(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA
v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 05–1429. Argued January 16, 2007—Decided March 20, 2007
After respondent (PG&E) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, petitioner
(Travelers), which had previously issued a surety bond to guarantee
PG&E’s payment of state workers’ compensation benefits, asserted a
claim in the bankruptcy action to protect itself should PG&E default
on the benefits. With the Bankruptcy Court’s approval, PG&E
agreed to insert language into its reorganization plan and disclosure
statement to protect Travelers in case of such a default. Additional
litigation over the negotiated language nevertheless ensued and was
ultimately resolved by a court-approved stipulation stating, inter
alia, that Travelers could assert a general unsecured claim for attor
ney’s fees, which were authorized in the parties’ original indemnity
agreements. When Travelers filed an amended claim for such fees,
PG&E objected based on the rule the Ninth Circuit adopted in its
prior Fobian decision that where the litigated issues involve not basic
contract enforcement questions, but issues peculiar to federal bank
ruptcy law, attorney’s fees generally will not be awarded. The Bank
ruptcy Court rejected Travelers’ claim on that basis, and the District
Court and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held:
1. Federal bankruptcy law does not disallow contract-based claims
for attorney’s fees based solely on the fact that the fees were incurred
litigating bankruptcy law issues. Because the Fobian rule finds no
support in federal bankruptcy law, the Ninth Circuit erred in disal
lowing Travelers’ claim. Pp. 4–12.
(a) The American rule that “the prevailing litigant is ordinarily
not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser,” Aly
eska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247,
2 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Syllabus
may be overcome by, inter alia, an “enforceable contract” allocating
such fees, Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386
U. S. 714, 717. A contract allocating attorney’s fees that is enforce
able under substantive, nonbankruptcy law is allowable in bank
ruptcy except where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. Cf.
Security Mortgage Co. v. Powers, 278 U. S. 149, 154. The Code does
not do so here. Pp. 4–5.
(b) Under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court “shall al
low” a creditor’s claim “except to the extent that” the claim implicates
any of nine enumerated exceptions. 11 U. S. C. §502(b). Because
Travelers’ attorney’s fees claim has nothing to do with the exceptions
set forth in §§502(b)(2)–(9), it must be allowed unless it is unenforce
able under §502(b)(1), which disallows any claim that is “unenforce
able against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agree
ment or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is
contingent or unmatured.” Pp. 5–6.
(c) Section 502(b)(1) is most naturally understood to provide that,
with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is available out
side of the bankruptcy context is also available in bankruptcy. This
reading is consistent not only with the plain statutory text, but also
with the settled principle that “[c]reditors’ entitlements in bank
ruptcy arise in the first instance from the underlying substantive law
creating the debtor’s obligation, subject to any qualifying or contrary
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Reve
nue, 530 U. S. 15, 20. That principle requires bankruptcy courts to
consult state law in determining the validity of most claims. See
ibid. Thus, when the Code uses the word “claim”—i.e., a “right to
payment,” §101(5)(A)—it is usually referring to a right to payment
recognized under state law, “[u]nless some federal interest requires a
different result,” Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 55. Pp. 6–7.
(d) The Fobian rule finds no support in §502 or elsewhere in fed
eral bankruptcy law. The Fobian court did not identify any Code pro
vision as presenting such support, but instead cited three of its own
prior decisions, none of which identified any basis for disallowing a
contractual claim for attorney’s fees. Nor did the court have occasion
to do so; in each of those cases, the attorney’s fees claim failed as a
matter of state law. The absence of such textual support is fatal for
the Fobian rule. See FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications
Inc., 537 U. S. 293, 302. In light of §502(b)(1)’s broad, permissive
scope, and the Court’s prior recognition that “the character of [a con
tractual] obligation to pay attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to en
forcing it in bankruptcy,” it necessarily follows that the Fobian rule
cannot stand. Security Mortgage, supra, at 154. Pp. 7–10.
