In Re: Professional Fee Matters Concerning the Jackson Walker Law Firm

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In re Professional Fee Matters
Concerning the Jackson Walker Law
Firm
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:23-CV-4787-AM
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Eduardo V.
Rodriguez, 	Chief 	United 	States 	Bankruptcy 	Judge 	for 	the 	Southern 	District 	of 	Texas.
(ECF No. 169.) This Court referred two related issues on the abated Settlement Motions1 to Chief
Judge Rodriguez for a report and further recommendations. (ECF No. 140.) On January 22, 2026,
Chief Judge Rodriguez issued his first Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 169] related to the
abated Settlement Motions. After review, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 169.)
The Report and Recommendation concerns only the GWG Bankruptcy Case. 	See In re
GWG Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 22-90032 (Bankr. S.D. Tex). On August 31, 2023, Jackson Walker
LLP (“Jackson Walker”) filed its fourth and final fee application (“Final Fee Application”) in the
GWG Bankruptcy Case as the Debtors’ co-counsel. 	(Bankr. 22-90032, ECF No. 2158.) 	On
March 29, 2024, the U.S. Trustee opposed the Final Fee Application and moved for sanctions (the
“Final Fee Objection”) due to the facts underlying this case. (Bankr. 22-90032, ECF No. 2415.)
The Final Fee Application and the U.S. Trustee’s objection remain pending before the Bankruptcy
Court.
1 Settlement Motions is defined in the Referral Order [ECF No. 109].
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-04787 Document 181 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
On October 3, 2025, Michael I. Goldberg, as the GWG Litigation Trustee, filed a motion
(the “GWG Settlement Motion”) asking this Court to approve a settlement agreement between the
GWG Litigation Trust and Jackson Walker. (ECF No. 100.) 	Under the settlement agreement,
Jackson Walker agreed to pay $405,000.00 to “resolve[] all issues and claims between the GWG
Litigation Trust, for and on behalf of itself and the Debtors, and J[ackson] W[alker], including all
claims and causes of action related to the allegations contained in the U.S. Trustee Filings”; this
payment 	would 	also 	“fully 	and 	finally 	resolve” the still-pending 	Final 	Fee Application.
(ECF No. 100-1 at 4.) As a result, the settlement agreement intertwines with Jackson Walker’s
still-pending Final Fee Application, making the GWG settlement agreement different than other
settlements in the Affected Bankruptcy Cases.2
For reasons explained in previous orders, all Settlement Motions in the Affected
Bankruptcy Cases, including the GWG Settlement Motion, are abated. (ECF No. 109.) Related
to the abatement, this Court referred to Chief Judge Rodriguez two issues on the Settlement
Motions for report and further recommendations. (ECF No. 140.) Because the GWG Settlement
Motion differs, Chief Judge Rodriguez issued this Report and Recommendation separately,
recommending the Court consider the GWG Settlement Motion during the trial on the consolidated
Vacatur Motions.3
Chief Judge Rodriguez finds that “granting the GWG Settlement Motion before hearing
the Final Fee Application and [the Final] Fee Objection would moot the Final Fee Application and
[the Final] Fee Objection.” (ECF No. 169 at 4.) Since the Final Fee Application and the Final Fee
Objection are at issue in the consolidated trial on the U.S. Trustee’s Vacatur Motions, Chief Judge
2 Affected Bankruptcy Cases is defined in the Referral Order [ECF No. 109].
3 Vacatur Motions is defined in the Referral Order [ECF No. 109].
Case 4:23-cv-04787 Document 181 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Rodriguez recommends that the GWG Settlement Motion be heard concurrently with the
consolidated trial. (Id. at 4–5.) The Objectors do not disagree with this reasoning.4 (ECF No. 176
at 4.) Instead, the Objectors ask the Court to delay ruling on the GWG Settlement Motion until
this Court adjudicates the Objectors’ motion5 in a related civil case, claiming “a ruling on that
motion may moot the proposed settlement in its entirety.” (Id. at 4.) But a ruling on the Objectors’
motion goes to their standing in the related civil case, so any eventual effect it may have on the
GWG Settlement Motion is tenuous at best. The Court therefore finds the objection without merit.
Accordingly, 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	on 	the 	GWG 	Settlement 	Motion
[ECF No. 169] is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The GWG Settlement Motion will be heard at
the consolidated trial on the Vacatur Motions and will REMAIN ABATED until this Court reviews
Chief Judge Rodriguez’s forthcoming report and further recommendations on the consolidated
trial.
SIGNED and ENTERED on this 5th day of February 2026.
______________________________________
ALIA MOSES
Chief United States District Judge
4 The objection period was limited to seven days, as explained in the Order referring the two issues on the Settlement
Motions to Chief Judge Rodriguez. (ECF No. 140.) The objection was timely filed.
5 See Motion for Limited Special Appointment and/or Derivative Standing, Peterson v. Jones, No. 25-CV-2761
(S.D. Tex.), (ECF No. 37.)
Case 4:23-cv-04787 Document 181 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3