Rule 9011(b) provides that by presenting to the court a petition, pleading, written motion or other paper, an attorney is certifying that, to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, it is not presented “for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently ruled In re Scandia Seafood (New York), Inc.[1] that an involuntary chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed against Scandia Seafood (New York), Inc.
If you were looking for something else to worry about at night, ponder the following scenario that forms the basis for the putative class-action complaint brought by the lender group-plaintiffs (the “Plaintiffs”) that was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and affirmed on appeal in Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System et.al.
In In re Nortel Networks, Inc.,[1] the Delaware Bankruptcy Court concluded that noteholder objections to the Indenture Trustee’s attorney fees must be made “on a timely, not hindsight basis.” The court’s decision serves as sound guidance to indenture trustees that, as long as any attorney’s fees charged were reasonable and pru
In Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided guidance on awards of attorneys’ fees.
On Sept. 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed[1] the district court’s decision upholding the bankruptcy court’s denial of a post-discharge motion for attorneys’ fees. The underlying motion stemmed from pre-petition state court litigation brought by creditor against debtor.
Debtor’s counsel must be a “disinterested person” pursuant to § 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code for a court to approve its retention or to award debtor’s counsel compensation for its services.[1] As defined in the Bankruptcy Code, a disinterested person means, among other things, a person who is not a creditor of the debtor on the petiti
Recently, in In re Dynamic Drywall,[1] the U.S.
