Ha 2016 liquidating trust dating violence should never couple dvd
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.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.
Wellness filed an adversary complaint alleging that Sharif’s debts should not be discharged because he concealed property and that the trust was Sharif’s alter-ego and should be considered property of the estate (the “Trust Claim”). § 157(b) thus permitting the bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment and he requested that judgment be entered in his favor.
Pursuant to the settlement, the FTB obtained a full and complete release in exchange for an immediate tax refund to Washington Mutual in the amount of 5 million, in addition to other deferred refunds.
Upon learning of the settlement, Grant Thornton requested that the Liquidating Trust pay Grant Thornton’s contingent fee.
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.
Thus, despite litigants’ waiver of a personal right and consent to a decision by a non-Article III judge (i.e.