“Stop in the name of love, before you break my heart”

That’s what bankruptcy lawyers are now proclaiming in the wake of Baker Botts v. Asarco, in which the Supreme Court held that the debtor’s law firm could not be paid its “fees on fees” in defending against an objection to their fees. Two disclaimers. First, our firm represented the winning party in Baker Botts, Second, I am a bankruptcy lawyer and I would like to be paid all of my fees, including fees on fees. But it ain’t right or, at least, it ain’t what Congress authorized in Bankruptcy Code § 330.

Introduction

Extra Extra Read All About It. It was a cataclysmic weekend in college football for the Big 12 conference. The college football playoff committee elevated the one-loss Ohio State Buckeyes (Big 10) into the fourth and final slot in the inaugural College Football Playoff, taming a one-loss Baylor Bears (Big 12) sloth and a one-loss TCU Horned Frogs (Big 12) colony in the process. Some naysayers may look to the Big 12′s soft schedules and the absence of a league tiebreaker game as drivers of the committee’s decision.

If you’re a secured lender, news of a Chapter 11 filing by your borrower can be unsettling. The commencement of a Chapter 11 case triggers an “automatic stay” which, with certain exceptions, operates as an injunction against all actions affecting the debtor or its property.3 Under the automatic stay, a secured lender holding a security interest in the debtor’s property may not repossess or foreclose on that property without the permission of the bankruptcy court.

The inclusion of pre-bankruptcy waivers in “standard issue” credit documents has generated a host of litigation in bankruptcy cases about the enforceability of such provisions.

This morning the US Supreme Court issued a ruling providing that severance payments are taxable FICA wages. In United States vs. Quality Stores, Quality Stores made severance payments to employees who were involuntarily terminated as part of Quality Stores’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Quality Stores paid and withheld income and FICA taxes from the severance payments. Later, Quality Stores sought a refund on behalf of itself and former employees for FICA taxes withheld and paid.

Sometime this summer, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in U.S. v. Quality Stores.  In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the Sixth Circuit’s holding that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (“SUB payments”) relating to severance payments are not subject to FICA taxes. U.S. v. Quality Stores, 693 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012).  The Sixth Circuit decision resurrects a long-disputed issue regarding the applicability of FICA to severance pay.

In a closely-watched case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the decision of the Delaware District Court, holding that bankruptcy claims are subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code despite their subsequent sale to a third-party. In In re KB Toys, Inc., No. 13-1197 (3d Cir. Nov.

In connection with the bankruptcy of a bank holding company (the “Bank Holdco”) and its operating bank subsidiary (the “Bank”), there are often different classes of creditors competing for one tax refund.

A Canadian on-line dating site, PlentyofFish, wanted to purchase the bankrupt site True.com but the Texas Attorney General filed a petition to block the marriage on the ground that the transfer of the private personal information of millions of people who had used True.com would potentially violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Which made us think: Is a corporation’s violation of its customers’ personal privacy covered by insurance?