District Court, D. Massachusetts — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Matter of Boston and Maine Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1985-07-25 · cited 3×
This case involves a petition by attorney Ralph J. Moore, Jr., and colleagues from Shea & Gardner seeking compensation from the Boston and Maine Corporation debtor's estate for over 1,300 hours of time spent preparing fee petitions for prior work as special counsel and prosecuting a related mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals. The Manager of the Segregated Account opposed the request for $155,544 in fees plus disbursements. The court denied the petition in full. Under Section 77 of the railroad reorganization statute, the reorganization court has broad discretion over compensation awards to conserve estate assets for creditors and support the public interest in an ongoing railroad; unlike civil rights or other private litigation, such awards require a showing of tangible benefit to the estate from the services, which was absent because the work primarily advanced the petitioner's own interests.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Matter of Boston and Maine Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1985-01-22 · cited 5×
This case concerns separate petitions by attorneys Edward F. McLaughlin, Jr. and Ralph J. Moore, Jr. for final compensation and expense reimbursement as special counsel to the trustees of the Boston and Maine Corporation debtor in bankruptcy, for work performed from 1980 to 1981 in proceedings before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. The DPU matters involved petitions to modify train crew consist orders to align with an arbitration award between the debtor and the United Transportation Union, which expanded into a broader investigation affecting all freight railroads in Massachusetts and ultimately permitted reduced crew sizes. The court reviewed the detailed hourly claims, rates, and division of responsibilities between the firms, noting the ICC's maximum compensation limits under 11 U.S.C. § 205(c)(2) and its own duty to scrutinize the requests for only permissible allowances out of the debtor's estate even absent creditor objections.
business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure
Matter of Boston and Maine Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1984-10-14 · cited 3×
This case involved a petition by the law firm Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green for final compensation and expenses as special counsel to the trustees of the Boston and Maine Corporation, a debtor in railroad reorganization proceedings. The firm sought $232,310 for legal services in an eminent domain action before the New Hampshire Eminent Domain Commission, where it obtained a $2.328 million award after the state initially tendered $1 million, plus $2,656.88 in expenses. The court awarded $80,000 in compensation and $1,889.88 in expenses after applying the lodestar method of reasonable hourly rates times hours worked, with possible adjustments, under 11 U.S.C. § 205(c)(2). The court reasoned that the requested amount, driven by a large contingent fee multiplier yielding an effective rate over $500 per hour, was unreasonable in bankruptcy proceedings, which prioritize creditors, and that special counsel assumed no risk of nonpayment.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedure
Norris v. Massachusetts Department of Education
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1981-10-09 · cited 7×
The case concerned a challenge by the Melrose School Committee to an administrative decision by the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals under the federal Education of the Handicapped Act, regarding the adequacy of individualized education programs proposed for a child with learning disabilities. The Bureau had found both the 1979-80 and 1980-81 IEPs inadequate and ordered the child placed at a private school, Landmark School, at public expense, plus reimbursement for an independent evaluation. The court conducted de novo review on the administrative record under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) and rejected the Committee's argument that evidence on the 1980-81 program was not properly before the hearing officer, ruling that the parties had agreed to address that year prospectively and that the Committee had sufficient opportunity to present and supplement evidence. The court then made its own findings of fact based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record.
civil rightsprocedurefederal power
Rental Car of New Hampshire, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1980-06-20 · cited 15×
This case is an antitrust action brought by current and former Econo-Car auto rental franchisees against the franchisor Econo-Car International, its parent Westinghouse Electric, and other defendants, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act through forced tie-ins requiring franchisees to buy insurance and fleet autos from designated sources, as well as a conspiracy to fix prices on fleet auto sales, plus a related state-law fiduciary duty claim. The named plaintiffs moved to certify a nationwide class of over 200 present and former franchisees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). The court granted certification for the insurance tie-in and price-fixing claims against the main defendants, determining that numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were satisfied and that a class action was superior for efficiently resolving the shared liability issues, but denied certification for the remaining claims and defendants. The decision was based on the predominance of common questions of law and fact regarding the alleged nationwide practices and the statutory goals of antitrust enforcement.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Matter of Boston and Maine Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1979-03-19 · cited 2×
This case involves the trustees of the Boston and Maine Corp., a railroad debtor in reorganization under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, petitioning the court for authority to make a tender offer to redeem up to $37 million par value of first mortgage bonds using the debtor's restricted funds, as part of the first step of the reorganization plan. The Interstate Commerce Commission had approved a modified version of the proposal, authorizing redemption of up to $33.06 million at $800 per $1,000 bond after setting reserves for priority claims. Following publication of notices, an information statement, hearings on objections from various parties including bond trustees and other railroads, and review of the ICC record, the court approved the tender offer with adjustments to reserves for conceded and potential priority claims such as taxes, personal injury, and per diem charges. The core reasoning was that the tender offer aligned with the ICC's finding that it served the railroad's best interests, had bondholder support, facilitated financial restructuring, and left adequate restricted funds available after appropriate reserves.
business & regulatoryprocedure