UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, 20-CV-10849 (JGLC) -against- ORDER STEFAN QIN, et al., Defendants.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge: WHEREAS, on January 21, 2021, Robert A. Musiala, Jr. Esq. of Baker & Hostetler LLP (“BakerHostetler”) was appointed as the Receiver in this action, ECF No. 31; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2025, the Receiver submitted the Sixteenth Fee Application, ECF No. 353, seeking approval of the payment of fees and expenses incurred between October 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024 (the “Application Period”); and WHEREAS the Sixteenth Fee Application seeks approval of payments in the following amounts: $160,346.24 to BakerHostetler; $51,951.83 to Ankura Consulting Group, LLC (“Ankura”); and $2,665.20 to Miller Kaplan Arase, LLP (“Miller Kaplan,” and collectively, the “Receiver Team”); and WHEREAS, in connection with the Sixteenth Fee Application, the Receiver and the Receiver Team submitted invoices detailing the work performed; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Sixteenth Fee Application is GRANTED, and the Receiver is AUTHORIZED to make payments for the total amounts requested in the application. “A receiver appointed by a court who reasonably and diligently discharges his duties is entitled to be fairly compensated for services rendered and expenses incurred.” SEC v. Amerindo Inv. Advisors Inc., No. 05-CV-5231 (RJS),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019) (quoting SEC v. Byers,

(S.D.N.Y. 2008)). “Like fee awards in other contexts, the reasonableness of a receiver’s fee application is determined in the court’s discretion, and is judged by, among other things, the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged and the reasonableness of the number of hours billed.”

(internal citations omitted). In

determining a reasonable fee, the Court considers a number of factors, including “(1) the complexity of problems faced, (2) the benefits to the receivership estate, (3) the quality of the work performed, and (4) the time records presented.” SEC v. Morgan,

, 223 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting SEC v. Platinum Mgmt. (NY) LLC, No. 16-CV-6848 (BMC),

, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018)). Here, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) reviewed and approved the fee application and the invoices for the Receiver and the Receiver Team. ECF No. 353 ¶ 1. The SEC’s approval is “given great weight” in determining the reasonableness of the compensation and reimbursement sought by a receiver. Morgan, 504 F. Supp. 3d at 223 (quoting Byers,

). The Sixteenth Fee Application and accompanying billing records

reflect the significant efforts of the Receiver Team, which continues to engage in highly complex and time-intensive work on behalf of the Receivership. During the Application Period, the Receiver Team performed work that was beneficial to the Receivership, including engaging in discussions with third parties regarding the return and recovery of Receivership Property; engaging in discussions with a third party related to certain cryptocurrency assets identified as Receivership Property that may be recoverable for the Receivership Estate; receiving and analyzing documents and information relating to Receivership Property from third parties; analyzing merits of potential litigation to recover Receivership Property, hosting an electronic claims portal (and evaluation claims submitted through the portal); and conducting witness interviews of former employees, officers, and directors of the Receivership Entities. ECF No. 353 4 4; ECF No. 344 at 2-9. The hourly rates remain significantly discounted from the ordinary rates of the Receiver and Ankura, resulting in a combined total discount and fee write-off of $221,486.00 and $23,314.50, respectively, for the Application Period. ECF No. 343 § 28. Dated: October 6, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

SSCA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge