienced enough to handle this type of matter,
which in the customary legal market could either be in the form of a straight hourly rate or a
hybrid of a reduced hourly rate combined with a contingency fee. The Receiver retained CHE,
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 9 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-10-
with the Court’s approval, at 50% of CHE’s normal hourly rates for attorneys with the ability to
seek a fee enhancement of up to 20% of any recovery at an appropriate juncture – a fairly
standard “hybrid fee” arrangement in commercial litigation. CHE has reduced its bills to the
Receivership by approximately $185,562 through December 31, 2009. See Exhibit 4 (CHE Fee
Application History Chart). Without even taking into account its role in the PwC litigation,
CHE’s litigation efforts resulted in recoveries of $1,234,673 (20% of which is $246,935). As a
result of the PwC litigation, the Receiver will also have an additional $6 million to distribute to
the investors.
6. Whether the Fee Was Fixed or Contingent.
A portion of CHE’s compensation was fixed at a reduced hourly rate (50%), and a
portion of the compensation was in the form of the opportunity to apply for a fee enhancement at
the conclusion of the matter based on the results obtained. The Receiver’s professionals thus
had, on the one hand, the security of knowing that they would at a minimum receive a
(substantially) reduced hourly fee for their effort. CHE has been paid a total of $182,381 for all
of its work. However, CHE also bore the risk that it would not be fully compensated for its work
if it did not achieve successful results for the Receiver. The reduced bills resulted in
approximately $185,562 in fee reductions for CHE from its normal rates, so CHE was at risk of
foregoing that amount if its litigation efforts were not successful on behalf of the Receivership.
7. Time Limitations Imposed by the Client or the Circumstances.
Although there have been periods during which CHE has been required to devote
significant time to this matter on an expedited basis, CHE has not as a general matter been
subject to significant limitations in its work in this matter.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 10 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-11-
8. Amount Involved and the Results Obtained.
As a result of CHE’s work, the Receiver has obtained $1,234,673 in recoveries against
fraudulent transfer recipients. In addition, CHE provided the Receiver with substantial
assistance in bringing claims against PwC. The various claims brought against PwC resulted in a
global settlement of $22.5 million, of which $6 million was allocated to the Receiver for
distribution to the settlement classes (less various holdbacks). Although the Lancer Receivership
is an extraordinarily large Receivership in terms of the amounts at issue, these recoveries
nonetheless represent substantial litigation recoveries for the benefit of the Receivership’s
creditors. Moreover, CHE submits that these recoveries were obtained in an extremely cost-
effective manner. Over the course of the roughly five-and-one-half years that CHE has worked
for the Receiver on this matter, it has submitted fee applications for only $191,284 (including
this final fee application). This included time spent on a number of other tasks beyond the
litigation described above, including assistance in pursuing discovery from a wide variety of
sources on behalf of the Receiver. CHE submits that, from a cost-benefit perspective, its work
for the Receiver has been extremely effective.
9. Experience, Reputation, and Ability of the Attorneys.
The attorneys at CHE enjoy a fine reputation among the bench and bar in this District for
their professionalism and work ethic. The attorneys at CHE are particularly experienced at
receivership-related litigation and plaintiffs’ class action litigation. CHE has served as counsel
to receivers, and as class counsel in many of the most noteworthy receiverships in this District,
including SEC v. Mutual Benefits Corp., In re U.S. Oil & Gas, and In re Premium Sales Corp.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 11 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-12-
10. The “Undesirability” of the Case.
This case was not undesirable. CHE has been privileged to work on this matter. CHE
regularly represents the victims of fraud and other wrongdoing and takes pride in their efforts to
assist their clients in these types of matters.
11. Nature and Length of the Professional Relationship with the Client
CHE did not have a professional relationship with the Receivership Entities, or its
principal prior to the institution of this proceeding.
12. Awards in Similar Cases.
As set forth above, the Court has the discretion to award fees and costs to CHE. Other
federal judges in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, have in similar cases awarded
fees at higher hourly rates or full hourly rates for the same quantity and quality of work
expended in receivership cases of similar complexity and magnitude.
CHE’S FINAL FEE RECOVERY REQUEST
Based on all of the information set forth above, CHE is requesting the Court make a final
fee recovery award in the amount of $185,562.