2. The Court expresses no opinion as to PG&E’s arguments that
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3
Syllabus
unsecured claims for contractual attorney’s fees, such as Travelers’,
are categorically disallowed by §506(b), which expressly authorizes
such fees “[t]o the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by
property [whose] value [exceeds] the amount of such claim,” and that
such disallowance is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Code’s structure
and purpose, as examined against the backdrop of pre-Code bank
ruptcy law. The Court ordinarily does not consider arguments, such
as these, that were neither raised nor addressed below, Cooper Indus
tries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168–169, and PG&E
has not identified any circumstances warranting an exception to that
rule here. PG&E’s insistence that its arguments are “fairly included”
within the question presented in the certiorari petition is not persua
sive. Pp. 10–12.
167 Fed. Appx. 593, vacated and remanded.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 05–1429
_________________
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF
AMERICA, PETITIONER v. PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[March 20, 2007]
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked to consider whether federal bankruptcy
law precludes an unsecured creditor from recovering
attorney’s fees authorized by a prepetition contract and
incurred in postpetition litigation. The Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit held, based on a rule previously
adopted by that court, that such fees are categorically
prohibited—even where the contractual allocation of
attorney’s fees would be enforceable under applicable
nonbankruptcy law—to the extent the litigation involves
issues of federal bankruptcy law. Because that rule finds
no support in the Bankruptcy Code, we vacate and
remand.
I
Respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in April
2001, 11 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., and continued thereafter to
operate its business as a “debtor in possession.” §§1107(a),
1108. The bankruptcy filing caught the attention of peti
tioner Travelers Casualty & Surety Company (Travelers),
2 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Opinion of the Court
which had previously issued a $100 million surety bond on
PG&E’s behalf to the California Department of Industrial
Relations, guaranteeing PG&E’s payment of state work
ers’ compensation benefits to injured employees.1 In
connection with the bond, PG&E executed a series of
indemnity agreements in favor of Travelers. The indem
nity agreements provide that PG&E will be responsible for
any loss Travelers might incur in connection with the
bonds, including any attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing,
protecting, or litigating Travelers’ rights in connection
with those bonds.
Although no default occurred, Travelers asserted a
claim in the bankruptcy action to protect itself in case
PG&E defaulted on its workers’ compensation benefits at
some point in the future, requiring Travelers to make
payments under its bond. In response to Travelers’ claim,
and with the knowledge and approval of the Bankruptcy
Court, PG&E agreed to insert language into its reorgani
zation plan and disclosure statement to protect Travelers’
right to indemnity and subrogation in the event of a de
fault by PG&E.
Travelers claims, however, that PG&E then unilaterally
altered the negotiated language in a way that substan
tially diminished the protection it had been seeking.
According to Travelers, that development resulted in
additional litigation, but Travelers and PG&E ultimately
resolved the dispute by entering into a stipulation that
——————
1 California law required PG&E to provide workers’ compensation
benefits for its employees by either (1) purchasing workers’ compensa
tion insurance from a licensed provider of such insurance or (2) adopt
ing a plan, with the State’s approval, to self-insure. PG&E chose the
latter option, and was therefore required to post security with the State
to ensure ongoing payment of mandatory workers’ compensation
benefits. See Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §§3700, 3701 (West 2003). Travelers
posted the required security by issuing a bond on PG&E’s behalf. The
bond makes Travelers liable, up to $100 million, for workers’ compensa
tion benefits in the event of a default by PG&E.
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3
Opinion of the Court
was later approved by the Bankruptcy Court. In addition
to accommodating Travelers’ substantive concerns, the
stipulation stated that Travelers “may assert its claim for
attorneys’ fees under the [i]ndemnity [a]greements” (sub
ject to PG&E’s right to object) as a general unsecured
claim against PG&E. Brief for Petitioner 17.
Travelers subsequently filed an amended proof of claim
seeking to recover the attorney’s fees it incurred in con
nection with PG&E’s bankruptcy proceedings. PG&E
objected, arguing that Travelers could not recover attor
ney’s fees incurred while litigating issues of bankruptcy
law.
