Audio

Judicial Debate RESOLVED: Bankruptcy Code section 307 and the corresponding Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to permit the Court to limit the role of the United States Trustee in corporate chapter 11 cases for cause upon motion of an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the case. Mitchell Ryan 203605, Moderator Rust Omni; Orange, Calif. Pro: Hon. Peter W. Bowie 184974 U.S. Bankruptcy Court (S.D. Cal.); San Diego Con: Hon. August B. Landis 108698 U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Nev.); Las Vegas Business Debate Resolved: Municipalities should not be permitted to modify pension benefits in chapter 9. Mitchell Ryan 203605,Moderator Rust Omni; Orange, Calif. Pro: Sharon L. Levine 104784 Lowenstein Sandler LLP; Roseland, N.J. Con: James H.M. Sprayregen 100999 Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Chicago Consumer Debate Resolved: Trustees should not be permitted to sell property where there is no equity for the estate. Mitchell Ryan 203605, Moderator Rust Omni; Orange, Calif. Pro: C.R. "Chip" Bowles, Jr. 103012 Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP; Louisville, Ky. Con: Ford Elsaesser 105080 Elsaesser Jarzabek Anderson Elliott & Macdonald, Chtd.; Sandpoint, Idaho

This panel will explore the feasibility of implementing the CARE Program in our U.S. Armed Forces. (Open to all registrants.) Daniel “Corky” Sherman Moderator Chapter 7 Panel Trustee (N.D. Tex.); Dallas Capt. Kurt Clawson Texas Army National Guard; Arlington, Texas Michael P. Cooley Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Dallas Major Gen. Al Zapanta (U.S. Army, ret.) President and CEO, United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce; Washington, D.C.

Featuring pre-screened questions posed by the DFW Association of Young Bankruptcy Lawyers (DAYBL) (www.daybl.com) and the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers

Recent Prosecutions, Ponzi Schemes, Debtor Crimes, Professional Fraud (including Medicare and Medicaid) plus Upcoming Discharge Issues.

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

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.

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)?