Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rus, Miliband & Smith v. Yoo (In Re Dick Cepek, Inc.)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 21, 2006No. BAP No. CC-05-1139-MoPaMa. Bankruptcy No. LA 99-19373-ECPublished

1Dissent

MARLAR, Bankruptcy Judge,

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent.

The majority’s premise is that an insolvent chapter 11 debtor’s counsel’s security retainer is tenable under the Code in the first place. It is with this fundamental view that I disagree.

Congress did not intend for chapter 11 professionals (especially the debtor’s counsel) to favor themselves over other professionals by obtaining employment as a “secured” creditor and thereby bootstrapping an alleged superpriority for themselves.

One of the Code’s fundamental concepts is “equitable distribution.” “Bankruptcy law accomplishes…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Lamie v. United States TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Brown v. GerdesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Globe Newspaper Co. v. AyashSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. DeRonde v. Shirley (In Re Shirley)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API