---..

I T UNITED STATES BANKUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
)
In re:
)
)
WASHIGTON MUTUAL, INC., et a., '

Debtors. )
)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
)
Chapter 11
Case No. 08-12229 (MFW) .
Jointly Administered
Re: Docket No: 8835
. 10= 04
i _':
OBJECTION OF DAVID SHUTVET TO TH MONTHY FEE A SERVICE
REPORT OF ALVAREZ & MARSAL AS RESTRUCTURING ADVISORS FOR THE
DEBTORS IN POSSESSION FOR ALLOWANCE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE
PEROID FROM SEPTEMER 1,2011 THOUGHT SEPTEMER 30, 2011
SERVICES RENDERED
Now comes before this honorable cour tat I, David Shutvet, pro se, bing a 'intersted
pay' to tis case with basis fom my owerhip of shares in WI Common Securities and
W Prefered Securites. I submit tis objection, pursuat t the guidelines of Sections 330
and 331 of the Bankuptcy Code, Local Rule 2016-2, ad te Guidelines and Administative
Order provided by te Batcy Refor Act of 1994.
This objection is submitted to tis court, as it holds the fnal authority to awad
compensaton ad reimbursement - tis power is flly vested, ad solely, wit the Cour.
However, I also reference the paallel role ad concurent responsibilit of the United
Sttes Trustee, unde 28 U.S.c. 586(a)(3)(A), to provide tat, whenever they deem appropriate,
that te United States Trustee will also review applications for compensation and reimbusement
of expnses.
I The Debtors i these chapter 11 cases aong wit te last four digits of each Debtor's feeral t identifcation
number a: (i) Washington Mu, Ic. (3725); ad (ii) W Invesbent Cor. (5395). The Debtors' principal
ofces wlocaed at 925 Fou Avenue, Seattle, Washington 9810
0q6=+*<$l
0812229111028000000000004
Docket #8925 Date Filed: 10/28/2011
However, tis cou must, as te fnal autority, take notice of my objections heein, ad
must ultimately and solely, apply conscience ad law to the application for compensation.
Pursuat to the Alvaez & Masal as Restuctuing Advisors for the Debtors and Debtors
in possession, "Notice of September 1, 2011 throug September 30, 2011 Fee Application",
I a submitting tis objection on a timely basis, ad to the paies required, before te
established Objection Deadline of 11/8/11 at 4:00pm (EST).
As elaborated fher here, I object to te abusive allowaces and request for
compensation, for prfessiona service chages that have been submitted by te Debtors
Alvaez & Masal.
I. Pursuant to Lafey v. Northwest Airlines. Inc.,
2
that District Court ruled that hourly
rates for attores practicing civil law in the Washington, DC metropolitan area
could be categorized by years in practice and adjusted yeary for infation.
Please note that Alvarez & Marsal have attempted to bill at top rate attorey fees. They are
not litigation attoreys that support higher fees such as the Adjusted Lafey Matrix.
The Third Circuit Court of Federl Appeals adopted the Adjusted Laffey Matix.
3
The
Court of Appeals noted that the Distict Court "reviewed both indices [te DO] Matix ad te
Adjusted Lafey Matix] ad decided tat [te Adjusted Lafey Matix] represented a better
measure of prevailing rates in Washingto D.
I r HPL Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation,
4
that court noted -- "I is te prctice
of the udersigned judge, however, to rely on ofcial data to deterine appropriate hourly rates,
not on an attorey's self-proclaimed rates or declarations regarding hourly rates charged
2
572 F. Supp. 354, 371 (D.D.C. 1983)
3 Iterfith Comut Oaniztion v. Honeyell Interational, Ic., 426 F.3d 694 (3r Cir. 2005)
4
366 F.Supp.2d 912, 921 (N. Dist. Cal. 2005)
by law frs. One reliable ofcial source for rates that vary by experience levels is te Lafey
matri used in te Distict of Columbia." (emphasis added) - Gaes v. Baadt. 5
Current Latey Matri
Yes Out of Law Schol
Yea Adjusent ParalegallLaw 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-19 20+
Fator Clerk
601111-5/31/12 1.0352 $16 $05 $374 $540 $9 $734
6/01110 - 5/31111 1.0337 $161 $294 $361 $522 $589 $709
6/01109 - 5/31110 1.0220 $155 $285 $349 $505 $569 $686
6/01108 - 5/31109 1.0399 $152 $279 $342 $494 $557 $671
This matx is based on te hourly rtes allowed by the Distict Cout in Lafey v.
