In re: PETER SZANTO v. CANDACE AMBORN, Chapter 7 Trustee; LANE POWELL PC.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PETER SZANTO,
Debtor.
_______________
PETER SZANTO,
Appellant,
v.
CANDACE AMBORN, Chapter 7 Trustee;
LANE POWELL PC.,
Appellees.
No. 22-60015
BAP No. 21-1118
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
of the Ninth Circuit
Scott H. Gan, Julia W. Brand, and Gary A. Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges
Submitted April 17, 2024**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 17 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Peter Szanto appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP)
judgment affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order to award professional compensation
to Lane Powell PC in the amount of $14,551.88. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s decision on appeal from the Bankruptcy
Court. In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002). We review a Bankruptcy Court’s
order awarding compensation to an attorney under 11 U.S.C. § 330 for abuse of
discretion. Hale v. United States Tr., 509 F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007); see also In
re Salgado-Nava, 473 B.R. 911, 915 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding compensation
to Lane Powell PC. The Bankruptcy Court authorized the Chapter 7 trustee to employ
David Criswell of Lane Powell to assist in recovering estate assets, and determined
that Criswell’s efforts were necessary and reasonably likely to benefit the estate.
On August 16, 2016, Szanto filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition. In 2017, the
Bankruptcy Court converted the case to one under chapter 7. Around the time of
conversion, Szanto transferred significant funds to banks in Singapore. After an
evidentiary hearing, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order holding Szanto in contempt
and requiring him to turn over the transferred assets and to grant the Chapter 7 trustee
access to the Singapore accounts. Szanto refused to comply, resulting in two
additional contempt orders and, ultimately, a denial of Szanto’s discharge. The
Chapter 7 trustee initiated a proceeding in Singapore to enforce the Bankruptcy

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Court’s orders (the “Singapore Action”). The Bankruptcy Court then authorized the
Chapter 7 trustee to employ David W. Criswell (“Criswell”) of Lane Powell PC to
serve as an expert witness in the Singapore Action.
Szanto argues 1) the Singapore Action was improper under Singaporean law
and 2) the Singapore court had sole authority to award compensation to Lane Powell
PC. Neither argument is persuasive.
The propriety of the Singapore Action is a matter for the Singapore court to
decide. But for the purpose of awarding compensation for professional services, what
matters is that the Bankruptcy Court authorized the Chapter 7 trustee to employ Lane
Powell PC to assist in recovering estate assets, after determining that those services
were necessary and reasonably likely to benefit the estate. Trustees often must litigate
in courts besides the Bankruptcy Court on behalf of the estate, and professionals
employed to assist in such litigation are compensated under § 330(a). See In re
Mednet, 251 B.R. 103, 108 (9th Cir. BAP 2000).
Szanto bases his argument that the Singapore court had sole jurisdiction to
award compensation on Singapore Order 40. But this authority is inapplicable.
Criswell testified before the Singapore court under Order 40A, not Order 40. Order
40A does not reserve the right to award compensation only to the Singaporean court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --