Fees on Fees

On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Baker Botts LLP et al. v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103, 2015 BL 187887 (June 15, 2015), in which it considered whether a bankruptcy court has the power to award fees to a law firm for defending its fee application for services performed on behalf of a chapter 11 debtor.

"In Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015), a divided U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split regarding whether a bankruptcy court may, with the consent of the litigants, adjudicate a claim that, though statutorily denominated as “core,” is not otherwise constitutionally determinable by a bankruptcy judge. The majority held that so long as consent—whether express or implied—is “knowing and voluntary,” Article III of the U.S. Constitution is not violated by a bankruptcy court’s adjudication of such a claim.

In a matter of first impression, the Delaware Court of Chancery held inQuadrant Structured Products Co. Ltd. v. Vertin, No. 6990-VCL, 2015 BL 128889 (Del. Ch. May 4, 2015), that a creditor suing derivatively on behalf of an insolvent corporation does not lose standing to prosecute the derivative claims if the corporation becomes solvent while the lawsuit is pending. In so ruling, the court expressly rejected a “continuous insolvency” or an “irretrievable insolvency” requirement for standing purposes.

In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its position sanctioning, under appropriate circumstances, nonconsensual third party release provisions in chapter 11 plans. In SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Seaside Eng’g & Surveying, Inc.(In re Seaside Eng’g & Surveying, Inc.), 780 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2015), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed bankruptcy and district court decisions approving a debtor’s chapter 11 plan that released the debtor’s former principals over the objection of a noninsider equity holder.

July 18, 2015 was the second anniversary of the City of Detroit's filing for bankruptcy. This action was taken by the City's Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, with the support of Michigan's Governor Rick Snyder. But, with the exception of Detroit's corporate leadership, it was fiercely resisted by virtually all other interested parties, including political leaders, public employees, holders of the City's debt obligations as well as virtually all commentators in the media.

On May 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first 2015 ruling in a case involving an issue of bankruptcy law. In Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14-116, 2015 BL 129010, ___ S. Ct. ___ (May 4, 2015), the court reviewed a ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals that an order of a bankruptcy appellate panel affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of confirmation of a chapter 13 plan is not a final order and therefore is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), so long as the debtor remains free to propose an amended plan. See Bullard v. Hyde Park Sav.

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (2012), pronounced in no uncertain terms that a secured creditor must be given the right to “credit bid” its claim in a bankruptcy sale of its collateral, the controversy over restrictions on credit bidding continues in the courts. A ruling recently handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has added a new wrinkle to the debate. InBaker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Morton (In re R.L. Adkins Corp.), 2015 BL 116996 (5th Cir. Apr.

Whether a provision in a bond indenture or loan agreement obligating a borrower to pay a “make-whole” premium is enforceable in bankruptcy has been the subject of heated debate in recent years. A Delaware bankruptcy court recently weighed in on the issue in Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015).

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

Trademark licensees that file for bankruptcy protection face uncertainty concerning their ability to continue using trademarks that are crucial to their businesses. Some of this stems from an unsettled issue in the courts as to whether a licensee can assume a trademark license without the licensor’s consent. In In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., 2015 BL 44152 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 20, 2015), a Delaware bankruptcy court reaffirmed that the ongoing controversy surrounding the “actual” versus “hypothetical” test for assumption of a trademark license has not abated.