The Bankruptcy Court agreed and rejected Travelers’
claim on that basis. App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a–25a. Trav
elers appealed that ruling to the District Court. The
District Court affirmed, relying on In re Fobian, 951 F. 2d
1149 (CA9 1991), which held that “where the litigated
issues involve not basic contract enforcement questions,
but issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law, attorney’s
fees will not be awarded absent bad faith or harassment
by the losing party,” id., at 1153. See App. to Pet. for Cert.
10a, 17a.
Travelers appealed again, and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 167 Fed. Appx.
593 (2006). The panel acknowledged that, in at least some
circumstances, a “ ‘prevailing party in a bankruptcy pro
ceeding may be entitled to an award of attorney fees in
accordance with applicable state law . . . .’ ” Id., at 594
(quoting In re Baroff, 105 F. 3d 439, 441 (CA9 1997)). The
panel nevertheless rejected Travelers’ claim based on the
Fobian rule, which it cited for the proposition that “attor
ney fees are not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating
issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’ ” 167 Fed.
Appx., at 594 (quoting Fobian, supra, at 1153). The panel
explained that, because the fees claimed by Travelers were
incurred litigating issues that were “governed entirely by
4 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Opinion of the Court
federal bankruptcy law,” Travelers’ claim necessarily
failed.2 167 Fed. Appx., at 594.
Travelers sought review in this Court, noting a conflict
among the Courts of Appeals regarding the validity of the
Fobian rule. Compare Fobian, supra, at 1153, with In re
Shangra-La, Inc., 167 F. 3d 843, 848–849 (CA4 1999). We
granted certiorari to resolve that conflict, 549 U. S. ___
(2006).
II
Under the American Rule, “the prevailing litigant is
ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee
from the loser.” Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 (1975); see Hauenstein v. Lyn
ham, 100 U. S. 483, 490–491 (1880); Arcambel v. Wise-
man, 3 Dall. 306 (1796). This default rule can, of course,
be overcome by statute. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v.
Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717 (1967). It can also
be overcome by an “enforceable contract” allocating attor
ney’s fees. Ibid.
In a case governed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, we
observed that “[t]he character of [a contractual] obligation
to pay attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it
in bankruptcy, either as a provable claim or by way of a
lien upon specific property.” Security Mortgage Co. v.
Powers, 278 U. S. 149, 154 (1928). Similarly, under the
terms of the current Bankruptcy Code, it remains true
that an otherwise enforceable contract allocating attor
ney’s fees (i.e., one that is enforceable under substantive,
nonbankruptcy law) is allowable in bankruptcy except
——————
2 The Court of Appeals incorporated by reference the reasoning em
ployed in In re DeRoche, 434 F. 3d 1188 (CA9 2006), which was decided
by the same panel that decided this case. 167 Fed. Appx., at 593.
Although the DeRoche opinion is longer than its counterpart in this
case, it adds very little to the panel’s explanation of the Fobian rule.
See DeRoche, supra, at 1190–1192.
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 5
Opinion of the Court
where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. See 4
Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 506.04[3][a], p. 506–118 (rev.
15th ed. 2006) (hereinafter Collier).
This case requires us to consider whether the Bank
ruptcy Code disallows contract-based claims for attorney’s
fees based solely on the fact that the fees at issue were
incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law. We conclude
that it does not.
A
When a debtor declares bankruptcy, each of its creditors
is entitled to file a proof of claim—i.e., a document provid
ing proof of a “right to payment,” 11 U. S. C. §101(5)(A)—
against the debtor’s estate. Once a proof of claim has been
filed, the court must determine whether the claim is “al
lowed” under §502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code: “A claim or
interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 . . . is
deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . . objects.”
