  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
*This outline is adapted from Chapter 27, Ethical Responsibilities,
Norton Bankruptcy Law & Practice 2d (Thomson-West 2005)
821 (9th Cir. BAP 1986); In re Tidewater Memorial Hospital, Inc., 110 B.R. 221 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1989); In re Peoples Savings Corp., 114 B.R. 151 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990); In re Met-L-Wood Corp., 103 B.R. 972 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989); In re Hargis, 73 B.R. 622 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 887 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1989); In re McKinney Ranch Associates, 62 B.R. 249 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1986); In re Nashville Union Stockyard Restaurant, 54 B.R. 391 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985); In re Lewis, 30 B.R. 404 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1983); In re Byman Furniture & Interiors, Inc., 14 B.R. 230 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1981); see also In re Marshall, 211 B.R. 662 (Bankr. D. Min. 1997)(if court denies attorney's employment application, services rendered are strictly gratuitous).
221In re Milwaukee Engraving Co., Inc., 219 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2000); In re Keren Ltd. P'ship, 189 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1999); In re Occidental Financial Group, Inc., 40 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1994); In re Weibel, 176 B.R. 209 (9th Cir. BAP 1994). See In re Bolton-Emerson, Inc., 200 B.R. 725 (D. Mass. 1996)(valid § 327 appointment order is condition precedent to compensation); In re Fleming Companies, Inc., 305 B.R. 389 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) (no payment for work before application to employ); In re Famous Restaurants, Inc., 205 B.R. 922 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996) (§ 327 appointment order required for § 506(c) surcharge). But see In re Greystone Holdings, LLC, 305 B.R. 456 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003(allowing fees where no objection to employment application for five weeks while services performed and reasonable expectation of court approval). See note 244 re compensation.
222 In re Southern Kitchens, Inc., 216 B.R. 819, 829 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998); see, e.g., In re Hot Tin Roof, Inc., 205 B.R. 1000 (1st Cir. BAP 1997); In re Condor Systems, Inc., 302 B.R. 55 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) (separate business venture negotiations with debtors shareholders is a connection that must be disclosed); In re C&C Demo, Inc., 273 B.R. 502 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001)(and cases cited); In re Crivello, 194
B.R. 463 (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. 1996); In re Coastal Equities, Inc., 39 B.R. 304 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1984)(in addition to statutory rules, attorneys obligated to disclose all significant connections with the case as officers of the court); In re Roberts, 46 B.R. 815 (Bankr. D. Utah 1985); mod. on other grounds, 75 B.R. 402
(D. Utah. 1987); In re Michigan General Corp., 78 B.R. 479 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1987); In re Futuronics Corp., 655 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1981); In re Patterson, 53 B.R. 366 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1985); In re Marine Power and Equipment Co., Inc., 67 B.R. 643 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1986).
223 See, e.g., In re Occidental Financial Group, Inc., 40 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (representation of insiders and engagement agreement to analyze financial affairs and file bankruptcy for any one or more of group of clients); In re Hot Tin Roof, Inc., 205 B.R. 1000 (1st Cir. BAP 1997); In re EZ Links Golf, LLC, 317 B.R. 858 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2004) (important connection with parties integral to the debtor); In re Condor Systems, Inc., 302 B.R. 55, 70-72 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) (separate business venture negotiations with debtors shareholders is a connection that must be disclosed); In re Jore Corp., 298 B.R. 703 (Bankr.
D. Mont. 2003) (no-litigation carve-out in creditor client's conflict waiver letter is a connection); In re C&C Demo, Inc., 273 B.R. 502, 507 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001) (disclose that also representing shareholder); In re Crivello, 194 B.R. 463, 466-69 (Bankr. E.D.Wisc. 1996) (disqualified because several connections not disclosed); In re Coastal Equities, Inc., 39 B.R. 304, 308 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1984) (in addition to statutory rules, attorneys obligated to disclose all significant connections with the case as officers of the court); In re Sabre Int'l., 289 B.R. 420 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2003) (disclose payment to firm member as receiver).
224Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 1994); In re Hathaway Ranch Partnership, 116 B.R. 208, 219 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990); Matter of Arlan's Department Stores, 615 F.2d 925, 932 (2d Cir. 1979); Halbert v. Yousif, 225 B.R. 336 (E.D. Mich. 1998); In re ESM Government Securities, Inc., 66 B.R. 82 (S.D. Fla. 1986); In re Coastal Equities, Inc., 39 B.R. 304 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1984).
225 In re Begun, 162 B.R. 168, 177 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993), citing In re Envirodyne Industries, Inc., 150 B.R. 1008, 1021 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993); In re Crivello, 194 B.R. 463, 466 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1996) (applicants do not have unilateral right to withhold information "regardless of how attenuated the connection may be"); In re EWC, 138 B.R. 276, 281 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1992).
