VidAngel, Inc.

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah
DecidedSeptember 4, 2020
Docket17-29073
StatusUnknown

This text of VidAngel, Inc. (VidAngel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
VidAngel, Inc., (Utah 2020).

Opinion

This order is SIGNED. Eee □□ Mle ne □□□ Dated: September 4, 2020 EE am □□□ KEVIN R. ANDERSON CNS U.S. Bankruptcy Judge =

Prepared by: George Hofmann (10005) Matthew M. Boley (8536) Jeffrey Trousdale (14814) Caitlin McKelvie (16511) Cohne Kinghorn, P.C. 111 East Broadway, 11th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 363-4300 Attorneys for George Hofmann, Chapter 11 Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

In re: Bankruptcy No. 17-29073 (KRA) VIDANGEL, INC., Chapter 11 Debtor.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF JOINT PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN VIDANGEL, STUDIOS, AND HARMONS

This matter came before the Court on September 4, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (the “Confirmation Hearing”) to consider (a) confirmation of the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Trustee and Studios Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 849] (the “Joint Plan’), (b) the Trustee’s Second Amended Motion to Modify Plan and Motion to Confirm Modified Joint Plan [Docket No. 839] (the “Motion to Modify Plan”), and (c) the Trustee’s Motion for Entry of an Order Approving Settlement Agreement Between VidAngel, Studios, and Harmons (the “Settlement Motion”) [Docket No. 840], all filed by

George Hofmann (the “Trustee”), in his capacity as the Chapter 11 Trustee of VidAngel, Inc. (the “Debtor”), the Debtor in the above-referenced chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the “Case”).1 Matthew M. Boley, Jeffrey Trousdale, and Caitlin McKelvie appeared on behalf of the Trustee. Thomas Walper, Rose Ehler, and Michael Johnson appeared on behalf of Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., MVL Film Finance, LLC, New Line Productions, Inc., and Turner Entertainment Co. (collectively, the “Studios”). Other counsel and parties-in- interest noted their appearances on the record. Based upon the Joint Plan, the Ballot Tabulation Register [Docket No. 768], the Declaration of George Hofmann in Support of Confirmation of the Joint Plan of Reorganization and Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Between VidAngel, Studios, and the Harmons [Docket No. 852], the Declaration of Mark Hashimoto in Support of Confirmation of Joint Plan of Reorganization [Docket No. 853], the Settlement Motion, the Motion to Modify, other filings concerning the Joint Plan [e.g., Docket Nos. 640, 668, 841, 843, 844, 850, 851 and 854], the statements of counsel, the evidence received at the Confirmation Hearing and other matters of record, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AND CONCLUDES2 as follows: A. Exclusive Jurisdiction; Venue; Core Proceeding. This Court has jurisdiction over the Bankruptcy Case3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. Confirmation of the Joint Plan is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and this Court has exclusive jurisdiction 1 The Studios are co-proponents of the Joint Plan. 2 Findings of fact shall be construed as conclusions of law and conclusions of law shall be construed as findings of fact when appropriate. See Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 7052. 3 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the to determine whether the Joint Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and should be confirmed. B. Judicial Notice. This Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the Bankruptcy Case maintained by the Bankruptcy Court, including, without limitation, all pleadings, papers and other documents filed, all orders entered, and the transcripts of, and all minute entries on the docket indicating the evidence and arguments made, proffered or adduced at the hearings held before the Court during the pendency of the Bankruptcy Case. C. Transmittal and Mailing of Materials; Notice. All due, adequate, and sufficient notices of the Trustee’s Plan (as defined in footnote 4 below), the Joint Plan, the Motion to Modify, the Confirmation Hearing, and the deadlines for voting on and filing objections to the Trustee’s Plan, were given to all known Holders of Claims and Interests in substantial compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules and the Orders of this Court. See Docket Nos. 668, 843, 844 and 851. The Disclosure Statement, the Trustee’s Plan, and relevant ballots were transmitted and served in substantial compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules and the Orders of this Court upon Creditors and Interest Holders entitled to vote on the Trustee’s Plan, and such transmittal and service were, and are, adequate and sufficient. No other or further notice of the Joint Plan, the Motion to Modify or the Confirmation Hearing is or shall be required. D. Solicitation. The solicitation of votes for acceptance or rejection of the Joint Plan4 complied with §§ 1125 and 1126,5 Bankruptcy Rules 3017 and 3018, all other applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and all other rules, laws and 4 The Trustee solicited acceptance of the Plan of Reorganization filed at Docket No. 596 (“Trustee’s Plan”). As described in paragraph GG, below, the modifications to the Trustee’s Plan which resulted in the Joint Plan do not adversely change the treatment of any Holders of Claims or Interests that voted to accept the Trustee’s Plan, and, as to all accepting Classes, the modifications are “immaterial.” 5 Unless otherwise provided, all references to statutory sections in these Findings and Conclusions using the section symbol “§” are to the relevant sections of the Bankruptcy Code. regulations. The modification of the Trustee’s Plan resulting in the Joint Plan complies with § 1127, and the holders of Claims and Interests who accepted the Trustee’s Plan are deemed to accept the Joint Plan. Based on the record before the Court in the Bankruptcy Case, the Trustee and the Studios and their agents and representatives have acted in “good faith” within the meaning of § 1125, and they are entitled to the protections afforded by § 1125(e). E. Distribution. All procedures used to distribute the solicitation materials to the applicable holders of Claims and Interests and to tabulate the ballots were fair and conducted in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the standing orders and local rules of the Bankruptcy Court, this Court’s orders in this Case, and all other rules, laws, and regulations. F. Creditors’ Acceptance of Joint Plan. The Joint Plan establishes five Classes of Claims or Interests. All impaired Classes of Claims have accepted the Joint Plan. No impaired Class of Claims has rejected the Joint Plan. The holders of Class 3 Claims initially voted to reject the Trustee’s Plan, but are now joint-proponents of the Joint Plan which modifies the Trustee’s Plan, and as such are deemed to accept the Joint Plan. Class 2 initially voted to reject the Trustee’s Plan, but the Joint Plan now provides that Class 2 Claims will be paid in full on the Effective Date and are unimpaired, and as such they are deemed to accept the Plan. i. Class 1 (Priority Claims) is unimpaired and will be paid in full on the Effective Date, and is deemed to accept the Joint Plan. ii. Class 2 (General Unsecured Claims) is unimpaired and will be paid in full on the Effective Date, and is deemed to accept the Joint Plan. iii. Class 3 (Studios’ Claims) consists of the Studios, who are co- proponents of the Joint Plan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Penrod
169 B.R. 910 (N.D. Indiana, 1994)
In Re Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
230 B.R. 715 (M.D. Louisiana, 1999)
In Re American Solar King Corp.
90 B.R. 808 (W.D. Texas, 1988)
In Re KD Co., Inc.
254 B.R. 480 (Tenth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
VidAngel, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidangel-inc-utb-2020.