December 18, 2023 Clerk Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20002

Dear Sir or Madam: As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Brief of Amicus Curiae USA Sales, Inc. referenced above contains 5,176 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Sincerely, Jack Suber, Esq.

Notary Public State of Maryland Montgomery County My commission exp.

Supreme Court of the United States

Petitioner, Respondents.

As required by Supreme Court Rule 29.5, I hereby certify that the Brief for Amicus Curiae MF Global Holdings Ltd., as Plan Administrator in Support of Respondents in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fail 2006, ELC., No. 22-1238, complies with the word limitations, as it contains 4,962 words, excluding the words exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: December 18, 2023

In Siegel, this Court held that the 2017 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6)—which dramatically increased the fees payable by chapter 11 debtors in some, but not all, federal judicial districts— violated the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution.

Trustee Program’s standard refund procedure if MF Global obtains a final and unappealable judgment establishing its right to a refund.” Id. at ¶ 96.3 3 The Government did argue—consistent with its position here—that the appropriate remedy for the nonuniformity would be to require debtors in BA districts to pay the increased fees, In particular, the Government argued and advised the court that: “MF Global does not need setoff or injunctive relief in any event because the statute appropriating funds to the United States Trustee Program addresses refunds.

But the Government’s argument is also misplaced for an additional reason: The Government actively opposed predeprivation remedies when debtors like MF Global attempted to pursue them, and instead insisted that a postdeprivation refund was available if the nonuniformity persisted through a final judgment.

Imposing such fees in bankruptcy “cases that have already been closed and the estate’s assets distributed or reorganized” would be “so harsh” as “to transgress the constitutional limitation.” Id. And because the leveling-down option is a non-starter, the only valid option remaining is that UST debtors have “a due process right to a refund.” Id. Second, as Respondents persuasively show, the Government’s proposed remedy effectively overrides the Court’s decision in Landgraf that because “‘[r]etroactivity is not favored in the law’ ... ‘congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.’” Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 264 (1994) (quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ.

And even if the Government could in theory determine and collect all amounts owed from BA debtors, the unforeseen consequences and disputes that would arise from imposition of an unanticipated fee, years after decisions were made based on funds thought to be available, is inestimable.

Clerk Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20002 December 18, 2023

Dear Sir or Madam: I certify that at the request of counsel for Amicus Curiae USA Sales, Inc. on December 18, 2023, I caused service to be made pursuant to Rule 29 on the following counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents:

Daniel L. Geyser Haynes and Boone, LLP 2801 N. Harwood Street, Ste.

Sincerely, Jack Suber, Esq.

Notary Public State of Maryland Montgomery County My commission exp.

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 4,673 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 18th day of December, 2023.

Bryant Lee Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 18th day of December, 2023.

Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026

In the Supreme Court of the United States

As required by Rule 33.1(h), I, Roy T. Englert, Jr., a member of the Bar of this Court, hereby certify that the Brief for Former Bankruptcy Judges as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents contains 4,153 words, excluding the parts of the brief that are exempted by Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

FRANKEL LLP 2000 K Street NW, 4th Fl.

Imagine, then, what would happen if there was an effort to impose a similar dramatic increase in quarterly fees in the Bankruptcy Administrator Districts on a retroactive basis, as urged by Petitioner.

Not one of these plaintiffs sued for the opportunity to sit back and watch the destructive chaos that would follow if there is an effort to retroactively impose a draconian quarterly fee increase in Bankruptcy Administrator Districts, as urged by Petitioner.

If this Court were to hold that these plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary recoveries in a case involving a clear violation of the Constitution, no suits by Chapter 11 debtors challenging future unconstitutional exactions by Congress will ever be filed.

It is important for this Court to rule in a manner that provides an economic incentive to those parties who are deprived of funds as the result of unconstitutional Congressional legislation to redress those constitutional violations.

Cases such as McKesson stand for the proposition that the states must afford taxpayers a meaningful judicial opportunity to seek a refund of unconstitutionally collected taxes to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

Trying to reopen those cases and claw back funds distributed years ago would inevitably lead to considerable litigation over the effect of res judicata, equitable mootness, claim allowance, and priority, among other issues.

E.g., In re One2One Commc’ns, LLC, 805 F.3d 428, 447 (3d Cir. 2015) (Krause, J., concurring) (“Even if the doctrine worked as intended and consistently promoted finality, its deleterious effect on our system of bankruptcy adjudication presents an independent reason to reject it.

Once the government upsets finality by seeking these additional fees, significant litigation over numerous complicated issues will ensue from debtors, creditors, professionals, and others who will oppose any attempt to claw back funds distributed years ago.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9), claims are required to be filed by a fixed deadline, known as the “bar date.” Bar dates are treated similarly to statutes of Provisions in confirmed plans for debtors in BA districts locked in the amounts owed under the then- applicable lower fees.

Second, imposing these fees on unsuspecting debtors now would raise constitutional issues because due process requires giving “people of common intelligence fair notice of what the law demands of them.” United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2325 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).