Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

Bankruptcy/In The News: Bankruptcy Court Retained Ancillary Jurisdiction To Resolve Attorneys’/Financial Advisor’s Entitlement To Fee Recovery Even Though Bankruptcy Case Dismissed

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, In The News

  Seventh Circuit Disagrees That Bankruptcy Judge Lacked Jurisdiction To Decide Fee Entitlement Issue.      In Sweports, Ltd. v. Much Shelist, Case No. 12-14254 (7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2015), bankruptcy counsel and a financial advisor to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“claimants”) in a Chapter 11 proceeding filed to recover fees of at least […]

Bankruptcy/Cases Under Review: Federal Government And Several States Support Baker Botts’ SCOTUS Position On Whether Efforts Defending Core Application Fees Are Compensable

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Cases Under Review

  Fifth Circuit Decision Saying No Fees For These Efforts Under Scrutiny.      On October 2, 2014, we posted on SCOTUS granting certiorari with respect to a Fifth Circuit decision denying Baker Botts substantial fees and costs in defending their core application fee efforts. According to Law 360, “[t]he federal government on Wednesday [December 10,

Bankruptcy/Cases Under Review: SCOTUS Grants Certiorari To Decide If Bankruptcy Attorneys Can Get Compensation For Defending Fee Application Requests Relating To “Core Fees”

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Cases Under Review

Bankruptcy/Cases Under Review: SCOTUS Grants Certiorari To Decide If Bankruptcy Attorneys Can Get Compensation For Defending Fee Application Requests Relating To “Core Fees” Fifth and Ninth Circuits Are Split On The Issue.      Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether bankruptcy judges have discretion under Bankruptcy Code section 330(a) to award bankruptcy

Bankruptcy/Equity/Sanctions: Fee Recovery Affirmed And Reversed In Part In Case Involving Federal Work and Vexatious Litigant Orders

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions

  Some Should Have Been Sought In Federal Court, But Vexatious Litigant Sanctions And Addition Of Attorney As Judgment Debtor, Who Assisted Vexatious Litigant, Was Proper.      Kempton v. Clark, Case No. B248713 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 25, 2014) (unpublished) is a real imbroglio involving bankruptcy adversary and state court proceedings in which vexatious

Bankruptcy: Stay Violator’s Conditional Settlement Offer Did Not End Stay Violation, Entitling Bankruptcy Petitioner To Fees For Remedying Stay Violation

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

  Concurring Decision Believes Sternberg Opinion Wrongfully Decided, But Still Follows It.      In the Matter of Snowden, No. 13-35291 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2014) (published) is a decision arising from 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1), which allows a bankruptcy petitioner to obtain attorney’s fees and damages incurred in litigating over a stay violation.      Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy: Schwartz-Tallard Opinion Withdrawn And Republished

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

  Ninth Circuit Comes To Same Result, But Reissues Slightly Different Opinion.      For those of you facing “actual damages” concerns in the automatic stay area, we discussed In re Schwartz-Tallard, Case No. 12-60062 (9th Cir.) in our April 17, 2014 post. We can now report that the previous decision has been withdrawn and reissued

Bankruptcy: Debtor’s Attorney’s Fees Incurred In Successfully Defending Against Creditor’s Stay Violation On Appeal Are Recoverable As Damages Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1)

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

  Contrast That With Nonrecoverability of Fees For Adversary Proceeding Work Related to Pursuit of Damages From Stay Violation.      The Ninth Circuit in In re Schwartz-Tallard, Case No. 12-60052 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2014) (published) dealt with a different issue leading to a different result than that reached in Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d

Bankruptcy/Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fees Clause Rescues The Day For Winning Creditor

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

CCP § 1021, Not Civil Code § 1717, Afforded Relief.     In re Charalambous (Hamilton v. Charalambous), BAP No. CC-13-1042-PDKi (BAP 9th Cir. Mem. Decision July 3, 2013) (unpublished) is an illustration of how one needs to carefully pick the basis for fee entitlement. Although Civil Code section 1717 is an attractive first impulse ground,

Scroll to Top