Fraud

What are bankruptcy crimes, what are the duties of the various parties in a case to investigate and report them, and what are the protections for those who do? The panelists will discuss actual-intent fraudulent transfers and the crime/fraud exception; recent cases suggest that a “fraud” that may trigger the crime/fraud exception to attorney/client privilege and that the work-product doctrine may not be limited to crimes and serious frauds, but rather may include transactions exhibiting only some “badges of fraud,” such as fraudulent transfers (Fragin, Husky International).

Presented by the Bankruptcy Litigation and Commercial Fraud Committees

This panel will feature a roundtable discussion with bankruptcy judges from the Ninth Circuit and across the country. The judges will share their thoughts and perspectives, as well as take questions from the audience, on topics of current interest in both business and consumer cases.

This panel will address the unique issues presented when matters involving fraud, including Ponzi schemes, arise. The discussion will include best practices for responding to, or managing, fraud allegations directed to a client inside and outside of bankruptcy, addressing and investigating fraud from an accounting perspective (including strategies for identifying hallmarks of fraud), and current developments in case law relating to fraud and Ponzi schemes in the bankruptcy context.

A roundtable discussion with a select group of bankruptcy judges will focus on breaking issues and best practices for professionals.

In this discussion, leading practitioners in both bringing and defending significant fraudulent transfer claims will describe the current best practices gleaned from their substantial experiences.

Resolved: Unsecured creditors entitled to post-petition interest can only be paid at the federal judgment rate. Pro: Rachel C. Strickland Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; New York Con: Joseph H. Smolinsky Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; New York Resolved: Actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) is limited to misrepresentation. Pro: G. Eric Brunstad, Dechert LLP; Hartford, Conn. Con: Danielle Spinelli . WilmerHale; Washington, D.C. Resolved: Negative-notice procedure is sufficient to establish consent under § 363(f). Pro: Hon. Thomas J. Catliota U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Md.); Greenbelt Con: Hon. Martin R. Barash U.S. Bankruptcy Court (C.D. Cal.); Woodland Hills

This session will discuss Law v. Siegel and its implications for debtors’ exemptions,amendments to exemptions, and trustee tools to object to exemptions post-Law v. Siegel. This session will also explore the divergent case law emerging from the dicta in the Supreme Court’s opinion, and what it means to debtors and trustees going forward.

Lies Lies Lies, Yeah: Can a Health Care Business Reorganize When Facing Allegations of Fraud? The Role of the Forensic Accountant, Counsel and the Community