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
6
It is commonly refered to by attoreys ad federal judges in the
Distict of Colubia as the "Lafey Matix" or the "United States Attorey's Ofce Matix."
The recently updated matrix, supr identifes the prevailing rtes - adjusted for years of
service - for te perod of 6/1111 troug 5/31112.
This objection questions ts Court of the reasonableness of the fees being chaged to te
estate by Alvaez & Marsal (A&M), ad specifcally teir fling of the September Monthly
Application for rimbursement of fees.
In te fling for compensation, A&M's have been billing the estate at hourly rates up to
$775 - rates reserved for high profle litigaion frms, yet Alvaez & Masal ae not taned as
litigation attoreys and have chaged te estate excessively.
A rview of biogaphies provided by A&M indicates certn employees wt te
billings a having less tan 10 yeas of service. The inconguity of billing the estate in excess of
the Lafey range, at a cost-per-hour fer in excess of experence, is obviously excessive.
52006 U.S. Dist. LEXS 5938 (. Dist. Ca. 2006)
6572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983)
I object to ay billing by ay A&M Paner, counsel, or ay oter inter or exter
resource that exceeds the adjusted Lafey guidelines.
I. In the alterative to the Latey Matrix, this court may instead, tm to the Lodestar
approach.
Te "Lodestar" approach assesses the reasonableness of requested compensation by
comparing it to the court's estmates of necessary time and reasonable rates. I re McMullen
7
-
"I ariving at a reasonable number of hours and a reasonable rate, courts will consider te
evidence presented ad by the court's own experience ad knowledge of customa fees ad
costs chaged in compaable cases."
g
"Under this approach, if the requested fee aount is less
t te Lodestar baseline, it tpically will b allowed in fll; if geater tha the baseline, the fee
may be reduced to the baseline aount.,
,9
III. I object to Alvarez & Marsal billing the estate for researching, preparing and
supporting multiple and hopelessl unconfable plans and approving a Global
Settlement Agreement that blatantl gave away estate assets as i it had no value.
Baruptcy courts have denied compensation for services found to be unecessary when
compensation was sought for preparing ad defending a hopelessly unconfrable plan (I re
Rust Jones, IC.),
10
ad for prosecuting a preference claim afer it becae appaent that the
claim would not yield a net gain to te estate (I re Tama Clothing CO.)
ll
7 273 B.R. 558, 562 (Ba. C.D. Ill. 2002)
8
Id.
9
Id.
10 134 B.R. 321, 339 - 340 (Ba. N.D. Ill. 1991)
11 49 F.3d 310,315 -316 (7t Cr. 1995)
I is now exceptionally clear tt te Debtors, AVAZ & MA have created, fled
and modifed numerous Joint Plan ad Global Settlement Agreements and have then
subsequently made modifcations ad aendments to their fer chaged ad updated plas.
None of which has been remotely successfl. Te Debtors, AVAZ & MSA, continue to
fle and solicit unconfable plas which only increase a new food of objectons ad incrase
estate cost. Tis abused practice has been gossly wastefl of the time and eforts, both of the
court and of other counsel, involve in this case, ad tus continue the unnecessay and wastefl
expenses to the estate.
With the recent cou opinion to deny the Debtors' Modifed Sixth Amended Joint Plan
the Debtor's practice of repetitive billings for prfering fatally fawed plans ad their
modifcations which should - in fact must - be addressed by this court will continue. AVAZ
& MSA continue to be 'rewaded' by prepang ad submitting to this court multiple, and
hopelessly unconfrable plans, yet 'reaping' te benefts for more reimbursed billings, at the
fher detiment of the very same estate tat A&M is duty-bound to protect.
IV. I object to Aarez & Maral billing practice which demonstrates true Block-Billing
entries that fail to comply with Guidelines as per 11 U.S.C. 330.
FEES A EXPENSES ICURRED FROM SEPTEMER 1, 2011 THOUGH SEPTEMER
30, 2011. These fes prove a tnd of abue and must b ruled by your Honor as excessive and a clawback
of those fees to the estate. Debtors failed to follow rquird Guidelines a per 11 U. S.C. 330.
