Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Remedies for Overpayments and Violation of Rule 3002.1
The Supreme Court on June 13 declined to hear two bankruptcy cases in the term to begin next October.
%1
2018 Increase in U.S. Trustee Fees Held Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion avoids saying whether the dual system of U.S. Trustees and Bankruptcy Administrators is itself unconstitutional.
How and Why We Avoid Conflicts of Interest: The Relevance of Conflict Checks in Turnaround Work
From its inception, the National Ethics Task Force [1] was charged with answering the question of whether there is a need for national ethics rules, standards and general practice guidance in the bankruptcy context.
Uncommon and Controversial, Are Post-Petition Retainers Authorized Under the Bankruptcy Code?
Bankruptcy courts have not always favored post-petition retainers to debtor’s counsel. [1] But does the Bankruptcy Code prohibit them? That is exactly the question Judge David D. Cleary answered in In re Golden Fleece Beverages Inc., in which he held that the Code indeed supports post-petition retainers. [2]
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Scope of Permissible Compensation of Estate Professionals Under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)
On January 14, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit in In the Matter of Sharon Sylvester (Sylvester vs Chaffe McCall LLP) held that a trustee’s attorney is entitled to compensation under Bankruptcy Code § 330(a) “only for services requiring legal expertise that a trustee would not generally be expected to perform without an attorney’s assistance.” [1]
Supreme Court Hears Argument on Constitutionality of 2018 Increase in U.S. Trustee Fees
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 18 in a case to resolve a circuit split and decide whether the increase in fees payable to the U.S. Trustee system in 2018 violated the uniformity aspect of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution because it was not immediately applicable in the two states that have Bankruptcy Administrators rather than U.S. Trustees, Rochelle’s Daily Wire reported today. See Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 21-441 (Sup. Ct.) (cert. granted Jan. 10, 2022). The government conceded at oral argument that the fees were up to seven times higher for several months in the two states with Bankruptcy Administrators. Still, the government contended that the fees were not substantive but were procedural and therefore did not offend the uniformity aspects of the Bankruptcy Clause. If the Court were to decide there was a constitutional violation, the government argued that the proper relief would not be refunds to the debtors in 48 states who paid more. Rather, the government contended that the proper relief would require debtors in the two states to reopen their cases and pay the higher fees by requiring disgorgement from creditors who had been paid more because the fees were lower.
Supreme Court Hears Argument on Constitutionality of 2018 Increase in U.S. Trustee Fees
At oral argument, the justices seemed more concerned about the remedy to give if the dual fee system was unconstitutional.
‘Once a Creditor, Always a Creditor,’ Even if the Claim Is Paid, Judge Phillips Says
Being branded as a creditor is like a tattoo; it won’t ever come off.