13 B 38329, 14 A 00034
The Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy case of the Debtor, seeking a determination that a state court judgment debt owed to the Plaintiff by the Debtor and his former law firm is not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6).  That judgment was based on the Debtor’s legal malpractice in connection with the preparation and execution of a will under which the Plaintiff was named as a beneficiary. Specifically, the Debtor falsely signed the name of a second witness on the signature page to the will, failed to get the will re-executed prior to the testator’s death, directed his secretary to notarize the signature page with the false signatures, and subsequently remained silent regarding his wrongful conduct while representing the Plaintiff in state court proceedings.  As to § 523(a)(4), the Court found that the Debtor owed the Plaintiff a fiduciary duty in her capacity both as an intended third-party beneficiary under the will and as the executor of the probate estate.  The Court further found that the Debtor committed both defalcation and fraud while acting as a fiduciary.  As to § 523(a)(6), the Court found that the Debtor knew that injury to the Plaintiff was substantially certain to result from his misconduct and that his actions were wrongful and intentional, caused injury to the Plaintiff, and were done without just cause or excuse.  Accordingly, the Court held that the judgment debt is nondischargeable under both §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6).

09 B 30029
Debtors’ financial advisor FBR Capital Markets & Co. (“FBR”) filed an amended application for compensation, which included a request for a restructuring fee and reimbursement of expenses, the majority of which were attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of FBR’s fee request.  Plan transferee Bletchley Hotel at O’Hare LLC (“Bletchley”) filed an objection, asking the Court to:  (1) reconsider its prior decision, which found that FBR was entitled to the restructuring fee, and (2) deny or substantially reduce both the restructuring fee and the requested attorneys’ fees for work performed in defending the original fee application.  As to the restructuring fee, the Court denied the request for reconsideration because Bletchley primarily rehashed arguments already considered and rejected in the prior proceeding and, thus, failed to sustain its burden under Rule 60(b).  The Court further found that, based on the express language of the governing documents, the restructuring fee was subject to review under the improvidence standard of § 328(a) and that the requested amount of the fee would not be reduced because Bletchley failed to identify any developments incapable of being anticipated at the time the order approving FBR’s retention was entered.  As to the reimbursement of expenses, the Court found that FBR is not entitled to the attorneys’ fees incurred for fee-defense work because the reimbursement under the pre-approved engagement letter is subject to review under § 330 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC held that § 330(a)(1) does not allow a bankruptcy court to award attorneys’ fees for work performed in defending a fee application.  Accordingly, the Court awarded FBR a restructuring fee in the requested amount of $2,568,145.89 and reimbursement of expenses not related to the defense of FBR’s fees in the amount of $62,466.60.

13 B 43900, 14 A 00719
On the chapter 7 trustee’s motion for authority to turn over certain funds to secured creditor BCL-Capital Funding LLC (“BCL”) as alleged cash collateral proceeds, a creditor (and the Debtor’s former attorney) (“Stern”) objected, arguing that the proceeds were not BCL’s cash collateral and that turnover was, thus, improper.  The trustee contended that he was bound by the terms of a pre-conversion cash collateral order (the “Order”) in which the Debtor and BCL had agreed that certain funds constituted cash collateral.  The Court found that the Order did not, by its terms, foreclose consideration of Stern’s arguments regarding the validity of BCL’s claimed interest in the proceeds because the Order: (1) made no findings regarding whether the funds were cash collateral, and (2) contained broad reservations of rights.  Thus, the Order was found to have no preclusive effect beyond enforcement of the Order itself.  Further, the Court found that, despite an assignment of rents held by BCL, the proceeds were paid to the Debtor before the commencement of the case and while he retained control of the property at issue and that, thus, BCL could assert no interest in the proceeds by virtue of the assignment.  Ultimately, the Court concluded that the proceeds at issue were not BCL’s cash collateral and, accordingly, denied the trustee’s motion.