In re Hungry Horse
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico
574 B.R. 740 (2017)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Oil-field-services company Hungry Horse (debtor) filed a chapter 11 case in 2016. After Hungry Horse substituted its counsel in the bankruptcy action, it sought the bankruptcy court’s approval of its engagement agreement with its new law firm under 11 U.S.C. § 328(a). The engagement agreement provided, among other things, that Hungry Horse would pay the firm for reasonable legal fees incurred by the firm in obtaining court approval of the firm’s fee applications and for dealing with any objections to approval of the fee applications. The unsecured-creditors’ committee (creditors) objected to the engagement agreement. The committee argued that the agreement’s fee-defense provision was prohibited by Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121 (2015), in which the United States Supreme Court held that legal fees incurred in defending a fee application could not be awarded as reasonable compensation for services performed for a bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 330.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thuma, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.