1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. B.R.
  4. 241 B.R.
  5. 241 B.R. 212 (1999)
 

IN RE COUNTY OF ORANGE

Nos. SA CV 95-0037-GLT, SA CV 96-0643-GLT, SA CV 96-0771-GLT, SA CV 96-0163-GLT, SA CV 96-0765-GLT, SA CV 96-1010-GLT, SA CV 96-0772-GLT, SA CV 96-0766-GLT, SA CV 97-0066-GLT, SA CV 97-0122-GLT, SA CV 98-0526-GLT, SA CV 97-0186-GLT, SA CV 98-0525-GLT, SA CV 98-0524-GLT, SA CV 98-0527-GLT. Bankruptcy No. SA 94-22272JR.

241 B.R. 212 (1999)

In re COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, Debtor. County of Orange, Plaintiff, v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. And Related Cases.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division.

November 10, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

J. Michael Hennigan, Hennigan, Mercer & Bennett, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.

Gerald L. McMahon, Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins & McMahon, San Diego, CA, for defendant.

ORDER ON ATTORNEYS FEE APPLICATION

TAYLOR, District Judge.

The Court finds the parties entered into a valid and binding attorney fee agreement for a fee based on fixed "benchmark" hourly billing rates, subject to adjustment down or up at the end of the representation based on results accomplished and other agreed criteria. Strictly construing the contract against the attorneys, the final fee is not calculated by a lodestar multiplier, but, in the absence...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases