Business

Puerto Rico is burdened by over $70 billion in debt, as well as approximately $35 billion in pension underfunding. Once the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5278, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), in early June and the Senate passed it on June 29, 2016, President Obama signed the bill immediately — and just in time to address a $1.9 billion payment that was due on July 1, 2016. PROMESA offers relief to Puerto Rico, its municipalities and municipal agencies following a 10-year economic recession. This panel describes the circumstances that led to the financial crisis, the failed effort of the Puerto Rican government to offer relief through a "state" statute that was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the details of how PROMESA is designed to work. The session provides an opportunity to discuss these issues in a casual setting, including the way forward for Puerto Rico, and features a panelist who served as Hon. Steven Rhodes' expert on feasibility issues in the City of Detroit chapter 9 case.

Judges will respond to questions submitted from attendees in advance of the event.

In light of the recent downturn in the energy markets, this panel will provide an update on recent developments in coal and oil & gas chapter 11 cases, including contract issues, § 1113/1114 litigation, treatment of environmental obligations, KERPs and KEIPs, surety bonds, perfection and credit bidding issues, and “cherry-picking” of good assets in § 363 sales.

The bankruptcy judge ruled against you. Now what? Motion to reconsider? Appeal to the district court? Appeal to the (gulp) court of appeals? HELP! This panel of experienced practitioners and judges will help you think through when, and how, to appeal.

Presented by the Mediation and Secured Credit Committees

This panel will explore current chapter 11 issues from case inception to exit and will discuss current case law and trends, including nonconventional financing obstacles, the ability of a lender to obtain default interest post-petition, plan-support agreements, structured dismissals, cramdown interest rates, third-party releases and the erosion of the equitable mootness doctrine on appeal.

This year’s mountainside chat will address recent developments in the requirements for employment of disinterestedness, disclosure and disqualification. It will focus on two recent decisions relating to the extent to which a lack of disinterestedness or the presence of an ethical conflict of one firm member is, or is not, imputed on others within the same firm, and whether there is a difference between the two. The discussion will also address different views expressed by courts on the impact of receipt of a retainer, outstanding obligations for pre-petition services, and the potential for avoidance of pre-petition payments.

This panel will discuss how to make sure management (and the board) plays the role of neutral stakeholder throughout a plan and/ or § 363 process. Can the same board and management team truly represent the interests of stakeholders of BOTH a corporate parent and its subsidiaries? What if there are dozens of affiliates whose creditors have disparate interests? Why is the issue of corporate separateness (and related conflicts) overlooked in some multiple-debtor cases, but addressed in others? What are the pros and cons of various tools for addressing potential conflicts? Who should investigate when issues are raised about the validity of intercompany debt, the reasonableness of cost allocations, the ownership of intellectual property and the potential for fraudulent conveyance claims among debtors? Examples discussed may include Nortel, Caesars, EFH, Lehman, Tribune and others.

This panel will address a variety of current issues including “disinterestedness” and “the 1% Rule,” attempted workarounds in the aftermath of Baker Botts v. ASARCO LLC and other ethical challenges, along with guidance under various applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, such as rules regarding fees (RPC 1.5), confidentiality (RPC 1.6), conflicts of interest (RPC 1.7) and candor with the court (RPC 3.3).