The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether estate professionals could recover fees expended in defending fee applications. Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. _____ (2015). A divided court ruled that the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1) allowed compensation only for “actual, necessary services rendered[,]” and that to allow fees for defending fee applications would be contrary to the statute and the “American Rule” that each litigant pay her own attorneys’ fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.
RE: BPE SOLICITORS & ANOTHER V GABRIEL [2015] UKSC 39
The Supreme Court considered whether a trustee in bankruptcy who was considering adopting proceedings and lodging an appeal should be personally liable for historic adverse costs which had been awarded against the bankrupt prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy.
A Trustee in Bankruptcy’s liability for litigation costs
Stevensdrake Ltd v Stephen Hunt & Others [2015] EWHC 1527 (Ch)
Introduction
The High Court’s recent judgment in Stevensdrake Ltd -v- Stephen Hunt & Others highlights the need for Insolvency Practitioners to make sure that they carefully review conditional fee arrangements before entering into them and understand the potential contractual ramifications which may give rise to personal liability.
Background
Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has had to interpret ambiguous, imprecise, and otherwise puzzling language in the Bankruptcy Code, including the phrases “claim,” “interest in property,” “ordinary course of business,” “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” “allowed secured claim,” “willful and malicious injury,” “on account of,” “value, as of the effective date of the plan,” “projected disposable income,” “defalcation,” and “retirement funds.” The interpretive principles employed by the Court in interpreting the peculiarities of the Bankruptcy Code were in full view when the Court r
Introduction
The recent Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others has provided office holders with greater (but not final) clarity on the operation of the ‘illegality defence’.
Many readers will be familiar with the concept of the illegality defence, otherwise referred to by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”. It is a rule of law which provides that a claimant cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to found a claim against another party.
RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]
This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same. The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.
The Facts
ASTRA RESOURCES PLC V CREDIT VERITAS USA LLC [2015] EWHC 1830 (CH)
It is trite law that the court will grant an injunction restraining the advertisement of a winding-up petition where the petition amounts to an abuse of process.
E: BW ESTATES LTD; RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER V TURPIN AND ANOTHER [2015] EWHC 517 (CH) (“RVT”)
This decision followed an application by creditors (“the Randhawas”) of BW Estates Ltd (“the Company”) against the administrators of the Company that their remuneration should be deemed excessive and either disallowed entirely or reduced to such extent as the court thought appropriate.
The Facts
The South East’s position as one of the more prosperous areas of the UK, in terms of both lifestyle and work looks set to continue, as demonstrated by the findings of Lambert Smith Hampton’s UK Vitality Index Report 2015 in which Guildford came out as the top destination in the UK, with other cities in the region dominating the list.