Curated precedent for 11 U.S.C. Section 329(b) attorney fee disgorgement. Organized by doctrinal prong (disclosure, reasonableness, remedy, procedural authority) with CourtListener deep links for every cite. 8th Circuit, 10th Circuit, and universally-cited foundational authority.
How to Use This Map
Every case below is indexed by (1) the circuit it was decided in, and (2) which doctrinal prong of a Section 329(b) motion it supports. The four prongs are:
Reasonableness: Did the compensation charged exceed the reasonable value of services rendered, measured by the Section 330(a)(3) factors and the lodestar method?
Remedy: When the court finds a violation, what is the disgorgement standard - full return of fees or partial reduction?
Procedural Authority: Who has standing to seek review (debtor, trustee, U.S. Trustee, any creditor, or the court on its own motion under Rule 2017)?
Every citation is linked to the CourtListener canonical reporter URL. Where CourtListener's citation lookup resolves to a direct opinion page, clicking the link takes you to the full text. Where the reporter lookup returns multiple matches, you land on a disambiguation page and pick the matching opinion by name and year.
11 U.S.C. Section 329(b): "If such compensation exceeds the reasonable value of any such services, the court may cancel any such agreement, or order the return of any such payment, to the extent excessive, to -- (1) the estate... or (2) the entity that made such payment."
Filter the Map
Click to filter by doctrinal prong or by circuit. Filters stack: selecting both a prong and a circuit shows only cases matching both. Click "All" on either axis to clear that axis.
Prong:
Circuit:
I. Foundational Section 329(b) Authority
These cases establish the burden-shifting framework, the full-disgorgement default, and the analytical link between Section 329(b) and Section 330(a)(3). They are cited across circuits as the operative rules.
In re Prudhomme
43 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1995)
5th Cir.Burden-ShiftingVerified
The Fifth Circuit affirmed full disgorgement of a $75,000 retainer. The court held that the burden rests on the person seeking compensation to establish the value of services, and that an attorney who consciously breaches the disclosure duty has compounded the disgorgement analysis. Once the court raises the question of reasonableness under Section 329, the attorney must justify the fee.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: This is the canonical burden-shifting case. Every 329(b) motion rests on the proposition that the attorney, not the challenging party, bears the burden of proving reasonableness once fees are questioned. Prudhomme is the most-cited authority for that rule.
The Tenth Circuit established that the presumptive or "default" remedy for an attorney's failure to make proper disclosure under Section 329 and Rule 2016 is loss of all fees. Full disgorgement is not the "least severe sanction" - it is the starting point. To deviate downward, there must be "compelling" mitigating circumstances. The court rejected the argument that Rule 11's proportionality framework governs Section 329 sanctions.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: This is the single most-cited modern authority for full disgorgement as the default remedy in disclosure-failure cases. Any motion proceeding on a Rule 2016(b) theory cites Stewart for the proposition that the attorney bears the burden of showing why less-than-full disgorgement applies.
The bankruptcy court below found "egregious" violations of Section 329(a) and Rule 2016(b) disclosure requirements, ordering disgorgement. This is the opinion the Tenth Circuit reviewed and whose analytical framework it affirmed in 970 F.3d 1255.
Relevance: Cited together with the appellate Stewart opinion to establish what "egregious" disclosure conduct looks like on the record.
The Eighth Circuit has adopted the lodestar method for bankruptcy fee review and confirmed the multi-factor reasonableness test. These are the primary-authority cases for motions filed in W.D. Mo., E.D. Mo., W.D. Ark., E.D. Ark., N.D. Iowa, S.D. Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota bankruptcy courts.
In re Apex Oil Co.
960 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1992)
8th Cir.Lodestar MethodologyVerified
The Eighth Circuit adopted the lodestar methodology for bankruptcy fee review. The lodestar amount equals hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Although Apex Oil addresses Section 330 fee enhancement, courts in the Eighth Circuit apply the same lodestar framework when evaluating Section 329(b) reasonableness. The burden on the attorney to justify hours and rates is embedded in the methodology.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Apex Oil is the foundational Eighth Circuit fee-analysis case. Every reasonableness argument in W.D. Mo., E.D. Mo., and other 8th Circuit districts starts with the lodestar framework Apex Oil adopted.
