Search Topics
Over 2,700 Hours of Free Content
ABI-Live: Understanding Make-Whole and No-Call Provisions: Key Takeaways From Recent Decisions
HOSTED BY: SECURED CREDIT COMMITTEE
Make-whole provisions in loan documents, which compensate lenders for the loss of future interest payments when a borrower voluntarily prepays its debt, and no-call provisions, which prohibit the prepayment of debt before maturity, can greatly affect distributions to creditors in bankruptcy. The enforceability of these provisions has given rise to extensive litigation in such cases as AMR Corp. (American Airlines), School Specialty, GMX Resources and Chemtura. This 75-minute webinar will review recent decisions and the current state of the law concerning make-whole and no-call provisions. Key takeaways that practitioners should be aware of when drafting these provisions will also be discussed.
SPEAKERS
Charles Reardon
Asgaard Capital LLC
Vienna, Va.
Stanley B. Tarr
Blank Rome LLP
Wilmington, Del.
Andrew V. Tenzer
Paul Hastings LLP
New York
Bankruptcy and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Insider’s View of 2014 Decisions
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three bankruptcy cases this term: (1) Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, which addresses the constitutionality of the district court referral system for bankruptcy cases and consent to jurisdiction where separation of powers is at issue; (2) Clark v. Rameker, which involves the availability of exemptions for inherited IRAs; and (3) Law v. Siegel, which deals with a bankruptcy court’s authority under § 105 to surcharge exemptions. In each of these cases, either the parties are represented by First Circuit practitioners and law firms, or the underlying circuit splits involve precedents from the First Circuit. This panel will offer an insider’s view of the issues and outcomes.
The Ethical Limits of Secrecy and Confidentiality
This panel will explore the ethical boundaries of secrecy and confidentiality issues in a bankruptcy case. May and should a creditor/attorney for the debtor serve on a creditors’ committee, and to what extent may relevant information be divulged? To what extent may an attorney reveal information received by him/her during a retention interview if he/she is not hired but is later retained by another party? What problems arise if information to be divulged by one client could have an adverse impact on another? To what extent does a debtor’s duty to reveal information trump its desire to protect business secrets, and how should the situation be handled? Can a case tolerate disparate scopes of information being given to parties in interest? Do the ethical issues change with the “environment” (court, mediation, negotiation, pitch for business)?
363 Sales and Successor Liability
Section 363 sales are frequently invoked in an effort to render the debt side of a balance sheet irrelevant. Buyers and sellers generally spend much of their time negotiating pre-sale issues, such as bidding procedures, “break-up fees” and other bidding protections, perhaps relying on the “free and clear” language of § 363(f) to absolve the buyer of any liabilities associated with the assets. Buyers at § 363 sales typically assume that they take the assets free and clear of all liens and claims. Lending credence to the old adage “caveat emptor,” this program will focus on the issues that may prevent assets sold under § 363 from being cleansed of all liens, claims and interests, and will examine the limits of “free and clear” sales under § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The panel will identify those claims that may come back and haunt a buyer, no matter what a § 363 sale order provides, paying particular attention to cases where holders of claims that were unknown or perhaps unknowable at the time of a sale come in post-closing and successfully assert liability against a purchaser.
e-Learning Topics

Filter by Approved State
Most Popular Live Sessions
Join live sessions your peers are attending now.