Consumer

Consumer Debate Resolved: Limited-scope representation should be allowed in consumer bankruptcy cases. Brian T. Fenimore 102536, Moderator Lathrop & Gage LLP; Kansas City PRO: Theresa V. Brown-Edwards 211813 DARBY | BROWN-EDWARDS LLC; Wilmington, Del. CON: Hon. Robert D. Berger 185770 U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Kan.); Kansas City Business Debate Resolved: Bankruptcy judges are authorized to do structured dismissals in chapter 11 bankruptcies. Brian T. Fenimore 102536, Moderator Lathrop & Gage LLP; Kansas City PRO: G. David Dean, II 222886 Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, PA; Baltimore CON: T. Patrick Tinker 545420 Office of the U.S. Trustee; Wilmington, Del. Judicial Debate Resolved: A debtor can force a secured creditor to accept title to its collateral pursuant to a plan that provides for its surrender or vesting in that creditor. Brian T. Fenimore, Moderator Lathrop & Gage LLP; Kansas City PRO: Hon. Robert E. Nugent 105973 U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Kan.); Wichita CON: Hon. Arthur B. Federman 102540 U.S. Bankruptcy Court (W.D. Mo.); Kansas City

This panel will feature a roundtable discussion with bankruptcy judges from the Ninth Circuit and across the country. The judges will share their thoughts and perspectives, as well as take questions from the audience, on topics of current interest in both business and consumer cases.

Attorney professionalism is dedication to service to clients and a commitment to promoting respect for the legal system in pursuit of justice and the public good, characterized by ethical conduct, competence, good judgment, integrity and civility. This first-of-its-kind course explores the challenges and goals of professionalism among bankruptcy attorneys and other professionals.

The panel will survey recent cases in areas such as stay litigation, lien-stripping, exemptions, family issues and student loans.

This session will be a fast-paced tour of advanced topics on a broad range of bankruptcy issues. While many U.S. Supreme Court decisions seek to address circuit splits and resolve issues of differing interpretation, the decisions often create additional diversity in interpretation and practice. This panel will address the last decade of Supreme Court decisions and their aftermath, and will take a look at pending and potential cases that may soon be decided.

Proper representation requires that the lawyer consider from the onset of the relationship a variety of practical and ethical concerns. This panel discussion will focus on such issues as whether bankruptcy is the best alternative and which form of bankruptcy is the appropriate one, as well as certain pre-bankruptcy considerations and ensuring that the representation does not run awry of certain ethical considerations and canons.

This panel will discuss typical and atypical issues in the context of negotiating a term sheet, a DIP agreement and a DIP order. Discussion will include DIP terms from the perspective of various types of DIP lenders, such as pre-petition creditor(s) (or a subset of such creditors), insiders and stalking-horse bidders.

A star-studded cast of ABI notables will perform in this entertaining and informative Las Vegas production, written and produced exclusively for ABI. Reviewing the rules of evidence has certainly never been this fun. This is one luncheon that you won’t want to miss! Come for the food, stay for the show; we guarantee that you will learn something from this scholarly revue.

The panel will address dischargeability litigation from both the debtor and creditor (and bench) perspective.

Do you know the correct procedural answer, and even if the answer is “yes,” can you explain to your client why the practical answer might still be “no”? Corporate bankruptcy attorneys need to understand the procedural and practical effects of a bankruptcy judge’s discretion in key and routine motion practice. This session is great for younger attorneys who are learning the ropes, experienced attorneys who could use a procedural refresher, and bankruptcy judges who want to be sensitive to the practitioner’s viewpoint as to why a procedural appeal right might not always be a practically accessible appeal right.