The Eighth Circuit confirmed that Section 330(a) authorizes "reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered" evaluated on "the nature, extent, value, time spent, and cost of comparable services other than in bankruptcy cases." The court applies a multi-factor test incorporating the Section 330(a)(3) factors, not a pure lodestar without adjustment.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Larsen is the Eighth Circuit's clearest statement that the Section 330(a)(3) factors import into the Section 329(b) reasonableness analysis. A motion arguing services charged exceeded reasonable value in an 8th Circuit district pairs Apex Oil (lodestar methodology) with Larsen (multi-factor application).
The Tenth Circuit is the leading modern voice on full disgorgement as the default sanction for disclosure violations. Primary authority for motions filed in D. Kan., D. Colo., D.N.M., D. Okla. (N.D./W.D./E.D.), D. Utah, and D. Wyo. bankruptcy courts.
In re Stewart
970 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2020)
10th Cir.Full Disgorgement DefaultVerified
See Foundational Authority section above. Full disgorgement is the default remedy for disclosure violations; attorney bears the burden of showing why a lesser sanction applies; Rule 11 proportionality is inapt.
Relevance: Tenth Circuit's lead 329(b) remedy case, widely cited in 8th Circuit bankruptcy courts as persuasive authority.
The Tenth Circuit addressed the reasonableness review standard for professional fees in Chapter 11, applying the lodestar methodology and the Section 330(a)(3) factors. The court emphasized that the bankruptcy court must conduct an independent reasonableness inquiry and cannot simply defer to the fee agreement.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Market Center East is the Tenth Circuit's modern statement of the independent-inquiry obligation. A motion arguing that the bankruptcy court must scrutinize fees regardless of any party's acquiescence relies on Market Center East together with Section 329(b)'s "may cancel" language.
IV. Disclosure / Rule 2016(b) Authority (Cross-Circuit)
These cases establish the disclosure prong of Section 329(a) and Rule 2016(b). The universal rule: failure to disclose is sanctionable independently of whether the fees were reasonable. Presumptive remedy is full disgorgement.
In re Park-Helena Corp.
63 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1995)
9th Cir.Disclosure / Rule 2016(b)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of all compensation and disgorgement for failure to disclose pre-petition payments, holding that Rule 2016(b) requires complete and accurate disclosure regardless of whether the compensation would otherwise be reasonable. Attorneys who fail to disclose face denial of all fees, even absent bad faith.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Park-Helena is one of the most widely cited cases for the proposition that disclosure failures are sanctionable independent of reasonableness. Frequently cited in Eighth and Tenth Circuit bankruptcy courts as persuasive authority.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed complete disgorgement of fees for failure to make timely and complete Rule 2016(b) disclosures. The court held that the purpose of Section 329 disclosure is to protect the court, creditors, and the integrity of the bankruptcy process - not only the debtor - and that acquiescence by the debtor is not a defense to a disclosure violation.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Downs is the leading authority for the proposition that debtor consent cannot cure a disclosure failure. Critical when an attorney argues the debtor did not object to a fee arrangement.
The Second Circuit affirmed denial of all compensation for failure to disclose a fee-sharing arrangement. This is one of the foundational circuit-court decisions establishing that full denial of compensation is an appropriate sanction for nondisclosure.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Futuronics is a foundational opinion routinely cited in any 329(b) motion addressing disclosure violations. Its holding is invoked across circuits as persuasive authority.
The Sixth Circuit addressed the continuing obligation under Rule 2016(b) to file supplemental disclosure statements when the fee arrangement changes. The court confirmed that the disclosure obligation does not terminate at the initial filing and that supplemental 2016(b) statements are required for material changes.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Kisseberth is the go-to cite for arguing that undisclosed rate increases, additional payments, or material changes to the fee agreement trigger independent Rule 2016(b) violations.
