It has become increasingly common for companies to use nonattorneys in attorney roles for the purpose of cutting costs. However, occasionally these “fee-saving” measures actually end up costing a company even more than if they had an attorney do the work in the first place.
In Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO,[1] the Supreme Court held that under § 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, estate professionals are not entitled to payment of fees and expenses incurred in connection with the defense of such professional’s fee applications.
Lawyers focusing on corporate bankruptcy matters, especially those who work at firms with a large national presence, often represent clients throughout the country and are commonly admitted to practice in more than one jurisdiction. Further, bankruptcy attorneys often blend their practice with bankruptcy court litigation and out-of-court restructuring and transactional matters.
After a significant amount of litigation including an appeal, remand and trial over a two-year period, the bankruptcy court overseeing In re River Road Hotel Partners LLC[1] ultimately determined that FBR Capital Markets & Co., located in Arlington, Va. (FBR), was entitled to payment of its restructuring fee of $2,666,965.73 and expenses of $12,179.01.
Lawyers focusing on corporate bankruptcy matters, especially those who work at firms with a large national presence, often represent clients throughout the country and are commonly admitted to practice in more than one jurisdiction. Further, bankruptcy attorneys often blend their practice with bankruptcy court litigation and out-of-court restructuring and transactional matters.
After a significant amount of litigation including an appeal, remand and trial over a two-year period, the bankruptcy court overseeing In re River Road Hotel Partners LLC[1] ultimately determined that FBR Capital Markets & Co., located in Arlington, Va.
During 2015, the Ethics & Professional Compensation Committee offered three opportunities for ABI members to learn about timely and interesting ethical and compensation issues facing professionals in the bankruptcy arena. At the Annual Spring Meeting, we paired with the Bankruptcy Litigation Committee to explore the inner-workings of “Trustee Selection in Commercial Bankruptcy Cases: Who
The recent decision in Sabatini Frozen LLC v. Weinberg, Gross, & Pergament LLP[1] is a tale of a failure of corporate governance of a closely-held corporation, coupled with the failure of debtor’s counsel to adequately address that matter.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)(F), professionals seeking payment from a bankruptcy estate must be compensated using reasonable rates and fees charged by comparably skilled professionals in nonbankruptcy cases. Prompted by the size of the professional fees in large chapter 11 filings, the General Accounting Office (GAO) was asked by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to evaluate whether bankruptcy professionals billed higher fees for large chapter 11 cases, and if
In Pham v. Golden,[1] the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) reversed an award of sanctions against the debtors and their counsel for discovery abuses in an adversary in which the debtors were not parties. In doing so, the court limited or invalidated several local rules that provided the basis for the bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions.