The terms of the CHE’s retention would allow it to seek a fee enhancement award of 20%
of the amount of the recoveries in the litigation that it handled. As a point of reference, 20% of
the recoveries in the fraudulent transfer actions pursued by CHE amounts to $246,935. In
addition, CHE substantially assisted in the recovery obtained from PwC, which has resulted in
the net recovery of $3,150,394 to the Receiver to date. However, CHE is only seeking to recoup
the amount of its fee reductions in this matter – a significantly smaller amount.
As with any request for fees from a fund that is intended to be distributed to compensate
the victims of a fraud, there is an inherent tension between maximizing the recovery for the
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 12 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-13-
victims and fairly compensating the professionals whose work generated the pool of funds to be
distributed. CHE is mindful of this tension. However, CHE also respectfully submits that,
through its successful work, the amounts that are available to distribute to the victim investors
have been materially increased in a very cost effective manner.
CONCLUSION
CHE respectfully requests that this Court authorize the Receiver to compensate CHE for
its attorneys’ fees for the reasonable and necessary services rendered during this Application
Period in the amount of $8,855.00 for fees and $633.23 in costs for a total of $9,488.23, to be
paid by the Receivership. CHE also respectfully requests that this Court award CHE with a fee
recovery award in the amount of $185,562. The total amount request is therefore $195,050.23.
Respectfully submitted,
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Aragon Avenue, 2nd
Floor
Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008
Telephone Number: 305-476-7400
Facsimile Number: 305-476-7444
By: s/Roberto Martinez___________
Roberto Martínez
Florida Bar No. 305596
Curtis B. Miner
Florida Bar No. 885681
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by
CM/ECF upon all parties listed on the attached Service List this 26th day of March, 2010.
s/ Curtis B. Miner___________
Curtis B. Miner
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 13 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-14-
LANCER RECEIVERSHIP
CASE O. 03-80612 MARRA/JOHNSON
MASTER SERVICE LIST
Christopher Martin
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Securities & Exchange
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite
1800
Miami, FL 33131
Drew M. Dillworth, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller
150 W. Flagler St., #2200
Miami, FL 33130
Andrew Zaron, Esq.
David E. Bane, Esq.
Hunton & Williams
1111 Brickell Avenue
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
Counsel for Receiver
Ms. Nina Fiskaaen
Controller, Nordea Liv Norge
AS
Folke Bernadottes vie 38
5147 Fyllingsdalen
1201 Bergen – Norway
Kristina Bakardjiev, Esq.
Goldstein, Tanen & Trench
PA
One Biscayne Tower, #3700
2 So. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
James Sowka
Office of the Assistant U.S.
Trustee
51 S.W. 1st Avenue
Suite 1204
Miami, FL 33130
Gregory L. McClelland
McClelland & Anderson
1305 S. Washington
Avenue, Suite 102
Lansing, MI 48910
Paul Gentilozzi
Rocketsports, Inc.
3400 West Road
East Lansing, MI 48823
David Blaylock, Esq.
Glankler Brown, PLLC
1700 One Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
Trisha D. Sindler
Special Counsel
U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission
801 Brickell Ave, Suite 1800
Miami, FL 33131
Jimmy Tsakni
c/o Shari A. Brandt,
Richard Spear Kibble
One World Financial Ctr
New York, NY 10281
Michael Lauer, pro se
7 Dwight Lane
Greenwich, CT 06831
Frank P. Terzo
Katz Barron Squitero Faust
2699 S. Bayshore Dr., 8th
FL
Miami, FL 33133
Sheldon Toll
Law Offices of Sheldon S. Toll,
2000 Town Center,
Suite 2550
Southfield MI 48075
Noah J. Schafler, Esq.
Law Offices of David W.
Rubin
600 Summer St.,
Suite 201
Stamford, CT 06901
Kenneth B. Robinson, Esq.
Rice, Pugatch, Robinson
101 NE Third Ave, Suite 1800
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Robert M. Dombroff, Esq.
Jonathan Alter, Esq.
Bingham McCutchen LLP
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Barry E. Steiner
Ladenburg Thalman & Co.
