Video

Sponsored by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

Sponsored by Riordan, Fincher & Mayo, P.A. Following the Money: Tracing Financial Transactions in Popular Phone Apps Rachel L. Foley Foley Law, PC | Independence, Mo. An Analytical Review of Reversals/Affirmance Rates Between BAPs and District Courts Jacklyn M. Branby Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. | Phoenix The Unconstitutionality of Chapter 11 UST Fee vs. Non-UST Fee Districts Nicholas J. Zluticky Stinson LLP | Kansas City, Mo. SBRA and Chapter 12 Definitions for Qualifying Debtors Mark A. Craige Crowe & Dunlevy | Tulsa, Okla.

Sponsored by Huron

Sponsored by ABI & INSOL Following up on Part I, hosted by ABI, INSOL and the international committee of the Dutch Restructuring Association, this webinar will discuss the content of relevant restructuring plans under U.S. chapter 11, the English Scheme processes and the Dutch Scheme, with a focus on (the relevance of) valuation reports. The panelists also will discuss the particularities of the content of the relevant restructuring plans for their respective jurisdictions.

This session will cover a number of confirmation hot topics, including the allowance of unmatured interest (Hertz), makewhole provisions, private sponsor liability risk (In re ASHINC Corp.) and D&Os (Toys “R” Us litigation).

This session will dive into mass tort cases, “Texas Two-Step” divisive mergers and the bad-faith arguments surrounding them, and equitable mootness (Talarico v. Ultra Petro. Corp. and others).

This panel will discuss UST authority in appointing committees, venue impact on committee appointment and committee composition, when it makes sense to have two committees and when it does not, and the retention of professionals or substantive contributions. The panelists also will discuss the scope of Rule 2004 examinations post-confirmation.

Two pairs of judges square off to consider (1) whether bankruptcies can be properly filed when a debtor faces a deluge of potential tort claims and (2) whether bankruptcy courts can support plans regarding certain special fee and financing arrangements for debtors. RESOLVED: That a bankruptcy is filed in good faith where the debtor is not otherwise in immediate financial distress and appears to have the liquidity to pay its creditors in full, but where the case is filed because of the debtor is a defendant facing a deluge of tort claims that could at some point threaten the debtor’s business and where the debtor believes that the mechanism for liquidating those claims through a trust created under a plan of reorganization will be fairer and better for all parties than the results that would otherwise obtain in the tort system. RESOLVED: That a bankruptcy court may approve a DIP financing agreement that incorporates the milestones set out in a restructuring support agreement, that provides that (a) the debtors will propose a plan that provides specified treatment to the Supporting Parties, which treatment is materially the same as the plan provides to similarly situated creditors; (b) obligates the Supporting Parties to vote in favor of the debtor’s plan and to vote against any competing plan; and (c) provides that the Supporting Parties (and only the supporting parties) will provide exit financing to the Reorganized Debtors, at rates and fees that exceed prevailing market terms.

This panel will discuss pre-appeal considerations, final or interlocutory orders, stays pending appeal, perfecting an appeal, appellate briefs, and direct appeals to circuit courts.