But even where a party in interest objects, the court
“shall allow” the claim “except to the extent that” the
claim implicates any of the nine exceptions enumerated in
§502(b). Ibid. Those exceptions apply where the claim at
issue is “unenforceable against the debtor . . . under any
agreement or applicable law,” §502(b)(1); “is for un
matured interest,” §502(b)(2); “is for [property tax that]
exceeds the value of the [estate’s] interest” in the property,
§502(b)(3); “is for services of an insider or attorney of the
debtor” and “exceeds the reasonable value of such ser
vices,” §502(b)(4); is for unmatured debt on certain ali
mony and child support obligations, §502(b)(5); is for
certain “damages resulting from the termination” of a
lease or employment contract, §§502(b)(6) and (7); “results
from a reduction, due to late payment, in the amount of
. . . credit available to the debtor in connection with an
employment tax on wages, salaries, or commissions earned
from the debtor,” §502(b)(8); or was brought to the court’s
6 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Opinion of the Court
attention through an untimely proof of claim, §502(b)(9).
Travelers’ claim for attorney’s fees has nothing to do
with property tax, child support or alimony, services pro
vided by an attorney of the debtor, damages resulting from
the termination of a lease or employment contract, or the
late payment of any employment tax. See §§502(b)(2)–(8).
Nor does it appear that the proof of claim was untimely.
See §502(b)(9). Thus, Travelers’ claim must be allowed
under §502(b) unless it is unenforceable within the mean
ing of §502(b)(1).
B
Section 502(b)(1) disallows any claim that is “unenforce
able against the debtor and property of the debtor, under
any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than
because such claim is contingent or unmatured.” This
provision is most naturally understood to provide that,
with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is
available outside of the bankruptcy context is also avail
able in bankruptcy. See 4 Collier ¶ 502.03[2][b], at 502–22
(explaining that §502(b)(1) is generally understood to
“make available to the trustee any defense” available to
the debtor “under applicable nonbankruptcy law”—i.e.,
any defense that the debtor “could have interposed, absent
bankruptcy, in a suit on the [same substantive] claim by
the creditor”).
This reading of §502(b)(1) is consistent not only with the
plain statutory text, but also with the settled principle
that “[c]reditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the
first instance from the underlying substantive law creat
ing the debtor’s obligation, subject to any qualifying or
contrary provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” Raleigh v.
Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U. S. 15, 20 (2000). That
principle requires bankruptcy courts to consult state law
in determining the validity of most claims. See ibid.
Indeed, we have long recognized that the “ ‘basic federal
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 7
Opinion of the Court
rule’ in bankruptcy is that state law governs the substance
of claims, Congress having ‘generally left the determina
tion of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate
to state law.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Butner v. United States, 440
U. S. 48, 57, 54 (1979); citation omitted). Accordingly,
when the Bankruptcy Code uses the word “claim”—which
the Code itself defines as a “right to payment,” 11 U. S. C.
§101(5)(A)—it is usually referring to a right to payment
recognized under state law. As we stated in Butner,
“[p]roperty interests are created and defined by state law,”
and “[u]nless some federal interest requires a different
result, there is no reason why such interests should be
analyzed differently simply because an interested party is
involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.” 440 U. S., at 55;
accord, Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green,
329 U. S. 156, 161 (1946) (“What claims of creditors are
valid and subsisting obligations against the bankrupt at
the time a petition in bankruptcy is filed is a question
which, in the absence of overruling federal law, is to be
determined by reference to state law”).
C
In rejecting Travelers’ claim for contractual attorney’s
fees, the Court of Appeals did not conclude that the claim
was “unenforceable” under §502(b)(1) as a matter of appli
cable nonbankruptcy law. Nor did it conclude that Travel
ers’ claim was rendered unenforceable by any provision of
the Bankruptcy Code. To the contrary, the court acknowl
edged that, in at least some circumstances, a “ ‘prevailing
party in a bankruptcy proceeding may be entitled to an
award of attorney fees in accordance with applicable state
law . . . .’ ” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting Baroff, 105
F. 3d, at 441).
The court nevertheless rejected Travelers’ claim based
solely on a rule of that court’s own creation—the so-called
Fobian rule—which dictates that “attorney fees are not
8 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Opinion of the Court
recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to
federal bankruptcy law.’ ” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting
Fobian, 951 F. 2d, at 1153). The court explained that,
because the fees claimed by Travelers were incurred liti
gating issues that were “governed entirely by federal
bankruptcy law,” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594, Travelers’ claim
necessarily failed.
