In re Energy Partners, Ltd.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas
409 B.R. 211 (2009)
- Written by Ryan Hill, JD
Facts
Energy Partners, Limited (Energy) (debtor) was a publicly traded oil and gas company that filed for bankruptcy. Energy sought court approval to hire the firm of Parkman Whaling (Parkman) to conduct a company valuation. The court approved Parkman’s employment and a payment of $75,000 for the work. The Parkman valuation was included in Energy’s initial reorganization plan and disclosure statement. One of Energy’s creditors, Birch Run (creditor), objected to the Parkman valuation as too low and outdated. Birch Run submitted its own valuation, which was substantially higher. Both the Parkman valuation and the Birch Run valuation were included in Energy’s second reorganization plan and disclosure statement. At that point, the equity holders’ committee filed an application with the court to employ an investment banking firm, Tudor Pickering (Tudor), to perform a third valuation. The proposed fee terms for employing Tudor amounted to approximately $1,000,000 in nonrefundable payments, including an initial nonrefundable fee of $500,000 and $25,000 per day for expert witness fees. The unsecured noteholder committee also filed a similar application to retain the investment banking firm of Houlihan Lokey (Houlihan) for yet another valuation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bohm, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.