Business

This panel will discuss the following issues regarding crypto, distinguishing customer property from property of the estate, understanding crypto valuation issues, distribution options in crypto cases, M&A risks and pitfalls, effectively using social media to communicate with a large customer base, juggling cash and crypto management, and debtor-on-debtor violence.

This roundtable will provide insights from judges of the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York (and surrounding areas) on selected hot topics.

This session will provide opportunities for discussion and interaction with an exciting panel of judges from around the country.

Don’t miss these roundtables on today’s provocative issues, led by the judges of the Southeast Bankruptcy Workshop.

Join ABI’s executive director for a discussion with experts on (and close to) the Hill as they analyze current, pending and expected legislation addressing key insolvency issues

Luckin Coffee Inc., founded in 2017 by a Chinese entrepreneur, had the goal of outgrowing Starbucks as China’s largest coffee chain. The company’s 2019 IPO and bond offering raised approximately US$900 million. However, in February 2020, it was discovered that Luckin had fabricated its financial statements, with revenue overstated by US$300 million. Litigation followed, with various direct and class action claims being asserted in the U.S., a class action claim in Canada, and injunctive proceedings in both the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong. The principal creditors were unsecured bondholders and equityholders with securities litigation claims. In order to protect Luckin from its creditors, restructuring officers were appointed in the Cayman Islands, and the company’s debt was successfully restructured. This international panel of experts will discuss the case and lessons restructuring professionals can learn from it.

Luckin Coffee Inc., founded in 2017 by a Chinese entrepreneur, had the goal of outgrowing Starbucks as China’s largest coffee chain. The company’s 2019 IPO and bond offering raised approximately US$900 million. However, in February 2020, it was discovered that Luckin had fabricated its financial statements, with revenue overstated by US$300 million. Litigation followed, with various direct and class action claims being asserted in the U.S., a class action claim in Canada, and injunctive proceedings in both the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong. The principal creditors were unsecured bondholders and equityholders with securities litigation claims. In order to protect Luckin from its creditors, restructuring officers were appointed in the Cayman Islands, and the company’s debt was successfully restructured. This international panel of experts will discuss the case and lessons restructuring professionals can learn from it.

This panel discusses cutting-edge issues involving the use of AI in law practice, and ethical questions and potential pitfalls surrounding its use by lawyers and legal professionals.

This panel will discuss four topics of interest, paying particular attention to litigation strategy and tactics with respect to each. First, we will examine stays pending appeal, particularly stays pending appeals of confirmation orders, including the current state of equitable mootness law in the Second Circuit and elsewhere; when and how to move for a stay; whether and how to make a record at the confirmation hearing to support a later stay motion, and what to do about the bond requirement. Second, we will consider LTL and the standard for dismissal, as well as the importance of making an evidentiary record to support good faith and insolvency on filing. Third, we will consider challenges to the retention of professionals, particularly what standard should govern when a debtor seeks to retain lawyers, investment bankers and other professionals. Should it be the existence of “interests adverse to the estate” or “disinterestedness,” or some combination of the two? We will consider, among other cases, SAS and FTX. Finally, we will consider venue. What are the appropriate criteria that should be considered and relied upon by the debtor when choosing venue and by other parties in interest when challenging the debtor’s choice? How clear or blurry is the line between legitimate strategy and litigation tactics?