The Fifth Circuit ruled today that a bankruptcy court following Matter of Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc., 157 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 1997) did not abuse its discretion in substantially reducing fees requested by counsel in a failed chapter 11 case. The Debtor's counsel argued that Pro-Snax was subject to multiple interpretations such that a pure results test was not mandated. The Court did not accept this argument. Nevertheless, the interesting part of the opinion was the special concurrence written by Judge Prado and joined in by the other members of the panel, which stated, "I write separately to note that the Pro-Snax standard may be misguided." Barron & Newburger, P.C. v. Texas Skyline Limited, No. 13-50075 (5th Cir. 7/15/14), p. 15. The opinion can be found here.
This is my firm's case and there will be additional proceedings. As a result, I am not going to offer any commentary on the ruling at this time. As a result, I quote the special concurrence in its entirety.