standard bankruptcy courts applied in reviewing professional fee awards. 3 Collier on Bankrwpt-cy ¶ 330.LH[4] (16th ed.2014). Under the old regime, our court enforced a “strong policy ... that estates be administered as efficiently as possible.” In re First Colonial Corp. of Am., 544 F.2d 1291, 1299 (5th Cir.1977) (citations omitted), superseded by statute, 11 U.S.C. § 830. This policy originated in the idea that “[s]ince attorneys assisting the trustee in the administration of a bankruptcy estate are acting not as private persons but as officers of the court, they should not expect to be compensated as generously for their services as they might be were they privately employed.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Brock, 405 F.2d 429, 432-33 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute, 11 U.S.C. § 330. But
holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor holding that the interest of the public  especially the debtor and creditors  could limit compensation to a debtors counsel holding that the creditors committee could not sue third party aidersandabettors because the participation of the sole shareholder and decisionmaker of the debtor rendered the debtor a participant holding that the debtor in possession could utilize the strongarm powers of the trustee to avoid an unperfected security interest even though the debtor knew of the interest prior to bankruptcy because the two are distinct entities and the debtor in possessions responsibility is to preserve the estates assets for the benefit of the creditors holding that a debtors  522d1 exemption was invalid when the debtor exempted proceeds from the prepetition sale of the debtors marital home which were paid to a judgment creditor with an attachment on the debtors interest in the home