281 BANKRUPTCY REPORTER
when a debtor ends up in bankruptcy, but‘‘does not concede dischargeability.’’
In this case, however, the Missouri courtchose not to award attorney’s fees as partof its contempt judgment. Thus, the ap-parent rationale of
is not applicable. And, the bankruptcy court did not findthat Nangle’s actions in the bankruptcycourt constituted the willful disobedienceof a court order, or bad faith, or vexatious, wanton, or oppressive behavior. There-fore, there is no basis for abrogating the American Rule.Finally, we note that the Federal Rulesof Bankruptcy Procedure do provide a spe-cific procedure for awarding attorney’sfees against a party that files a pleadingfor an improper purpose such as harass-ment, to cause unnecessary delay, or toneedlessly increase the cost of litigation.
That rule contains procedural safeguardsto insure that fees are not awarded unlessa party, and its counsel, are given notice of the specific pleadings and actions that themovant contends are sanctionable.
Ms.Siemer, however, did not file her motionpursuant to Rule 9011, and did not providethe notice required, therefore, we need notconsider its applicability here.For all of these reasons, we reverse thebankruptcy court’s award of attorney’sfees.
In re CENTURA SOFTWARE CORPO-RATION, dba Mbrane, aka MbraneIncorporated, Raima, Centura Solu-tions, Vista Development Corporation,Debtor.Raima UK Limited, an Englishcorporation, Plaintiff, v.Centura Software Corporation, dbaMbrane, aka Mbrane Incorporated,Raima, Centura Solutions, Vista De- velopment Corporation, Defendant.Bankruptcy No. 01–32164–DM.Adversary No. 01–3239.
United States Bankruptcy Court,N.D. California.July 24, 2002.Party that Chapter 11 debtor had li-censed to use debtor’s trademark sued fordetermination that it had not breached itsobligations under licensing agreement,such that debtor’s purported terminationof agreement was invalid. Debtor soughtdetermination that, upon its rejection of licensing agreement, licensee no longerhad any right to use licensed trademarks,but was limited to claim for damages forbreach of contract. On competing motionsfor partial summary judgment, the Bank-ruptcy Court, Dennis Montali, J., heldthat: (1) genuine issue of material fact, whether debtor had expressly authorizedits English subsidiary to act as its agent innegotiating a sublicensing agreement withtrademark licensee, or whether its repre-
See, e.g., In re Deville,
280 B.R. 483, 496–97 (9th Cir. BAP 2002) (stating that theremust be a separate notice for sanctions, andthat the notice must specify the authority forthe sanctions, as well as the sanctionable con-duct);
Halverson v. Funaro (In re Funaro),
263 B.R. 892, 901 (8th Cir. BAP 2001) (hold-ing that Rule 9011 requires the court to findthat specific procedural requirements havebeen met).