Source: http://www.planproponent.com/20-questions-about-baker-botts-v-asarco-fee-defense-costs-part-2/
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 03:14:12
Document Index: 38058984

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', '§ 330', '§ 330', '§ 330', '§ 330', '§ 330', '§ 330', '§ 330']

20 Questions about Baker Botts v. ASARCO & "Fee-Defense" Costs - Part 2 - Plan Proponent
20 Questions about Baker Botts v. ASARCO & “Fee-Defense” Costs – Part 2 By David Bury on July 14, 2015 in ASARCO, Baker Botts, Supreme Court (courtesy of Dave’s iPhone on June 18, 2015)
12. Does the dissent believe that § 330(a)(1) displaces the American Rule? Yes. The dissent claims that in Alyeska Pipeline, the Supreme Court “recognized that through § 330(a),” Congress “displaced the American Rule.”
16. Which side got it right? The dissent. Although we disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that fee-defense is not a “service,” we agree that the majority erred by adopting a per se prohibition on defense costs rather than leaving them to the court’s discretion under § 330’s comprehensive scheme.
§ 330(a)(3)(C) emphasizes “whether the services were necessary to the administration of, or beneficial…toward the completion of” the bankruptcy case. § 330(a)(4) emphasizes only paying for services that were (i) “reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate” or “necessary to the administration of the case.”
If “compensability” is the sole province of § 330(a)(1), then it makes no sense for § 330(a)(1) to require that services be “necessary” (and for the Court to read “benefit” into the term “services”) and for (a)(3) and (a)(4) to also emphasize benefit and necessity. In other words, if (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4) don’t work together as a whole, then (a)(3) and (a)(4) are superfluous. Error #3: Court flip-flops on fee parity and fee dilution.