4400 Biscayne Blvd, 14th
FL
Miami, FL 33137
Ronald B. Ravikoff,
Matthew Davidson,
Zuckerman Spaeder
201 S. Biscayne Blvd,
Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Jane Serene Raskin
Raskin & Raskin
2601 S. Bayhore Dr., #725
Miami, FL 33133
Joshua W. Cohen
Cummings & Lockwood
1 Audubon St, Suite 601
New Haven, CT 06511
Jonathan M. Borg
Piteny Hardin Kipp, et al
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-7311
Thomas D. Goldberg
Day, Berry & Howard
One Canterbury Green
Stamford, CT 06901
Barbara H. Katz
Law Office of Barbara H.
Katz
57 Trumbull St
New Haven, CT 06510
Michael R. Magasin
Law Offices of Michael R.
Magasin
3415 So. Seplveda Blvd, PH
#1200
Los Angeles, CA 90034-6072
Joseph P. Moodhe
Debevoise & Plimpton
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
James M. Nugent, Esq.
KFO Inv. Partnerhips
Harlow, Adams & Friedman,
PC
300 Bic Drive
Milford, CT 06460
Clayton Cunningham
P.O. Box 1796
El Segundo, CA 90245
Thaddeus E. Delonis CPA
290 Towne Center Drive
Troy, MI 48084-1774
Heidi Lauer f/k/a Heidi Carens
4 East 89th
Street
Apt 6A
New York, New York 10128
Timothy W. Walsh
Piper Rudnick LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Garry M. Graber
c/o Joseph Galda, Esq.
497 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 14 of 15
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
-15-
Leonard H. Hect
1270 Avenue of the Americas
Suite 214
New York, NY 10020
W. Todd Boyd, Esq.
Boyd Mustelier Smith
100 S.E. Second St., 36 FL
Miami, FL 33131
Mr. Morton Sherman
560 Landsdowne Ave
Westmount (Quebec)
H3Y 2V6
Kenneth G.M. Mather,
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 S. Ashley Dr, #830
Tampa, FL 33602-5348
Mark A. Salzberg
Foley & Lardner
Washington Harbour, #500
3000 K Street N.W.
Washington, D .C. 20007
William J. Barrett
Barack Ferrazzano, et al.
333 W. Wacker Drive, #2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Peter Vigeland
Wilmer Hale
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
m
Scott M. Berman, Esq.
Anne Beaumont, Esq.
Friedman, Kaplan, et al.
1633 Broadway, 46th
FL
New York, NY 10019
Paul Wallace
9701 S. Bexley Drive
Littleton, CO 80126
David Cimo, Esq.
Genovese Joblove & Battista
Bank of Tower, 36th
FL
100 SE 2nd
Street
Miami, FL 33131
Mr. Helge Syrstad
Vesta Forsikring AS
P.O. Box 7070
5020 Bergen - NORWAY
David P. Milian, Esq.
Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
Kozyak Tropin, et al.
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd
Suite 900
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Eric A. Henzy, Esq.
Reid & Riege, P.C.
One Financial Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Aaron Podhurst, Esq.
Podhurst, Orseck, et al.
25 W. Flagler St., Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow,
140 Broadway 23rd
FL
New York, NY 10005
Carol Felicetta
Reid & Riege P.C.
195 Church St, 15th
FL
New Haven, CT 06510
David L. Snyder, Esq.
Neuberger, Quinn, et al.
One South Street, 27th
FL
Baltimore, MA 21202
Rudolph F. Aragon, Esq.
White & Case
Wachovia Fin. Ctr, #4900
200 So. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
Lewis N. Brown
Dyanne E. Feinberg
Gilbride, Heller & Brown
One Biscayne Tower #1570
Miami, FL 33131
Richard E. Johnston
Fasken Martineau, et al.
Patent & Trade Mark Agents
P.O. Box 20,
Toronto Dominion Centre
66 Wellington St. W.
37th FL
Toronto, Ontario
M5K 1N6 Canada [email protected]
Mr. Dylan Wolff
Managing Director
Norges Investor Value
P.O. Box 1863 Vika
0124 Osio – NORWAY
Seth M. Schwartz, Esq.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, et al.
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
John Hochman, Esq.
Schindler Cohen & Hockman
LLP
100 Wall Street, 15th
FL
New York, NY 10005
Paul Steven Singerman
Berger Singerman
200 S. Biscayne Blvd
Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33131
Singerman@bergersingerman.
com
Robert T. Wright, Esq.
