“Frustration” aptly describes the emotion — and perhaps the catalyst — behind the questionable judgment exercised by the moving party and its counsel in filing, but ultimately withdrawing, a motion for sanctions under Rule 9011 against the opposing party and its counsel in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. The court concluded that the withdrawal of that motion at the commencement of the hearing on the motion for sanctions constituted engaging in “gamesmanship and ambush tactics” and that it warranted fee-shifting and awarding of costs associated with defending the motion for sanctions. The exact source of the frustration of the adversary defendant and its counsel is not known, but the complex and winding facts and circumstances of the adversary proceeding and the debtor’s main case may have been a source of that frustration.

In In re PM Management-Killeen I NC LLC, et al., the court ruled, on Nov. 19, 2024, on objections to an Amended First and Final Fee Application of lead bankruptcy counsel in the case. The fee application sought approval for $865,813.44 in fees and expenses. Ultimately, the court reduced the fees by $201,191.91, partly because the Court found that certain services rendered were “unnecessary and tainted by conflicts.”