English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Statutory shifting of attorneys' fees1 has increasingly edged into the public eye, pushed by former Vice President Quayle's promotion of fee shifting as the central pillar of his civil justice reform proposals.2 Despite its newfound popularity as a political football, fee shifting by statute has a long history in the federal system. The most prominent development is the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), which helps citizens litigate meritorious cases against the United States by reimbursing them for their legal fees if they prevail.' This Comment focuses on the scope of this enablement: did Congress extend fee-shifting authority to bankruptcy courts? Successful litigants opposing the government have often sought to have the government pay their fees in proceedings before the bankruptcy courts. Such cases arise when the government, acting as a creditor for example, unreasonably receives preferential payments on the eve of bankruptcy and then refuses to disgorge the money.4 Where the bankruptcy trustee, acting as representative of the estate, is forced to litigate the case, fee shifting against the government makes sense. If, say, the government unreasonably tries to force a debtor to undergo a Chapter 7 rather than a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, the govern-

The Power of Bankruptcy Courts to Shift Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act