(The Capitol from the Supreme Court on 12/30/16 via Dave’s iPhone)
Once again from my in-laws’ home in Potomac, Maryland, here’s Plan Proponent’s Best of 2016 post. With our second year in the bag, we’ll dispense with the formalities and get straight to the Top 10, link by link. In honor of our Supreme
Ordinarily, we would not go back over ground already covered by Bill Rochelle in his excellent Rochelle’s Daily Wire feed. However, we’ll make an exception for anything related to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, LLC opinion, an opinion that we’ve covered extensively. In short, Bill pointed all of us to
A year and a day ago, we published our first of a number of posts on Baker Botts v. ASARCO, wherein the Supreme Court held that bankruptcy professionals may not recover fee-defense costs incurred in “defending” their fee applications. So, what better way to mark the one year anniversary of our coverage of
This will be a placeholder post for the Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, LLC timeline. On March 17, Delaware’s Judge Shannon formally adopted in his New Gulf Resources Chapter 11 case Judge Walrath’s Baker Botts opinion in Delaware’s Boomerang Tube Chapter 11 case. We’ve been covering Baker Botts and the fee-defense cost issue since June
On Monday in the Samson Resources Corporation Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, Delaware’s Judge Sontchi adopted Judge Walrath’s recentBaker Botts opinion in Delaware’s Boomerang Tube Chapter 11 case regarding fee-defense costs after Baker Botts. As we discussed last week, Judge Walrath’s opinion interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO opinion,
(I’m told that these are “Boomerang Tubes”)
Back in September, we blogged about two pending Delaware bankruptcy cases regarding fee-defense costs after Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO: In re Boomerang Tube, LLC, et al. and In re Northshore Mainland Services, Inc., et al. (a/k/a the Baha Mar case). In Baker Botts,
(Some imagined or actual version of the Baha Mar Resort)
As we discussed in two prior posts (Part 1 and Part 2), on June 15, 2015, a 6-3 Supreme Court held in the Chapter 11 case of Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, LLC that bankruptcy professionals employed under Section 327(a) of the
As we discussed in two prior posts, on June 15, 2015, a 6-3 Supreme Court held in the Chapter 11 case of Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, LLC that bankruptcy professionals employed under Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code may not, under Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, recover as compensation fees incurred in defending
(courtesy of Dave’s iPhone on June 18, 2015)
As a recap of Part 1, on June 15, 2015, a 6-3 Supreme Court held in the Chapter 11 case of Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, LLC that bankruptcy professionals employed under Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code may not, under Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy
(courtesy of Dave’s iPhone on June 18, 2015)
Two Thursdays ago, we visited my wife’s family in Potomac, Maryland. In addition to seeing the usual sites, we did a Supreme Court “drive-by” and snapped the above photo, a very timely now outdated, but still very political picture.
Indeed, Friday morning, the Supreme Court issued its