Ha 2016 liquidating trust dating of christmas
After approving the terms of a professional’s compensation under § 328, a court will only allow different compensation “if such terms and conditions prove to have been improvident in light of developments not capable of being anticipated at the time of” entry.
In this case, the Court found that the parties could certainly have foreseen that the Court would enforce the agreement exactly as written.
In August 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered the final Omnibus Fee Order which included Grant Thornton’s contingent fee.
Grant Thornton later learned by browsing the docket that Washington Mutual had reached a settlement with the FTB.
Further, the Court was not persuaded by the Liquidating Trust’s argument that there had been a mutual mistake regarding the contingent fee arrangement.
His discharge was denied and a default judgment was entered against him.Washington Mutual’s unceremonious farewell remains the largest bank failure in U. Throughout the bankruptcy proceeding, Grant Thornton assisted with the preparation of tax returns, technical memos, and letters to the FTB, as well as continuing negotiations with the FTB regarding Washington Mutual’s tax liability and objecting to the FTB’s 0.5 million proof of claim.The Bankruptcy Court confirmed Washington Mutual’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization in early 2012, and a liquidating trust (the “Liquidating Trust”) was set up to handle the distributions to creditors.Finally, the Court found that the imposition of sanctions against the Liquidating Trust was appropriate where the Liquidating Trust continued to ignore the final fee order entered by the Court even despite Grant Thornton’s repeated requests for payment and despite the Court’s determination that the plain terms of the retainer agreement entitled Grant Thornton to the contingent fee.The Court found that the Liquidating Trust “demonstrated an inexcusable disregard for the Court’s order” that could not be “remedied by a pleading of good faith.” Thus, in addition to the recovery of its contingent fee, the Court concluded that Grant Thornton was also entitled to recover the costs associated with filing and prosecuting its motion as a sanction against the Liquidating Trust.
Analysis: There are two premises in play in the decision – that of the common practice of adjudication by consent and the ability of a litigant to waive personal rights (such as to a jury trial) on one hand and, on the other, the constitutional requirement that there be a separation of powers, the so-called “structural” concerns.