The Fobian rule finds no support in the Bankruptcy
Code, either in §502 or elsewhere. In Fobian, the court did
not identify any provision of the Bankruptcy Code as
providing support for the new rule. See 951 F. 2d, at 1153.
Instead, the court cited three of its own prior decisions,
In re Johnson, 756 F. 2d 738 (1985); In re Coast Trading
Co., 744 F. 2d 686 (1984); and In re Fulwiler, 624 F. 2d
908 (1980) (per curium). Significantly, in none of those
cases did the court identify any basis for disallowing a
contractual claim for attorney’s fees incurred litigating
issues of federal bankruptcy law. Nor did the court have
occasion to do so; in each of those cases, the claim for
attorney’s fees failed as a matter of state law. See John
son, supra, at 741–742; Coast Trading, supra, at 693;
Fulwiler, supra, at 910.3
The absence of textual support is fatal for the Fobian
rule. Consistent with our prior statements regarding
——————
3 In Johnson, the debtor sought attorney’s fees after the creditor un
successfully requested relief from the automatic stay under 11 U. S. C.
§362(d)(1). The debtor acknowledged that the contract between the
parties entitled only the creditor to attorney’s fees, but the debtor
claimed that a California statute extended that entitlement to both
parties. The court rejected that argument, noting that the statute
applied only in the context of an “ ‘action on a contract,’ ” and concluding
that a request for relief from an automatic stay could not be considered
an action on a contract. 756 F. 2d, at 741–742. Both Coast Trading
and Fulwiler involved claims for attorney’s fees based on an Oregon
statute similar to the statute at issue in Johnson; the court found the
statute inapplicable in both cases. Coast Trading, 744 F. 2d, at 693;
Fulwiler, 624 F. 2d, at 909–910.
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 9
Opinion of the Court
creditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy, see, e.g., Raleigh,
530 U. S., at 20, we generally presume that claims en
forceable under applicable state law will be allowed in
bankruptcy unless they are expressly disallowed. See 11
U. S. C. §502(b). Neither the court below nor PG&E has
offered any reason why the fact that the attorney’s fees in
this case were incurred litigating issues of federal bank
ruptcy law overcomes that presumption.
Section 502(b)(4) is instructive on this point. That
provision expressly disallows claims for a particular cate
gory of attorney’s fees—those “for services of an . . . attor
ney of the debtor,” to the extent the claimed fees “excee[d]
the reasonable value of such services.” The existence of
that provision suggests that, in its absence, a claim for
such fees would be allowed in bankruptcy to the extent
enforceable under state law. The absence of an analogous
provision excluding the category of fees covered by the
Fobian rule likewise suggests that the Code does not
categorically disallow them. See 4 Collier ¶ 506.04[3][a],
at 506–118 (concluding that Fobian “inverts the proper
analysis” by allowing attorney’s fees only where they are
expressly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code, and ex
plaining that “a claim for attorney’s fees arising in the
context of litigating bankruptcy issues must be allowed if
valid under applicable state law”).
Congress, of course, has the power to amend the Bank
ruptcy Code by adding a provision expressly disallowing
claims for attorney’s fees incurred by creditors in the
litigation of bankruptcy issues. But because no such
provision exists, the Bankruptcy Code provides no basis
for disallowing Travelers’ claim on the grounds stated by
the Ninth Circuit.
As we explained in FCC v. NextWave Personal Commu
nications Inc., 537 U. S. 293 (2003), “where Congress has
intended to provide . . . exceptions to provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, it has done so clearly and expressly.”
10 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Opinion of the Court
Id., at 302. Here, the Bankruptcy Code does not “clearly
and expressly” compel courts to follow the Fobian rule; on
the contrary, the Code says nothing about unsecured
claims for contractual attorney’s fees incurred while liti
gating issues of bankruptcy law. In light of the broad,
permissive scope of §502(b)(1), and our prior recognition
that “the character of [a contractual] obligation to pay
attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it in
bankruptcy,” it necessarily follows that the Fobian rule
cannot stand. Security Mortgage, 278 U. S., at 154; see
Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 221 (1998) (“We . . .
