professional fees

Fees for Defending Fees – Recent Rulings Permit Contractual Circumvention of Supreme Court’s Baker Botts v. Asarco Decision

10/05/17

The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.  Since then, “estate professionals,” i.e., those retained in a bankruptcy case by a trustee, debtor in possession or an official committee of creditors, have sought ways to limit the potentially harsh impact of that decision.

[more]

Delaware Bankruptcy Judge: A Carve-Out for Fees Is Not a Cap

01/31/17

Judge Christopher Sontchi recently issued an important opinion in the Molycorp chapter 11 case.  He held that a standard carve-out in a financing order for the fees of counsel and other professionals for an official creditors’ committee will not later limit the ability of such professionals to be paid in full under a confirmed plan of reorganization.  As with

[more]

Professional Fee Issues in Tropicana Entertainment

01/11/16

In a 10 page opinion released January 5, 2016 in the Tropicana Entertainment bankruptcy (Bank. D. Del. 08-10856), Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court provided  a critical opinion concerning the handling of a dispute arising from two debtors’ division of professional payments.  Judge Carey’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

[more]

Baker Botts v. Asarco: The Supreme Court Shows Again That It Really Doesn’t Understand Corporate Bankruptcy Cases

06/18/15

The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall was only partially clarified by this term’s opinion in Wellness International Network v. Sharif.

[more]