Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Should Bankruptcy Professionals Be Compensated for Defending Their Fee Applications?
The ability of bankruptcy estate professionals to obtain payment for defending their fee applications has been severely curtailed with the United States Supreme Court's decision of Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015), and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware's recent decision of In re Boomerang Tube, Inc., Case No. 15-11247, 2016 WL 385933 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 29, 2016). But such a limitation is inappropriate.
Bankruptcy estate professionals (attorneys and other professionals working for the debtor, and attorneys and other professionals acting on behalf of a committee) are retained subject to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. ' 101 et seq. (the Bankruptcy Code). Section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor or trustee to employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons. Section 1103(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in turn provides authority for a committee (of unsecured creditors, other creditors or equity holders) to retain professionals. Section 328 of the Bankruptcy Code allows for the compensation of professionals on the basis of specific, pre-approved fee agreements. And section 330 provides for the compensation of professionals who have been employed under sections 327 and 1103 through a fee-petition process and court approval based on reasonableness.
The Issue in ASARCO
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?