As a equity holder of Washington Mutu, using the guidelines provided by the
Baruptcy Refor Act fnal authority to awad compensation ad reimbursement under Order,
tese guidelines require that time enties must be recorded and services should be noted in detal
with each service showing a sepaate time ent and not combined or "lumped" together.
AU deriptions from Debtor ar true Blok-Billing entre that fail to comply with
Guidelines as pr 11 U.S.C. 330. This practice has gone on for over two year and the court or US
Truste must stop this abused practce.
Repettive Block-BiDing that do not follow the gideles as pr 11 U.S.C. 330. (v) Time enties
should be kept contemporaeously with the services rendered in time periods of tenths of a hour.
Services should b noted in detail ad not combined or "lumped" togeter, with each service showing
. a sepaate time enty; however, tasks perfored in a project which total a de minimis amout of time
ca be combined or lumped togeter if they do not exceed .5 hours on a daly aggegate. Time entries
for telephone calls, letters, ad oter commuications should give sufcient detail to identif the
parties to ad the nature of the commuication. Time enties for cou hearings ad conferences should
identif te subject of te heang or conference. If more tha one professional fom te applicat f
attends a hearing or conference, the applicant should explain the need for multiple attendees.
Tis goes on ad on; it only taes a quick review to see their repetitive Bill-padding ad
Block-Billings that has taken place mont afer month.
FEES A EXPENSES INCUR ED FROM September 1, 2011 THOUGH September 30,
2011. These fees prove a tend of abuse and must be ruled by your Honor as excessive ad a clawback of
tose fes to te estate. Debtors failed t follow require Guidelines as per 11 U.S.C. 330.
As a equit holder of Washington Mutual, using the guidelines provided by the Bauptcy
Reform Act fnal authorit to awad compensation and reimbursement under Sections 330 and 331 of the
Code, and Local Rule 20162, the Guidelines and the Administative Order; I object to these abusive
allowances of compensation for professional service charges for ALVAREZ & MARSAL AS
RSTRUCTG ADVISORS FOR DEBTORS I POSSESION. The Guidelines require that time
enties must be recorded ad services should be noted in detail with each service showing a separate time
ent and not combined or "lumped" together.
v. I object to Alarez & Marsal (A&M) billing the estate for $62,390 for expenses with
no detail a required AS PER GUIELIES 11 U.S.C. 330 and 331 of the Code,
and Local Rule 2016-2, the Guidelines and the Administratie Orer.
(5) Reimbursement for Actual, Necess Expnses. Any expense for which reimbursement is
sought must be actual and necessar ad supported by documentation as appropriate. Factors relevant to
a determination that te expense is proper include the following:
(i) Wheter te expnse is reasonable and economical. For example, frst class and oter
luuious tvel mode or accommodations will norally be objectionable.
(ii) Whether applicat has provided a detailed itemiztion of all expenses including the date
incurre, description of expense ( tpe of tvel, tpe of fae, rte, destination), method of
computation, ad, where rlevant, name of the person incuring the expense and purose of
the expense. Itemized expenses should b identifed by their nature ( long distance
telephone, copy costs, messengers, computer rsearch, airline tavel, etc.) and by te mont
incurred.
10 P se , S 90 Sn Frn, C 9111 P: 415.49.20 Fa 415.837.1684
Ailare
Grund Transption
Meals
Hotel
Telecm
Miscellaneous
Expnse Detil
Period Covering
911 - 913012011
TomlOut-oPocetExnses
$ 23.597.29
7,679.19
6,168.89
24,350.90
580.06
14.0
$ 62,390.33
The repetitive practice of billing for expenses with no detailed a required per the
gidelines such as: cost of meas, te cost of tavel, both air ad local limo, hotels ad meals
expnses. Debtors again failed to follow guidelines and rules for claiming expense:
ALL EXENSE MUST BE DENID UNTI T REQUIED DETAI AS PER the
GUIELIES IS PROVED!
(5) Reimbursement for Actual, Necessa Expenses. Any expense for which reimbursement is
sougt must be actual ad necessar and supported by documentation as appropriate. Factor relevat to
a detrmination that the expnse is prper include the following:
(iii) Wether the expense is reasonable ad economical. For example, ft class and oter
luxurious tavel mode or accommodations will normally be objectionable.
