1995-12-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

FROM iNPTURRL RESOURCES SEC. 303 866 3556 15S6.IG-ii 11-00 #667 P.05113 Coro, simply does not apply. Pitkin Iron did not have the type of discretion and autonomy that the administrative claimant had in that case_ See, In_re 5ieling AssociateI Ltd. Partnershiu, 128 B.R. 721, 723 (Fankr. E.D.Va. 1991) (environmental consultants were not professional persons). DMG next complains of an inability to understand the information submitted by Pitldn L Iron. Also in this section, DMG complains that computerized records and not original timesheets are provided. Pitktn Iron has, however, provided the timesheets to DMG for its } ' review and has offered to meet with DMG to answer questions it may have. DMG has not S responded to the meeting offer and has not responded to Pit]dn Iron following that review �t-) J ' regarding whether it was satisfied with the documents provided or whether any questions still S'"�"' ,ram" remained and, if so, what those might be. DMG's concern that it cannot tell who authorized n� hiring which employees shows how far DMG has strayed from the relevant inquiry under 503(b)(1)(A), which is whether the services were actual and necessary. DMG then notes that the original application requested reimbursement for services provided from August 1, 1992 through June 30, 1994 and in its supplements Pitkin iron t�f requested reimbursement for the time period, September 1993 to July 1994. The reason August s I, 1992, was originally selected was because that was the last time when there was a zero balance in the running balance between Pitldn Iron and Debtor. However, even though an account receivable remained outstanding from Debtor to Pitidn Iron from August 1, 1992 ,"r ` through June 1994, all charges up through August 1993 were eventually paid through the cash u N, . collateral orders. f' DMG then focuses on February 28,. 1992, stating that one submission by Fitkin Iron shows a "balance" of$24,310.06, whereas another submission shows a balance on the same date of$f 8,842.14. DMG has misread the information. Of the two exhibits, the first is an adjusted �t balance and the second is a chronology showing how the adjusted balance was obtained. The$10,109.06 balance owed at the time of the bankruptcy petition filing (on February 12, 1992) was written off, and applied as an adjustment against the balance of February 28, 1992, together with payments received against the post-petition charges for payroll and insurance, which occurred between the filing date and the end of the month (i.e., February 12 - 28). The balance sheet attached to the Application in July, 1994 included the adjusted balance; 8