Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Trustee has begun to advance a novel argument that penalizes the beneficiaries of unsecured creditor trusts: that U.S. Trustee disbursement fees apply not only to disbursements made by debtors, but also disbursements made by creditor trusts formed under bankruptcy plans (commonly referred to as "GUC Trusts" or "Litigation Trusts"). Under 28 U.S.C. §1930(a)(6), the U.S. Trustee is entitled to a quarterly fee on any "disbursements" made by a debtor while its bankruptcy case remains open. While section 1930(a)(6) does not specify which entity must make these "disbursements," section 1930(a) indicates that "the parties commencing a case under title 11" must pay the enumerated fees.
There is little dispute that the transfer of assets by a debtor to a GUC Trust is a disbursement triggering U.S. Trustee fees. However, the U.S. Trustee has recently taken the position that GUC Trusts should be required to pay fees on account of their own disbursements to creditors, on the grounds that contingent assets (like litigation claims) are not "disbursed" when they are transferred to a GUC Trust, but rather when their proceeds are eventually distributed to creditors. Notably, the Bankruptcy Code does not define "disbursements," and this ambiguity paired with the lack of specificity in section 1930(a)(6) form the crux of the U.S. Trustee's argument.
The outcomes in three recent bankruptcy cases, Careismatic, Thrasio and Rite Aid, highlight different approaches to addressing the U.S. Trustee's argument: closing bankruptcy cases early, deferring the issue to a later date, or focusing on the distinction between contingent and non-contingent assets.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
A Q&A with conference speaker Ryan Phelan, a partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun and founder and moderator of legal blog PatentNext, to discuss how courts and jurisdictions are handling novel technologies, the copyrightability of AI-assisted art, and more.
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.