Court Opinion

ID: 9735722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:28:39.019995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:01.018555
License: Public Domain

ARTHUR I. HARRIS, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
While I cannot join in the majority’s opinion, particularly its discussion of ripeness, I generally concur in the result, which is essentially to vacate the bankruptcy court’s orders to the extent that they hold that it makes no difference whether the debtor’s chapter 11 counsel has a valid security interest under state law, and remand the case for further pro*437ceedings. Like the Ninth Circuit BAP that addressed a similar dispute in Miliband & Smith, APC v. Yoo (In re Dick Cepek, Inc.), 339 B.R. 730 (9th Cir. BAP 2005), I would hold that it is proper for us to address the issue of whether the bankruptcy court erred in applying section 726(b) to deny a fee application without regard to whether counsel has a valid security interest under state law. Id. at 734-36. Like the Ninth Circuit BAP, I would also hold that whether counsel has a valid security interest does indeed matter. Id. at 736-39; In re Appalachian Star Ventures, Inc., 341 B.R. 222 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2006). And like the Ninth Circuit BAP, I would also hold that whether counsel has a valid security interest should be left in the first instance for the bankruptcy court. In re Dick Cepek, Inc., 339 B.R. at 740.