Coffey & Wright, LLP
Grand Bay Plaza
2665 S. Bayshore Dr PH2B
Miami, F 33133
William R. Maguire, Esq.
Jeffrey Grelsheimer, Esq.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed
One Battery Park Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Jacqueline Wilson
British Virgin Islands
Financial Svcs Comm.
Pasea Estate, Road Town
Tortola, British Virgin Islands
Kevin E. Gunther
27 Reid Street, 1st FL
P.O. Box HM 3051
Hamilton HM NX
Bermuda
William S. Fish, Esq.
William H. Champlin, Esq.
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn LLP
555 Long Wharf Dr. 8th
FL
New Haven, CT 06511
Robert E. Grossman
Scott S. Balber
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Michael Budwick Esq.
Meland, Russin & Budwick,
P.A. 3000 First Union Fin. Ctr
200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
Roberto Martinez, Esq.
Curtis B. Miner, Esq.
Colson Hicks Eidson
255 Aragon Avenue, 2nd
FL
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT 1-A
Summary of Professional and Paraprofessional Time
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
PROFESSIONALS – LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED (TOTAL)
NAME STATUS HOURS RATE
TOTAL FEES
Martinez, Roberto Senior Partner .50 $250
(@ -50%)
$125.00
Miner, Curt Partner 25.20 $250
(@ -50%)
$6,300.00
Roberto, Michelle Paralegal 13.50 $180 $2,430.00
TOTAL 39.20 $8,855.00
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 1-B
Summary of Professional and Paraprofessional
Time by Activity Code
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
ACTIVITY CODE CATEGORY: B590 – LITIGATION – FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS:
NAME RATE HOURS TOTAL FEES
Martinez, Roberto $250
(@ -50%)
.50 $125.00
Miner, Curt $250
(@ -50%)
25.20 $6,300.00
Roberto, Michelle $180 13.50 $2,430.00
TOTAL 39.20 $8,855.00
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 2
Summary of Requested Reimbursement of Expenses
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
Description Amount
Copying 477.00
Delivery Services/Messengers 14.77
Online Research 65.28
Postage 69.28
Telephone 6.90
TOTAL EXPENSES: $633.23
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 4
CHE FEE APPLICATION HISTORY CHART
FEE
APP. NO.
DATES
OF
WORK
TOTAL FEES
BILLED
DISCOUNT FROM
NORMAL
HOURLY RATES
TOTAL FEES
PAID
TOTAL
DISCOUNT
1 3/1/04-
8/31/06
$149,906.50
$149,906.50 $149,906.50
$149,906.50
2 9/1/06-
11/30/07
$19,980.50 $19,980.50 $19,980.50 $19,980.50
3 12/1/07-
6/30/08
$12,494.00 $9,250.00 $12,494.00 $9,250.00
4 7/1/08-
12/31/09
$8,903.00 $6,425.00 ---N/A--- $6,425.00
TOTALS $191,284.00 $185,562.00 $185,562.00
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 2
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL LAUER,
LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and
LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP II, LLC,
Defendants,
and
LANCER OFFSHORE, INC., LANCER PARTNERS, LP,
OMNIFUND, LTD., LSPV, INC., and LSPV, LLC,
Relief Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING COLSON HICKS EIDSON’S
FINAL FEE APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR FINAL FEE AWARD
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Colson Hicks Edison’s (“CHE”) Final Fee
Application (for payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for Services Rendered as Special Counsel
to the Receivership Entities from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009) and Request for
Final Fee Award (D.E.No. _______), filed on March 26, 2010. The Court has carefully
reviewed the Motion and case file and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly,
after due consideration, it is
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 3
3
Case No. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/VITUNAC
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the CHE’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. The
Receiver is directed to pay Colson Hicks Edison’s:
1. Final Fee Application covering the period from July 1, 2008, through December
31, 2009, allowing the payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $____________ and expenses
of $_____________ for a total of $_____________.
2. Request for Final Fee Award in the amount of $__________________.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this day of
_______________, 2010.
HON. KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Court Judge
Copies furnished to:
All counsel of record
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2369-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 3 of 3