V. Reasonableness / Lodestar Authority (Cross-Circuit)
The Section 330(a)(3) factors and the lodestar method travel together in every circuit. These are the foundational opinions cited when a motion applies the factor analysis to a specific fee record.
In re Martin
817 F.2d 175 (1st Cir. 1987)
1st Cir.Reasonableness Factors
The First Circuit set out what became known as the Martin factors for evaluating the reasonableness of professional fees in bankruptcy, incorporating the Section 330(a)(3) factors and the Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express twelve-factor test. Courts across circuits rely on the Martin framework for the multi-factor inquiry.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Martin is cited for the proposition that reasonableness is a multi-factor inquiry and that no single factor controls. Pairs with Apex Oil (lodestar) and Larsen (multi-factor) in an 8th Circuit motion.
The Third Circuit held that the bankruptcy court has an independent duty to review professional fee applications for reasonableness, even absent an objection. The court cannot rubber-stamp an unopposed fee request; it must conduct the reasonableness analysis itself.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Busy Beaver is the leading authority for the independent-review obligation. Invoked when a motion argues that the court's prior approval of a fee application does not foreclose Section 329(b) scrutiny.
Although a civil rights attorney-fee case, Johnson established the twelve-factor reasonableness test that has been adopted by every federal circuit as the framework for evaluating attorney fees. The factors include time and labor, novelty and difficulty, skill required, preclusion of other employment, customary fees, nature of the fee (fixed or contingent), time limitations, amount involved and results obtained, experience and reputation, undesirability of the case, nature and length of the professional relationship, and awards in similar cases.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Every bankruptcy fee analysis imports the Johnson factors as a cross-check on the lodestar result. The Section 330(a)(3) factors are a specialized subset of the Johnson framework.
Who can move for fee review, and when? Section 329(b) permits review on the court's own motion, by the trustee, by the U.S. Trustee, or by any party in interest. Bankruptcy Rule 2017 supplies the procedural vehicle.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017
RuleProcedural Vehicle
Rule 2017 supplies the procedural mechanism for the court's Section 329(b) review authority. Under Rule 2017(a), on motion by any party in interest or on the court's own initiative, the court may determine whether any payment or transfer from the debtor to the attorney is excessive. Rule 2017(b) extends this authority to post-petition payments to the attorney.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Rule 2017 is the procedural companion to Section 329(b)'s substantive authority. A motion typically cites both, because Section 329(b) supplies the "may cancel or order return" power and Rule 2017 supplies the mechanism by which that power is invoked.
Section 307 grants the U.S. Trustee the authority to raise, appear, and be heard on any issue in any case or proceeding under Title 11, except the U.S. Trustee may not file a plan under Chapter 11. This statutory authority is the basis for the U.S. Trustee's standing to move for Section 329(b) review on its own initiative.
Relevance to Section 329(b) motions: Section 307 is the UST's standing provision. A UST-initiated motion combines Section 307 (standing), Section 329(b) (substantive relief), and Rule 2017 (procedural mechanism).
Every case on this page is cited from published reporters and links to CourtListener's canonical reporter URL. Cases marked "Verified" have been cross-checked against Justia or FindLaw full-text copies. Additional circuit-specific bankruptcy court cases (W.D. Mo., D. Kan., N.D. Iowa, Bankr. W.D. Okla., and other Region 13 / Region 20 bankruptcy districts) are pending validation and will be added as verified citations are confirmed.
If a CourtListener link resolves to a disambiguation page rather than a specific opinion, the reporter volume and page number match the published cite - the case will appear in the disambiguation list by name and year.
Note: This page is a research index, not a filing. Every attorney or pro se party preparing a Section 329(b) motion should independently verify each citation and read the full opinion before relying on it. Treatise-level summaries are not a substitute for primary-source review.