Connecticut State Approved Sessions

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.

ABI has embarked on a significant review of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978. It has been more than 30 years since the Code was enacted, and a consensus has emerged that the current law needs an overhaul. The world has changed, including the financial environment and the operation of the markets, and the Code even as amended was not designed to deal with many of these changes. The ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 will study and propose reforms to chapter 11 and related statutory provisions that will better balance the goals of effectuating the effective reorganization of business debtors, with the attendant preservation and expansion of jobs and the maximization and realization of asset values for all creditors and stakeholders. Presenters will outline the work that the Commission has conducted to date, its mission and its findings. Further discussion will map out a way forward and perhaps include some crystal ball work to see what reforms might — ahem — emerge from Congress.

The chapter 11 plan has been confirmed, and consummation is on the horizon. But unforeseen circumstances have put the plan in peril or, worse yet, have caused the plan to fail. This panel will discuss the issues that arise when a plan fails post-confirmation. What alternatives exist? What provisions should be included in a plan to anticipate and guard against failure? Where can the parties go for court assistance?

The opening line to any discussion about the current trends in chapter 11 cases is often, “Everything is a 363 sale.” Well, not everything: The other way that companies are seeking to minimize the risks of chapter 11 is through the prepack. This panel will discuss the mechanics of, and law behind, a prepackaged chapter 11 case, including plan-support agreements, restrictions on solicitation and how you comply with them, existing restrictions regarding those parties-in-interest that are negotiating the prepack once they start negotiations and receive non-public information, how you solicit votes pre-petition from those not directly involved in the prepack negotiations, and whether at the end of the day you can really bind anybody. The panel will also discuss the risks of overreaching in a plan-support agreement, including a discussion of the Innkeepers decision issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Even with the asbestos cases largely resolved, chapter 11 remains the preferred — if not the only — way for debtors to address mass tort liability. Chapter 11 cases involving mass torts typically present complex and interwoven issues of jurisdiction, claims determination, choice of law, insurance, liability of third parties, injunctive protection and the like. Using as examples pending chapter 11 cases in Massachusetts (New England Compounding Company, involving tainted drugs) and Maine (Montreal, Maine & Atlantic RR, involving a massive explosion), this panel will discuss the strategic and legal considerations facing debtors, trustees, injured claimants and other creditors as they work toward or against a successful chapter 11 case.

Contested evidentiary hearings in chapter 11 confirmation battles have one near-constant attribute: They are expert witness-intensive undertakings. Whether relating to the value of a secured lender’s collateral, the appropriate discount rate to be applied in valuing a payment stream provided under a plan, compliance with the best-interests-of-creditors test, feasibility or any number of other potentially contested issues, presenting expert testimony is at least worth considering, if not required. Panelists will focus on the presentation of expert testimony in contested commercial chapter 11 cases, identify the issues that may require expert testimony, discuss how to locate an appropriate expert, and offer their views on how to prepare and present an expert though the discovery and trial stages. This will not be a presentation on the same old real estate appraisal evidence that most experienced practitioners can recite in their sleep (“I considered the income approach, the comparable-sale approach and the cost approach.” YAWN). Rather, the panel will focus on presenting, and cross-examining, the sorts of sophisticated financial experts that testify regarding the various elements of plan confirmation.

The claims trading marketplace has been growing rapidly over the past several years and has become commonplace in most significant chapter 11 cases. Fueling this activity are private-equity and hedge funds with varying motives and interests. This panel will explore the types of trades taking place and the mechanics of claims trading, and examine the influence that hedge funds are having on chapter 11 practice, as well as their practical impact when this “new” constituent has a seat at the table.

This is the second in a series of presentations geared toward understanding the deal-document side of a common transaction in a chapter 11 case. The panel will focus on DIP financing agreements, specifically what is behind the representations and warranties, covenants, default provisions and remedy provisions: Do differences exist if the DIP lender is the pre-petition lender rather than a new provider of funding? Are there deal-document differences if it is a syndicated lender group rather than a single lender? Just as important is what the panel will not focus on: This is not intended to be a discussion of § 364 and the means for obtaining approval of, or objecting to, a DIP financing motion. Rather, the presentation will be by those who understand and can explain the provisions of, the rationale behind, and the drafting and negotiation of the DIP financing agreement’s provisions.

Using Available Technologies in Bankruptcy Litigation — From the Basics to the Cutting Edge