This case concerns cross-appeals from a bankruptcy court's ruling on post-confirmation fee requests by Barclays Capital Inc. (BarCap), which had served as financial advisor to ASARCO LLC in its Chapter 11 reorganization after acquiring assets from Lehman Brothers. The bankruptcy court awarded BarCap $975,000 for unanticipated services performed by Lehman but denied an additional $8 million in discretionary fees. On appeal, the district court examined the original engagement letters under 11 U.S.C. §§ 328(a) and 330, assessed whether the terms were improvident due to changed circumstances, and evaluated the reasonableness of the services and requested enhancements against the statutory factors. The court consolidated the appeals and analyzed the scope of approved services, the effect of supplemental unapproved agreements, and the standards for fee adjustments.
This case arose from a traffic stop on Highway 77 in Texas after a state trooper observed a Ford Expedition with Mexican license plates lacking a visible registration sticker. The trooper questioned the driver, Jose Homero Guerrero, in Spanish about his travel plans, became suspicious due to nervousness and inconsistencies in his story, and obtained Guerrero's consent to search the vehicle, which led to the discovery of evidence. Guerrero moved to suppress the evidence, contending that consent was not properly given or was involuntary. The court denied the motion, ruling that the recorded dialogue clearly established that the trooper requested and received permission to search. The court alternatively found that the trooper acted in good faith in believing consent had been given and that the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
This case concerns whether National Union Fire Insurance had a duty to defend or indemnify Puget Plastics under an umbrella policy for a state-court judgment obtained by Microtherm for economic losses from defective plastic water chambers that leaked and damaged water heaters. After a bench trial, the court previously held there was no coverage because the insured's conduct did not qualify as an "occurrence" (defined as an accident neither expected nor intended from the insured's standpoint). In this opinion, the court denies the post-trial motion for a new trial or to alter the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a) and 59(e), finding no prejudicial error, manifest mistake of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence. The core reasoning is that the manufacturing process involved intentional under-heating of the plastic, which Texas law and Fifth Circuit precedent treat as non-accidental, and the damages at issue (including lost profits) were not covered property damage from an occurrence.
The case involved a defendant charged with drug trafficking who moved to dismiss the charges on speedy trial grounds; before the court ruled on that motion, he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement waiving appeal. Although the plea rendered the underlying criminal matter moot, the court used the order to address testimony from the hearing revealing a 2009 USCIS policy directing that replacement Permanent Resident Cards be issued to Legal Permanent Residents wanted for serious crimes, including "egregious public safety" cases, without notifying ICE or other law enforcement until after adjudication. The court explained that this "no tell" policy allowed the defendant to obtain a card using false information and evade capture until a chance encounter with officers, and it concluded that the policy was not required by law and hindered law enforcement by giving wanted individuals advance notice and documentation to avoid arrest. The court urged that the policy be amended or abandoned to permit simultaneous or prior notification to authorities.
This case involves Texas corporations and their owner challenging NOAA administrative actions, including Notices of Violation and Assessment (NOVAs) for violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act related to shrimp trawling without required devices or permits, as well as resulting permit sanctions. Several claims were previously dismissed as time-barred. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted partial relief to each side, reversing the agency's denial of hearings to non-violating corporate plaintiffs regarding permit sanctions tied to other entities' unpaid penalties, vacating those sanctions, and remanding for further proceedings, while upholding the agency's findings and penalties on the remaining claims as supported by the record and rationally related to the violations.
business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal powerprocedure
This case involves former Chapter 13 debtors who sued mortgage lender Countrywide Home Loans after the company allegedly sought to collect undisclosed post-petition fees and expenses following their bankruptcy discharges, without court approval, and threatened or pursued foreclosure on their homes. The plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court claiming violations of the Bankruptcy Code, rules, and their confirmed plans, along with improper accounting and unreasonable charges, and sought class certification. Countrywide moved to withdraw the reference to district court, but the court denied the motion, adopting the bankruptcy court's recommendation that the claims involve core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) that should remain in bankruptcy court despite an existing split among courts on disclosure requirements for such fees.
