Vermont State Approved Sessions

In a recent survey, 93% of the respondents said that they had used the past year to reflect on their lives, and 88% said that the meaning of success had changed for them since the start of the pandemic. Yet the number of lawyers suffering from depression, anxiety and substance abuse is greater than ever. This panel will discuss ways in which we can help others — and ourselves — navigate this dichotomy.

This panel will discuss and analyze attacks on pre-bankruptcy transactions, specifically certain transactions that (1) resulted in modifications to corporate governance or subsidiary status; (2) were at the behest of directors and officers and that may or may not have been to the detriment of the company; (3) were designed to limit liabilities in a workout or reorganization scenario; (4) modified rights or obligations owed to lenders, including the grant of additional security; or (5) were done for some other purpose. During the discussion, the panelists will focus on the analysis of the potential attack on such transactions, as well as the strategy for launching (or planning to launch) such an attack.

This panel will focus on issues arising in larger chapter 11 cases, including third-party releases and Plan Support Agreements.

This panel will feature discussions of subchapter V vs. chapter 13, and their corresponding unique elements and deadlines.

This session will provide a checklist of the topics to address with the management of a failing business in that first meeting with the client.

Resolved: Bankruptcy courts do not have the authority to approve nonconsensual releases of direct claimsheld by third parties against nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan or reorganization. Pro: Hon. Eugene R.Wedoff (ret.); Con: Marshall S. Huebner Resolved: Trustee requests of debtors for documents andinformation beyond that already required by the Code and Rules should not be routinely undertaken, butinstead should be limited to inquiries suggested by issues arising in specific cases. Pro: Tiffany L. Carroll;Con: Gary R. Stickell Resolved: The Seventh Circuit was wrong in Sheehan v. Breccia Unlimited Co. (In reSheehan), 21-2946 (7th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022), when it barred U.S. bankruptcy courts from stopping foreigncreditors from taking action against a debtor’s assets abroad when the U.S. court has no general or specificpersonal jurisdiction over the creditors. Pro: Hon. Christopher S. Sontchi (ret.); Con: Hon. David R. Jones.

This panel will cover how to serve notice in a bankruptcy proceeding and will explain the difference between a contested proceeding and a simple notice under Rule 2002. The panelists will discuss how a notice can also become a contested proceeding by virtue of notice. Sounds confusing? It isn’t, yet it is incredibly important to ensure that due process is followed. You may have a lengthy list of creditors in your client’s chapter 13 case, but if only 15 creditors file claims, why should the remaining creditors be noticed after the claims deadline has passed? The panelists also will discuss the rules we now have that allow for limited noticing and limited titling under Rule 7004(b)(3).

Advances in technology are changing how law is practiced. Online research databases, digital contracts, expert systems and document automation all help make lawyers’ routine tasks easier and more efficient. All lawyers must make informed decisions about what technology tools to acquire, develop or leverage. While lawyers’ use of technology is not an end unto itself, it is providing a catalyst for the transformation of the legal profession. Moreover, in a world of rapidly advancing technologies, data breaches and increasingly sophisticated uses of artificial intelligence, lawyers are now ethically required to understand the benefits and risks of technology. Intractable barriers to access to justice also remain a perennial concern. This panel discusses new developments in legal technology and ethics, and explores the ways in which technology can scale the provision of legal assistance, as well as examines how new developments in attorney regulation have expanded the definition of who can “practice law.” It also considers, despite people’s strong preference for maintaining the status quo, how understanding and adopting technology tools will optimize lawyers’ abilities to provide services to clients more effectively and efficiently.