July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
Ethics & Professional Compensation
This panel will explore and discuss ethical issues that arise in consumer practice. The panelists will review recent cases and provide hypotheticals to invoke audience participation and discussion regarding topicsrelated to attorney fees, conflicts, and attorney/client privilege and confidentiality.
Recent large bankruptcies like NRA, Boy Scouts of America, Roman Catholic Archdiocese, Purdue Pharma and J&J have invigorated debate over the longstanding issues of venue and bad faith in bankruptcy. This panel will explore matters surrounding venue and bad-faith filings, related ethics considerations, and the newest wave of reform initiatives.
An April ruling by Hon. Mary Jo Heston of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma addressed a fairly complicated and nuanced administrative expense request, ultimately adopting the view — contrary to at least two circuits — that substantial contribution claims are allowable in chapter 7 bankruptcy cases. In re Maust Transport Inc., Ch. 7 Case No. 14-40595 [Docket No. 167] (Bankr. W.D. Wash. April 3, 2018).
The Background
In 2015, the plaintiff, a credit card debt-holder in default, commenced Katherine Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. L.L.C.[1] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the defendant, a collection agency. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).[2] The defendant had sent collection letters to the plaintiff, advising that a debt of $1,297.87 was due.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico in In re Hungry Horse LLC[1] recently indicated that under certain circumstances it would approve the retention agreement of a chapter 11 debtor’s counsel, over the objection of the unsecured creditors’ committee, containing a contractual provision obligating the debtor to pay its retained counsel’s fees and costs incurred in defending its fee applications, by ruling that notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Baker Botts L.L.P. v.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in an adversary proceeding (AP) in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case, In re Blue Dog at 399 Inc. v. BP 399 Park Avenue LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 15-01097-MEW (related to Main Case No. 15-10694) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
