Publications
Update on Bankruptcy Fee Shifting
January 2016
“Each litigant [in the U.S. legal system] pays [its] own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.” BakerBotts LLP v. ASARCO LLP, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2164 (2015) (6-3), quoting Hardt v. Reliance StandardLife Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 252-53 (2010). A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court purported to follow this so-called “American Rule” against “fee shifting” in ASARCO, holding on June 15, 2015 that the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “does not permit bankruptcy courts to award compensation for … fee-defense litigation [i.e., the cost of a professional’s defending against an objection to its fees].” 135 S. Ct. at 2169. In this article, partner Michael L. Cook examines other recent bankruptcy cases that show: 1) the Code does permit fee-shifting in specific cases; 2) courts will ignore the American Rule in the right cases; and 3) more bankruptcy fee disputes continue to be litigated.
Related People
Practices
Attachments
Related Insights
Alerts
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) have overhauled Form PF and private fund managers have until March 12, 2025, to begin reporting on the new Form. The changes to the reporting requirements mandated by the amendments to the Form (“Form PF Amendments”) will require substantial preparation by many managers.[1]
Alerts
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) have overhauled Form PF and private fund managers have until March 12, 2025, to begin reporting on the new Form. The changes to the reporting requirements mandated by the amendments to the Form (“Form PF Amendments”) will require substantial preparation by many managers.[1]