Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Guidance on Distributions As 'Disbursements' and U.S. Trustee Fees
Nowhere else is the old saying "you can't escape death and taxes" better exemplified than in Chapter 11. Under the Bankruptcy Code, debtors are subject to stringent reporting and fee requirements imposed by the Department of Justice and the Office of the U.S. Trustee. The U.S. Trustee fees, which have been significantly increased over the last several years, are based on the amount of "disbursements" made by a debtor during the prior reporting period. Therefore, a tension exists between a debtor's interest in characterizing payments made during the case as something other than a disbursement, in contrast to the U.S. Trustee's goal to deem all such payments as disbursements subject to fees. In a recent case from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Paragon Offshore PLC, 629 B.R. 227 (Bankr. D. Del. 2021), the bankruptcy court provided guidance on whether a post-plan effective date litigation trust's distributions constituted disbursements subject to the U.S. Trustee fee "tax."
In Paragon, a litigation trust was formed pursuant to the debtors' confirmed plan of reorganization, one purpose of which was to pursue estate claims against Noble Corp. Once the plan became effective, the Noble claims were transferred to the litigation trust, free and clear of all liens, claims, and interests. Consistent with grantor trust law, the plan provided that the transfer of assets, including the Noble claims, was deemed to be a transfer from the debtors to trust beneficiaries and then a transfer of those assets by the beneficiaries to the litigation trust. As a result, the Paragon debtors and estates no longer held any interest in the trust assets (including the Noble claims) or the litigation trust.
The order confirming the plan made clear that statutory fees owed to the U.S. Trustee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1930 would be paid on the plan's effective date and obligated the reorganized debtors to file post-confirmation reports and pay quarterly fees to the U.S. Trustee until the bankruptcy cases were closed. For the quarter during which the plan went effective and the Noble claims transferred to the litigation trust, the Paragon debtors paid the maximum quarterly fee of $250,000 to the U.S. Trustee.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?