Fulltext Search

The Supreme Court’s decision last term in Baker Botts v. Asarco, in which the Court ruled that professionals that are paid from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate cannot be compensated for time spent defending their fee applications, continues to rankle bankruptcy practitioners.  Moreover, a recent decision in a Delaware bankruptcy case shows that the impact of Asarco will not be easily circumvented.

At a hearing in late August, Judge Robert Gerber expressed his annoyance with both sides in the ongoing battle to determine whether General Motors LLC (“New GM”), the entity formed in 2009 to acquire the assets of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), is shielded from lawsuits based on ignition switch defects in cars manufactured prior to New GM’s acquisition of the assets of Old GM in 2009.

Key point

The Court is prepared to look at the overall nature of a directors conduct and dissect a complex series of transactions before concluding what (if any) insolvency failings have been committed by a director.

The Facts

Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) has cleared all of the preliminary hurdles in its path as it moves towards the confirmation of its plan of reorganization (the “Plan”).

Key points

The court has discretion to allow an insolvency practitioner to recover fees and costs from work done in realising assets for the benefit of a third party but it cannot be exercised where an insolvency practitioner takes action in relation to assets outside in the insolvency estate of his own accord.

The facts

The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.

Key Point

No recognition order was made where the main foreign insolvency proceedings had ended even where the plan agreed in those proceedings was in part still to be implemented.

The Facts