No CLE

As the 21st century races forward, the use of technology is rapidly changing many aspects of the business and practice of law. This panel will discuss the latest developments in courtroom presentation technology and its use. It will also offer insights into the technologies that attorneys should understand for their practices and businesses.

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 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 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).