Audio

This luncheon plenary session will provide an overview of some of the most common evidentiary problems and miscues that come up in trial practice before the bankruptcy court, along with a number of trial evidentiary pointers and practice tips.

This interactive program will enable attendees to “vote their conscience” (with responders) on various ethical dilemmas, with panelists providing commentary after each question.

The federal code (and similarly state law) define "insolvent" as a "financial condition such that the sum of [the] entity's debts is greater than all of [the] entity's property, at a fair valuation..." 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). Fair valuation is not defined in the bankruptcy code. How does fair valuation for solvency differ from fair market value which is used for valuation for income tax purposes? Or fair value which is used in shareholder oppression matters? What are the implications of using trading prices for the assets versus assuming continuity of operating within the existing legal entity? What are the differences it could create in measuring the cost of capital? Or contingent liabilities?

A judge and law professor discuss important areas that raise ethical issues, including the selection, usefulness and credibility of witnesses such as valuation experts; the ethics of advocacy and the role of zealousness; and stories about the surprising mistakes that people make.

An overview of the chapter 9 process, why municipalities do or do not file for chapter 9 protection, and the financial liabilities municipalities face, including bond debt, budget shortfalls, unfunded pension liabilities and costly union contracts. The discussion includes methods for restructuring bond debt under a plan of adjustment, issues related to general obligation bonds and special revenue bonds, how such claims are treated under Chapter 9, and related plan confirmation and valuation issues.

Valuation can be a squishy thing. This panel examines how valuation analyses and disputes can be shaped and impacted based on the shifting positions and perspectives of directors and their advisors. Minority investors may push back on management's projections; special and independent committees may change board dynamics and influence views regarding valuation inputs; interested parties without a direct line to the board may attempt to influence valuation through litigation or posturing. These and other scenarios can greatly impact how directors view and utilize the valuation process. Such scenarios can also have a significant impact on professionals advising regarding valuation. To whom does the professional owe fiduciary duties? How should the shifting board landscape impact the professional's advice? Must the professional seek direction from parties outside the board?