opinion: In re PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORPORATION. CRAVATH, DE GERSDORFF, SWAINE & WOOD v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc. (formerly Paramount Publix Corporation), et al.
  No. 333.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  May 4, 1936.
  Cravath, De Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood, of New York City (Robert T. Swaine and Wm. D. Whitney, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
  Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, of New York City (Thomas D. Thacher, Edwin L. Weisl, and Richard Jones, III, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
  Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
  MANTON, Circuit Judge.
  The law firm of Cravath, De Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood was attorney for Kuhn, Loeb & Co., who, we held in a decision filed this day, In re Paramount Publix Corporation, 83 F.(2d) 406, were agents for various committees in the reorganization proceedings under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 207) for the Paramount Publix Corporation. As stated in that opinion, this law firm rendered legal services in the preparation of the plan of reorganization carried on from June 7, 1934, until the withdrawal of their client, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., on November 8, 1934. The character of the legal services performed and the benefits arising from them are sufficiently described in the opinion filed in the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Case. In addition, disbursements of $812.15 were incurred. The authorization to Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to proceed with the preparation of a plan of reorganization necessarily implied that competent counsel would assist in the performance of this function delegated by the committees, and, further, the committees placed the company’s records at counsel’s disposal in their work of assisting in formulating a plan. As such counsel, they may be compensated within the statute’s provision for attorneys. For the services rendered in these reorganization proceedings under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, an allowance should be granted of $60,000, plus disbursements.
  The order appealed from is reversed, with directions to provide accordingly.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear