United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Qin
- Clarke
- 1:20-cv-10849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
The Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stefan Qin: Judge Clarke approved the receiver’s fee application and authorized payment of the requested amounts.
The court-appointed receiver and the Receiver Team were authorized to receive payment of the approved fees and expenses. The payments would be made from the receivership estate.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stefan Qin, et al., a court-appointed receiver sought approval to pay fees and expenses incurred by the receiver and the receiver’s professional team from January 1 through March 31, 2025.
The application requested payments to BakerHostetler, Ankura Consulting Group, Miller Kaplan Arase, and the Law Office of Dennis O. Cohen. The work included pursuing the return of approximately $1.6 million in alleged fraudulent transfers, settling with most defendants, collecting settlement funds, reviewing possible additional litigation, operating a claims portal, and communicating with claimants.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the Seventeenth Fee Application and authorized the receiver to make the requested payments. The court relied in part on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of the application and invoices, the work’s benefit to the receivership, and discounted hourly rates.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Qin · No. 1:20-cv-10849
- Clarke
- Oct. 6, 2025
Background
On January 21, 2021, Robert A. Musiala, Jr., of Baker & Hostetler LLP was appointed receiver in the action. On June 23, 2025, he submitted the Seventeenth Fee Application, seeking approval of fees and expenses incurred from January 1 through March 31, 2025.
The application sought approval of payments of $237,200.10 to BakerHostetler; $61,858.78 to Ankura Consulting Group, LLC; $781.20 to Miller Kaplan Arase, LLP; and 282,845.66 to the Law Office of Dennis O. Cohen, PLLC. The opinion refers to these entities collectively as the Receiver Team. The receiver and the Receiver Team submitted invoices describing their work.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a court-appointed receiver who reasonably and diligently performs the receiver’s duties is entitled to fair compensation for services and expenses. The reasonableness of a fee application depends in part on the hourly rates charged and the number of hours billed. The court also considers the complexity of the problems, the benefits to the receivership estate, the quality of the work, and the time records.
The Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed and approved the fee application and invoices. The court stated that the agency’s approval receives great weight when determining whether a receiver’s compensation and reimbursement are reasonable. The court found that the billing records reflected significant, complex, and time-intensive work that benefited the receivership. That work included litigation against an investor group seeking the return of approximately $1.6 million in fraudulent transfers and interest; settlements with all but one defendant and collection of significant funds under those settlements; analysis of possible additional litigation to recover receivership property; operation and review of an electronic claims portal; determinations on submitted claims; and communications with claimants.
The court also noted that the hourly rates for the receiver and Ankura remained significantly discounted from their ordinary rates. For the application period, the opinion reported a combined discount and fee write-off of $339,676.00 and a separate write-off of $36,461.00.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the Seventeenth Fee Application. The receiver was authorized to make payments for the total amounts requested in the application.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.