Credit: MQ-Illustrations/Adobe Stock Avoiding Double-Dipping: U.S. Trustee Fees and Creditor Trusts
The U.S. Trustee has recently taken the position that GUC Trusts (creditor trusts formed under bankruptcy plans) should be required to pay fees on account of their own disbursements to creditors. The outcomes in three recent bankruptcy cases 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.
September 12, 2024 at 11:40 AM
10 minute read
What You Need to Know
- There is little dispute that the transfer of assets by a debtor to creditor trusts formed under bankruptcy plans (GUC Trusts) is a disbursement triggering U.S. Trustee fees.
- 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.
- 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 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.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Beyond Bordeaux’s Bankruptcy: A Lesson In Adapting to the Evolving Sports Media Landscape
6 minute read
US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute read
Cleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
