Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Affirms Slashing of Unreasonable Fees In Dismissed Involuntary Bankruptcy Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit quietly affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an involuntary petition because the petitioners' "claims were the subject of bona fide disputes within the meaning of" Bankruptcy Code (Code) §303(b)(1) (petitioner may not hold claim that is "the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount"). In re Navient Solutions, LLC, 2023 WL 3487051 (2d Cir. May 17, 2023). More important, the court affirmed "the bankruptcy court's [reduced] award of a sum of $44,000 in attorneys' fees and costs" under Code §303(i)(1)(B) to the debtor, "to be paid by [the lawyer for the petitioning creditors]." The court did not dwell on the facts of this litigation, but they have major practical significance. As shown below, an involuntary bankruptcy petition is a limited, risky remedy for both creditors' counsel and debtor's counsel. The fee problems encountered by counsel for the petitioners and the putative debtor in this case provide a cautionary tale.
Relevance
Involuntary bankruptcy exists as a remedy "for the benefit of the overall creditor body …. [I]t was not intended to redress the special grievances, no matter how legitimate, of particular creditors …." In re Murray, 900 F.3d 53, 59-60 (2d Cir. 2018). The Circuits have been consistent. In re Edgar A. Reyes-Colon, 922 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 2019) (affirmed dismissal of involuntary petition filed by only two creditors; as least three petitioners required; parties engaged in "twelve years of litigation concerning the number of [debtor's] creditors and whether he might … be placed in bankruptcy involuntarily for 'equitable' reasons."); In re 8 Speeds 8 Inc., 921 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2019) (dissent) ("Involuntary bankruptcy is a drastic course of action that carries significant consequences, and '[f]iling an involuntary petition should be a measure of last resort' …. [T]he fee-shifting and damages provision of [Code] §303(i) are intended to deter frivolous filings …. The Majority [in this case] holds that … a third party who appears for a debtor and successfully defends against an involuntary petition can never request that the debtor be awarded costs, a reasonable attorney's fee, or damages."); In re Anmuth Holdings LLC, 2019 WL 1421169, *1, *27 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019) (petitioning creditors "abuse[d] the power given to [them] … to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition"; these petitions "lacked any merit"; court awarded debtors attorneys' fees, punitive damages, retroactive dismissal of the involuntary petitions, and an injunction against future filing by petitioning creditors).
Facts
The petitioning creditors in Navient had asserted disputed refund claims against the debtor in their involuntary petition. When the debtor moved to dismiss the petition, the petitioners never opposed the motion and their counsel never appeared at the hearing on the motion. The bankruptcy court not only abstained under Code §305(a)(i) (abstention permitted when "interests of creditors and the debtor would be better served"), but also dismissed the petition on the merits and imposed the debtor's "reasonable" legal fees on the lawyer for the petitioning creditor. The reasonableness of the debtor's legal fees were the big issue, though. The district court affirmed.
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
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.