counsel was already extensively involved in the Debtors’ reorganization and had reviewed all, or almost all, documents prepared by any of Debtors’ counsel, the Debtors should have considered permitting Heller’s counsel to perform many of the legal services necessary to preserve Heller’s collateral. From this Court’s standpoint, it appears that the Firm duplicated the services that were being performed, or could have been performed, by the Debtors’ or by Heller’s counsel. On the “benefit” prong of the Section 506(c) test, the Firm has also failed to meet its burden of proof. The Firm “must establish in quantifiable terms that it expended funds directly to protect and preserve the collateral.” Id. (emphasis added). Alt 1, 83 (Bankr.D.Ariz.1984)); Cascade Hydraulics, 815 F.2d at 548 (<HOLDING>) This Court has denied compensation to the Firm
holding that  506c was not intended as a substitute for recovery of normal administrative expenses from the debtors estate holding that although the lessor was not entitled to an administrative expense claim under  365d10 for the debtors use of leased property during the first sixty days of the ease the lessor would be entitled to those expenses under  503b1 to the extent the lessor could prove the expenses represented the actual necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate holding that recovery is limited to the portion of the medicaid recipients thirdparty recovery representing compensation for past medical expenses holding that  506e is not intended as a substitute for the recovery of administrative expenses normally the responsibility of the debtors estate