has demonstrated skill and experience in the bankruptcy field; and (F) whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in non-bankruptcy matters. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3); see also In re West End Fin. Advisors, LLC, et al., 2012 WL 25906132012 at *3-4, Bankr.LEXIS 3045 at *8 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2012), In re Quigley Company, Inc., 500 B.R. 347, 356(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2013). The Bankruptcy Code imposes upon the court “a supervisory obligation,” not only to approve the employment of professionals, but also to ensure that the fees sought by those professionals in a bankruptcy case are reasonable, and that the services and expenses were necessarily incurred. In re Fibermark, Inc., 349 B.R. 385, 394 (Bankr.D.Vt.2006) (<HOLDING>). “Even in the absence of an objection, the
holding that this court has an independent judicial responsibility to evaluate the appropriateness of the fees and expenses requested holding that the indenture trustee has a separate contractual claim for its fees and expenses holding that jury has responsibility to determine whether repair bills represent necessary and reasonable expenses holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding opposing counsels attorneys fees and expenses as sanctions without affording the sanctioned party the right to examine question or provide argument against the claimed fees and expenses