We previously posted about a recent effort to address an issue left unresolved in Baker Botts v. ASARCO, 135 S. Ct.
Baker Botts L.L.P. has filed its application for retention as debtors’ counsel in In re New Gulf Resources, LLC, et al. (Case No. 15-12556, Bankr. D. Del.), and the application incudes a novel “Fee Premium.” Essentially, Baker Botts’ aggregate fees incurred in the case will be increased by 10% (subject to court approval) but … Baker Botts will waive the entire Fee Premium “if, and only if, Baker Botts does not incur material fees and expenses defending against any objection with respect to an interim or final fee application.”
More than three dozen US energy industry companies (E&Ps) filed for chapter 11 this year, with three more – New Gulf Resources LLC, Magnum Hunter Resources Corp., and Cubic Energy Inc. – filing just this third week of December. According to BloombergBriefs.com, even before these most recent filings. energy sector filings accounted for 26% of all chapter 11 filings in 2015, which is the largest share of filings for any sector. Just when the industry thought oil prices could not go any lower, they have.
“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
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Jetivia S.A. and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and Ors should make it easier to pursue claims against rogue directors. The Supreme Court held that, in instances where a company has suffered as a result of the unlawful behaviour of its directors, that behaviour cannot be attributed to the company to disallow the company, or its liquidators, from raising claims against directors for breach of their duties.
Background
On 29 April 2015 The Insolvency Service of the UK Government published updated insolvency statistics which include a breakdown of insolvencies that occurred in 2014 across various industry sectors including the construction industry. There are separate tables of statistics for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The insolvency of Scottish Coal Company Ltd ("SCC") has given rise to two recent Scottish Court of Session cases regarding performance bonds – East Ayrshire Council ("EAC") v Zurich Plc (24 June 2014) and South Lanarkshire Council ("SLC") v Coface SA (27 January 2015).
The insolvency trade body R3 have issued a useful guide to the insolvency process for creditors. The guide can be found here.
A frequent criticism is that the insolvency process (and indeed insolvency practitioners) do not do enough to engage with creditors. Partly this will be because of creditor apathy (who wants to throw good time after bad money?) but partly it is because creditors do not see the insolvency process as being structured to assist them.
The news that USC has taken steps to commence an insolvency process is further proof (if proof were needed) that despite what TS Elliot may have claimed, January really is the cruellest month.