‘will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bank
ruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress
intended such a departure’ ” (quoting Pennsylvania Dept.
of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 563 (1990))).
III
PG&E makes no effort to defend the Fobian rule. See
Tr. of Oral Arg. 28 (conceding that PG&E does not defend
the Fobian rule, and acknowledging that “[t]he Fobian
rule is wrong . . . as to the distinction that it draws be
tween State law and Federal litigation”). Instead, PG&E
argues that §506(b) categorically disallows unsecured
claims for contractual attorney’s fees and—noting that
Travelers’ claim is unsecured—asks us to affirm on that
basis. Section 506(b) provides as follows:
“To the extent that an allowed secured claim is se
cured by property the value of which . . . is greater
than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed
to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim,
and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for
under the agreement or State statute under which
such claim arose.” 11 U. S. C. A. §506(b) (Supp. 2006).
According to PG&E, this provision authorizes claims for
contractual attorney’s fees to the extent the creditor is
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 11
Opinion of the Court
oversecured, but disallows such claims to the extent the
creditor is either not oversecured or (like Travelers) com
pletely unsecured. This reading of the Code, PG&E ar
gues, “is not a matter of negative implication, but of ex
plicit negation.” Brief for Respondent 18. PG&E also
argues that the structure and purpose of the Bankruptcy
Code, examined against the backdrop of pre-Code bank
ruptcy law, confirm that Congress did not intend to allow
unsecured creditors to recover attorney’s fees. See id., at
25–38.
PG&E did not raise these arguments below. Conse
quently, none of the lower courts had occasion to address
them. Nor were these arguments presented in PG&E’s
brief in opposition to certiorari. PG&E nevertheless in
sists that we should address these arguments as though
they were “fairly included” within the question presented
in Travelers’ petition for certiorari. See id., at 41. That
contention appears to be premised on the theory that “the
Fobian rule reaches the correct conclusion in this case,”
but “doesn’t go far enough in . . . preventing creditors from
requiring other creditors to pay for their attorneys’ fees.”
Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.
We are not persuaded. We granted certiorari to resolve
a conflict among the lower courts regarding the Fobian
rule, which is analytically distinct from, and fundamen
tally at odds with, PG&E’s reading of §506(b).4
In any event, we ordinarily do not consider claims that
were neither raised nor addressed below, Cooper Indus
——————
4 PG&E’s new reading of the Code would prohibit all unsecured credi
tors from recovering contractual, postpetition attorney’s fees in bank
ruptcy proceedings—even if those fees were incurred while litigating
issues of state law. See Brief for Respondent 17–19. The Fobian rule,
by contrast, would allow such a recovery—even by unsecured credi
tors—so long as the litigation resulting in the claimed fees did not
involve “issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.” See In re Fobian,
951 F. 2d 1149, 1153 (CA9 1991).
12 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
Opinion of the Court
tries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168–169
(2004), and PG&E has failed to identify any circumstances
that would warrant an exception to that rule in this case.
We therefore will not consider these arguments.5
Accordingly, we express no opinion with regard to
whether, following the demise of the Fobian rule, other
principles of bankruptcy law might provide an independ
ent basis for disallowing Travelers’ claim for attorney’s
fees. We conclude only that the Court of Appeals erred in
disallowing that claim based on the fact that the fees at
issue were incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law.
* * *
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
——————
5 For similar reasons, we will not address PG&E’s argument that
Travelers’ claim should be denied based on the theory that the fees at
issue were incurred in connection with activities that were not rea
sonably necessary to preserve Travelers’ rights and, alternatively, were
not authorized by Travelers’ contract with PG&E. See Brief for Re
spondent 42–49. This argument was not addressed below, was not
raised in PG&E’s brief in opposition to certiorari, and bears no relation
to the question presented. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a) (“Only the
questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be
considered by the Court”).