Florida State Approved Sessions

Did BAPCPA Put Retail Bankruptcy Out of Business?

Municipal Meltdown: Emergency Managers, Receiverships and Other State Law Options for Addressing Municipal Distress

Past Presidents’ Debate: Michael P. Richman Hunton & Williams LLP; New York Deborah D. Williamson Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated; San Antonio Resolved: Secured creditors should be required to fund the payment of all administrative claims and make a distribution to general unsecured creditors as a condition of cleansing substantially all of the debtors’ assets through a § 363 sale process. Judicial Debate: Hon. Kevin J. Carey U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Del.); Wilmington Hon. Frank J. Santoro U.S. Bankruptcy Court (E.D. Va.); Norfolk Resolved: A claim is not impaired for purposes of § 1129(a)(10) if the alteration of the rights in question arises solely from the debtor’s exercise of discretion, because § 1129(a)(10) recognizes impairment only to the extent that it is driven by economic need. Consumer Debate: John Rao National Consumer Law Center; Boston Brett Weiss Chung & Press, PC; Greenbelt, Md. Resolved: The Bankruptcy Rules and Forms should require that a national chapter 13 official plan form be used in all cases.

Preparing for Metamorphosis: Tax Questions Arising from Changes in Debt from Recourse to Nonrecourse (or vice versa) — Bankruptcy Discharges, Anti-Deficiency Statutes and § 1111(b)

Review of GSC case (bankruptcy court decision pending); what are the lessons of GSC for practitioners regarding disclosure, fee sharing, disinterestedness and conflicts, etc?; review of disinterestedness standards under § 101(14) and related disclosure requirements; additional ethics topic might include conflicts waivers (when is it necessary to obtain a waiver? Distinctions may be drawn based on current vs. recent vs. former clients, directly adverse vs. positionally adverse, relatedness to a prior matter, use of confidential information); Brown Publishing

Discussion about unanticipated and anticipated problems in chapter 11 cases in which all or substantially all of the assets are being sold in a § 363 sale; “pay to play” arguments by unsecured creditors; should bankruptcies be run exclusively for the benefit of secured creditors?; presale orders regarding the use of sale proceeds; funding of wind-down costs and payment of administrative claims; post-sale chapter 7 conversions

Each affiliated debtor and its creditors have potentially conflicting interests in maximizing assets and minimizing claims, so how are these interests reconciled in multi-debtor cases?; can one board make decisions for all debtors?; when is an independent board or CRO needed to represent the interests of a particular business unit, and why don’t we see that more often?; how should one arrange intercompany DIP financing?; how should one ensure that all constituencies are represented and that key stakeholders are at the table?; should there be multiple creditors’ committees?; use of examiners and other third parties; increased use of motions seeking to disqualify counsel, mediators, etc.

What are the consequences of using § 9019 settlements as a means of resolving primary intercreditor disputes?; does application of settlement approval standards effectively alter § 1129 standards?; do settlements become sub rosa plans?; is the door open for “involuntary settlements” based on a debtor’s assessment of litigation probabilities?; other related issues might include “gifting” through § 9019 in the Third Circuit vs. the Second Circuit, plan-support agreements, absolute priority rule/new value plan (Castleton Plaza), equitable mootness (Charter/SemCrude); fee reimbursements for participants (Lehman, AMR)

What is the difference between “market value” and “intrinsic value”?; what is market value, and how is it discerned?; how reliable are various indicia or tests of market value, including: (1) public (or private) bankruptcy trading prices of the debt or equity securities of a debtor, (2) outcome of the bankruptcy sale process and (3) credit-bidding, and when can “market tests” be wrong?; have bankruptcy courts allowed lay perceptions of discernible market value to replace expert testimony and other proofs relevant to § 506 determinations or cramdowns?; how can rights offerings be used and assessed as an indication of value?