Business

Hosted by Commercial and Regulatory Law & Secured Credit Committees This panel will discuss various issues arising from the development of a new class of collateral: that which is remotely controllable. The concept of a secured creditor controlling its collateral is of course not a new or novel concept. However, the ability of secured creditors to control their collateral remotely is growing rapidly as new technology and new types of assets are developed. Robots, vehicles and even farm equipment can be directed and controlled remotely to do any number of different tasks, including simply leaving the custody of the borrower and traveling to the custody of a secured creditor. Beyond well-established technology, with the onset of AI and machine learning, collateral (software, vehicles, satellites, etc.) could be programmed to automatically shut down — or phone home — upon the occurrence of particular conditions. This brave new world of valuable assets, which can serve as meaningful collateral for debt, raises new, challenging issues about how these assets are used, regulated and pledged. The panelists will address an array of topics and unanswered questions about how the law is (or is not) suited to addresses the new issues, the risks for creditor and borrower, and the role of the government in finding efficient solutions to potentially unforeseen issues.

This session will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of restructuring under chapter 11 as opposed to under a foreign restructuring scheme. The panelists include a restructuring lawyer who is familiar with the popular European restructuring schemes.

This panel will discuss the state of retail and associated real estate markets across the U.S., U.K. and European markets with industry experts from these jurisdictions. The panelists will consider what is happening now, how is the market changing, and what might happen in the future.

Hosted by International & Asset Sales Committees Several U.S. bankruptcy courts recently have recognized CCAA reverse vesting orders in chapter 15 cases, but not without some reservations as to their breadth and effect. This panel will discuss the use of reverse vesting orders to effect asset sales in cross-border transactions.

Is the debtor always right? The Bankruptcy Code and its underlying policies are designed to give the debtor a fresh start and foster reorganization. However, committees and individual creditors are not always on board with a debtor’s restructuring efforts and at times prefer payment over compromise or even a going-forward business partner. This panel will cover the tools and strategies committees and individual creditors use to slow down a debtor’s restructuring efforts to address the collective demands of committees or the individual needs of creditors both big and small.

Bankruptcy practitioners are all familiar with the old adage “disclose, disclose, disclose” when it comes to disclosures of connections under Bankruptcy Rule 2014 in a retention application. But what exactly makes a disclosure meaningful, and how does one ensure that relevant information is disclosed? This panel will explore the gray areas between our ethical obligations as attorneys, the requirements imposed by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, and practical limitations of bankruptcy disclosures for estate professionals.

In the 2022 and 2023 Supreme Court terms, there have been three or four bankruptcy cases on the docket in each term, as opposed to the more normal one case every year or even every other year. Cases have included both very significant issues that may have far-ranging effects, as in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties without the claimants’ consent), and more discrete issues that could have limited impact, as in Office of the U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (whether to require the U.S. Trustee to issue refunds for the extra fees paid by debtors in certain districts to address the lack of uniformity identified in Siegel v. Fitzgerald). This panel will discuss these Supreme Court cases from the last two terms.

What is a “good faith” bankruptcy filing after LTL? Is there a “good faith” requirement at all, and is it subjective or objective? How much financial distress is necessary (if any), and how can a debtor know when it gets there? What lessons should smaller debtors take from large mass tort cases? Is there really a split in the circuits on these issues? Join this ABI/IWIRC panel for a lively and interactive discussion of good-faith (and bad-faith) filings.