evidence that the MAG Committee did not fully represent the same constituencies. The recovery by MAG creditors surely would have been 100% if negotiations had been handled solely by the official committee, and drafting lock-up agreements does not seem to the court to rise to the level of a "substantial contribution." The MAG ad hoc Committee makes much of the "agreement” of other major parties in this case to payment of the committee’s fees and expenses. But the court does not understand the other parties in the case to be proponents of payment of the MAG ad hoc Committee; rather the other parties simply agreed not to object to the fees and expenses sought in the committee’s Application. See Plan § 6.2(d)(ii). 63 . See, e.g., In re Consol. Bancshares, Inc., 785 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). 64 . This fact is one that distinguishes the
holding that a court has power to award attorney fees when authorized by contract statute or recognized ground of equity holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that a public administrator was not entitled to attorneys fees in a claim against the estate of a former guardian where the case was not one where attorneys fees were authorized and there was no evidence to support the award holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case holding that the applicant was not entitled to an award of attorney fees as having made a substantial contribution in a chapter 11 case where among other things the applicants efforts were duplicative of those of an equity security holders committee