(iv) Weter applicant has provided a detiled itemization of all expenses including the date
icure, description of expnse (e.g., t of trvel, te of fae, rte, destination), method of
computation, and, where relevant, nae of the person incuring te expnse and purose of
the expense. Itemizd expnses should be idetifed by their nature , long distace
telephone, copy costs, messengers, computer rsearch, airline tavel, etc.) ad by te month
incured.
VI. I object to the use of Luxur Hotel accommodations, by Alvarez & Marsal
personnel, paid by the estate $24,351 with NO DETAIL to these expenses as
required by the "Guidelines".
(5) Reimbursement for Actual, Necess Expnses. Any expense for which reimbursement is
sought must be actual ad necessa and supported by documentation as appropriate. Factors relevant to a
deterination tat te expnse is proper include te following:
(v) Wheter the expnse is reasonable ad economical. For example, frst class ad oter
luxurious tavel mode or accommodations will norally be objectionable.
(vi) Wheter applicant has provided a detailed itemiztion of all expenses including the dae
incured, description of expnse , tpe of tvel, tpe of fae, rate, destination), metod of
computation, and, where relevat, nae of the person incur ing te expense and purpose of
the expense. Itemized expenses should be identifed by their natue , long distace
telephone, copy costs, messengers, computer research, airline tvel, etc.) and by te month
incur d.
VII. I object to the expensing of Airfares of $23,597 by Alarez & Marsal personnel,
with NO DETAI to these expenses as required by the "Guidelines".
(5) Reimbursement for Actul, Neess Expnses. Any expense for which reimbursement is
sought must be actul ad necessary ad supported by documenttion as appropriae. Factors relevat to
a deterination that te expense is proper include te following:
(vii) Wheter the expnse is rnable and economical. For exaple, frst class ad oter
luxuious tavel mode or accommodations will normally b objectionable.
(viii) Wheter applicant has provided a detailed itemization of all expenses including the date
incur e, description of expense (, tpe of tvel, type of fa, rte, destination), method of
computation, ad, where relevant, name of the person incuring the expnse ad purose of
the expense. Itemized expenses should b identifed by their nature ( long distace
telephone, copy costs, messengers, computer reseach, airline tavel, etc.) ad by te mont
incured.
VIII. I object to the expensing of ground transportation of $7,679 by Alvarez & Marsal
peronnel with NO DETAIL to these expenses as required by the "Guidelines".
IX. I object to the use of Meals, by Alvarez & Marsal personnel, paid by the estate -
$6,169 With NO DETAIL of these expenses as required by the "Guidelines".
X. I object to the use of Telecom by Alvarez & Marsal personnel paid by the estate
$580 With NO DETAIL for these expenses as required by the "Guidelines".

.
In Sum a, I, David Shutvet, object to te cavalier billings refecting unnecessa,
infated, arbity ad/or exorbitat fees ad expenses chaged or seeking reimbursement fom
te estate by Alvaz & Masal.
In re Busy Beaver Bldg. Centers, Inc.,
12
- "e court should review a fee application to
ensure the applicat exercises te sae "billing judgent" as do non-baruptcy atoreys by
writing off unproductive research time, duplicative services, ad redudat costs precipitated by
overstfg. "
Te efective and judicious use of multiple highly pad professionas should be closely
scrutinized by tis cou.
In re Bonneville Pacifc COr.,
13
- "Te ultimate deterination that all requirements of
the statute have been met rests with the Court".
In re TAK Communications, IC.,
14
the United States Baptcy Court for the Wester
District of Wisconsin noted "Wtever its responsibility may be in the absence of any objection,
once a objection has been made ad evidence ad agument have been presented in support of
the objection, a court may not adopt the ostich's fabled position, but rather must assess the
reasonableness of the fee application".

October 24, 2011
David Shutvet
cc: Ofce of the United State Trustee Delawae, Jane Leamy, Esq.
Ofce of the United State Trustee, Robert A. DeAngelis
Attorey Generl Eric Holder, Depaent of Justice
The Debtors, Washington Mutual, Inc., John Maciel, Esq.
Weil Gotshal & Mages LLP, Bria S. Rosen, Esq.
Susman Godfey LLP, Justin Nelson Esq.
Richad Layton & Finger P.A., Mark D. Collins, Esq.
12
19 F.3d 833, 856 (3rd Ci. 1994)
13 147 BR 803, 805 (Ba D Ut 1992)