Andrew S. Hanen

ASARCO LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc. (In Re ASARCO LLC)

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-08-19 · cited 1×

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

United States v. Guerrero

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-08-15

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.

criminal lawprocedure

National Union Fire Insurance v. Puget Plastics Corp.

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2010-08-25 · cited 11×

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

United States v. Cabrera

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2010-05-04

Gonzalez v. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2010-03-15 · cited 2×

Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2009-12-03 · cited 7×

Affiliations

Decision record

Andrew S. Hanen

Affiliations

Decision record