Critical Case Comment

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee, Nashville, TN

ASARCO, LLC v. Baker Botts LLP (In re ASARCO), 751 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. April 30, 2014) (Judge Jones). Fees incurred by a law firm representing a debtor, incurred in connection with defending a fee award, are not compensable as an administrative expense from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Case Summary

ASARCO was a copper mining, smelting, and refining company that filed a Chapter 11 petition in 2005. Shortly before the filing, ASARCO’s parent corporation required it to transfer its controlling interest . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Section 302: Joint but Separate

Queneshia Fleming

September 24, 2023

“The ambiguity of § 302 raises the question:are jointly administered cases two separate estates? If jointly administered cases are two separate estates, are trustees doing it wrong?”

Members

Legal Aid and Who Are Our Chapter 13 “Customers”

January 31, 2021

By Rachel Jones, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Chris Micale, Western District of Virginia (Roanoke) The events of 2020 have had a devastating impact on the very low-income population. The working poor are struggling, particularly those working in sectors such as hospitality and tourism. State and Federal funding and local programs such as food banks and community action...

Division of Marital Property During a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Michael B. Joseph

November 5, 2023

“The focus of this article is to review some of the issues faced in cases with pending state court marital property division proceedings.”

Members

Consumers Are Consuming Cash at an Unsustainable Rate

Kevin R. Anderson

June 26, 2022

Consumers have burned through their stimulus cash and are now drawing down their savings to satisfy pent up spending sprees and to cover the increasing cost of living. This cannot continue. From 2015 through the end of 2019, consumers held a consistent average of $1.1 trillion in savings. However, with the commencement of the COVID pandemic and the first of...

Members

Engaging a Non-Profit to Solve the Chapter 13 Trustees PSLF Conundrum

March 8, 2020

By Ed Boltz, The Law Offices of John T. Orcutt, P.C. (Durham, NC) and Sarah Beth Withers, Inner Banks Legal Services (Washington, NC) DISCLAIMER: This article is not meant to provide specific advice about the formation of a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation or the tax or other consequences of such. At most, this is intended to encourage Chapter 13 trustees and...

Members

Meet New Trustee Brian Tucci

Nicole P. Novak

August 14, 2022

In April, Brian Tucci started his appointment as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for Baltimore, Maryland. He is a native Marylander with deep roots in the Maryland bankruptcy community. Brian succeeded the late Robert S. Thomas, II and Robert’s predecessor, the late Ellen Crosby. Brian earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Maryland and his J.D. at Western Michigan...

Members

Do I Really Have to Tell the Trustee About Newly Acquired Assets?

Herbert L. Beskin

January 9, 2022

It has long been a vexing question for Trustees and attorneys alike: do Debtors have to disclose assets acquired post-petition? In a lengthy and well-documented opinion, Chief Bankruptcy Court Judge John Waites of South Carolina has presented his take on this issue and concluded, with some important exceptions, that they do not. The case is In re Thomas L. Boyd,...

Members

Ms. Ps & Qs

Nancy B. Rapoport

May 15, 2022

Dear Readers: There are some basic truths. One is that when someone says, “hey, watch this!,” the result is likely to involve blood or stitches. Another is that, when an author describes something with the leadoff word, “interestingly,” it often isn’t. And a third is that one shouldn’t mislead bankruptcy judges. In two wonderfully written cases, bankruptcy judges made this...

Members

Critical Case Comment – No Such Thing as “Technical” Violation of the Stay

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 20, 2022

Bankruptcy Court found violation of automatic stay to be “technical”, thus no damages. Ninth Circuit BAP did not agree. Continuing to pursue state court fraudulent transfer action after transfer or filed for Chapter 7 relief violated the automatic stay; even if the violation of the stay is “technical”, damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, should be assessed against the violator....

Members

From the Editor – Eligibility

August 9, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Disputed claim included in calculation of eligibility. The debtor’s case was dismissed for exceeding § 109(e)’s unsecured debt limit, when the debtor had signed $1,092,000 mortgage note but the mortgage was never recorded. The lender filed an unsecured claim for $1.7 million, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel agreed with the bankruptcy court that...

Members