Consumer Bankruptcy

Texts, IMs, emails and metadata might contain information that could be helpful — or could be harmful to your client’s claims. You might want to obtain that information from your adversary, but you will undoubtedly also want to see your own client’s information before your adversary does. Where do you look? This expert panel will discuss and debate the myriad electronic discovery issues that exist and the challenges facing parties in bankruptcy cases, including asserting and avoiding claims of spoliation. It is a discussion you will want to be a part of — before your client hits “DELETE.”

This panel will discuss applicable federal and state laws, case studies, transactions in regards to actual vs. constructive fraud, tests for constructive fraudulent transfers, and professional liability.

This panel will consider the myriad issues involving exemptions and property of the estate, including timing issues involving exemptions (In re Hageman, 388 B.R. 896 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008)), dollar-value exemptions (In re Gebhart, 621 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010)), limitations on the extraterritorial effect of exemptions (In re Long, 470 B.R. 186 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2012)), non-spousal inherited IRAs (In re Clark, 714 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2013)), tax refunds, limited liability company membership interests and § 522(b)(3).

This panel will explain the practice of “unbundling,” along with the ethical and legal considerations involved, and will provide sample engagement letters where services are unbundled. The panel will discuss evolving case law on this issue wherein debtors and their attorneys attempt to use alternative agreements to limit the scope of their representation. ABI's Ethics Task Force Final Report might also be applied.

This panel will review contemporary decisions interpreting Dewsnup v. Timm and Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, such as the Wachovia Mortg. v. Smoot, 478 B.R. 555 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), which precludes lien-stripping. The discussion will also focus on §§ 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2), including conflicting decisions involving the date that is relevant for deciding whether a particular property functions as the debtor’s principal residence (see In re Proctor, 494 B.R. 833 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013)). The panel might also discuss lien-stripping as it involves properties outside the principal residence’s safe harbor.