Claims

But I Thought We Were Safe: Are Priority Claims and Legacy Employee Liabilities at Risk in a 363 Sale?

Real Estate Short Sales and Carve-Outs

With the Supreme Court due to hear oral argument on a critical bankruptcy case on January 14, ABI has released the following free video preview of the upcoming High Court bankruptcy cases. This 75 minute program features ABI Resident Scholar Kara Bruce talking with noted appellate advocate and law professor Eric Brunstad (Dechert LLP; Hartford, Conn.). Eric has argued many cases before the Court and is an expert in bankruptcy appellate practice. He discusses in depth Law v. Siegel, which questions whether the court may use its general equitable authority under §105 of the Bankruptcy Code to surcharge a debtor's exempt assets, and Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham), which will address the bankruptcy court's authority to adjudicate Article III matters. The latter case will be argued in January and represents another opportunity for the Court to clarify (or reverse) its holding in Stern v. Marshall. He also provides a candid view of what it is like to argue a case before the Court.

The issue of "double-dipping", wherein a creditor is able to increase its recovery by multiplying its allowed claim against a particular entity or asserting claims against multiple entities, has been prevalent in a number of recent restructurings, including American Airlines, Lehman Brothers, CIT Group Inc., Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. and AbitibiBowater Inc. This panel will address the concept of "double-dipping", the scenarios under which it arises and their experience in dealing with the issue in various cases.

A Preview of upcoming Supreme Court bankruptcy cases, featuring ABI Resident Scholar Kara Bruce talking with Eric Brunstad of Dechert LLP (Hartford, Conn.) to preview the bankruptcy cases that the Supreme Court will consider during its 2013 term. Brunstad, who has argued many cases before the Court and is an expert in bankruptcy appellate practice, discusses in depth Law v. Siegel, which questions whether the court may use its general equitable authority under §105 of the Bankruptcy Code to surcharge a debtor's exempt assets, and Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham), which will address the bankruptcy court's authority to adjudicate Article III matters. He also provides a candid view of what it is like to argue a case before the Court and an in-depth analysis of the issues involved with the upcoming cases. Here is a short preview:

Luncheon Presentation: Sponsored by MorrisAnderson

This panel will feature discussion, comments and thoughts on the proposed national uniform chapter 13 plan. Participate in an in-depth discussion on the changes coming to your chapter 13 practice.

Business Debate Resolved: Success fees for financial advisors should be eliminated. (Sides to be chosen by a coin toss at the beginning of the session.) Candace C. Carlyon Shea & Carlyon Ltd.; Las Vegas Frank A. Merola Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; Los Angeles Judicial Debate Resolved: Claims benefiting from third-party guaranties may be separately classified. Pro: Hon. Barry Russell U.S. Bankruptcy Court (C.D. Calif.); Los Angeles Con: Hon. Eileen W. Hollowell U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Ariz.); Tucson Consumer Debate Resolved: Section 523(a)(8) limiting discharge of student loans should be eliminated. Pro: Kasey Cameron Nye Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, PC; Tucson, Ariz. Con: Madeleine C. Wanslee Gust Rosenfeld, PLC; Phoenix