Great Debates

This session will discuss the broader policy debate on the usefulness, functionality and policy issues of examiners and trustees in chapter 11. ➤ Bankruptcy examiners drive up the cost of the bankruptcy process and generally do not deliver benefits that justify their expense and distraction. ➤ Bankruptcy examiners play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the bankruptcy process and should be appointed more regularly. ➤ Typically, it should be the role of an official committee, rather than an examiner, to investigate estate causes of action in circumstances that implicate the debtor’s insiders such that the debtor is conflicted.

Two pairs of judges square off to consider (1) whether bankruptcies can be properly filed when a debtor faces a deluge of potential tort claims and (2) whether bankruptcy courts can support plans regarding certain special fee and financing arrangements for debtors. RESOLVED: That a bankruptcy is filed in good faith where the debtor is not otherwise in immediate financial distress and appears to have the liquidity to pay its creditors in full, but where the case is filed because of the debtor is a defendant facing a deluge of tort claims that could at some point threaten the debtor’s business and where the debtor believes that the mechanism for liquidating those claims through a trust created under a plan of reorganization will be fairer and better for all parties than the results that would otherwise obtain in the tort system. RESOLVED: That a bankruptcy court may approve a DIP financing agreement that incorporates the milestones set out in a restructuring support agreement, that provides that (a) the debtors will propose a plan that provides specified treatment to the Supporting Parties, which treatment is materially the same as the plan provides to similarly situated creditors; (b) obligates the Supporting Parties to vote in favor of the debtor’s plan and to vote against any competing plan; and (c) provides that the Supporting Parties (and only the supporting parties) will provide exit financing to the Reorganized Debtors, at rates and fees that exceed prevailing market terms.

A panel of judges and ABI 40under40 honorees will be debating key bankruptcy issues including arbitration disputes, cramdown provisions and more! Listen in, weigh in and learn a lot! First Debate Cramdowns “East vs. West” Resolution 1: An arbitrator should decide whether disputes in bankruptcy cases and proceedings are subject to arbitration. Pro: Andrew Helman Con: Lindsi Weber Resolution 2: All disputes in bankruptcy cases and proceedings can be subjected to binding arbitration. Pro: Hon. Michael Fagone Con: Hon. Daniel Collins Second Debate Cramdowns “North vs. South” Resolution: Section 1129(a)(10) dictates that a joint chapter 11 plan may be confirmed if a single impaired class with claims against any debtor accepts the joint plan. Pro: Hon. Mary Grace Diehl & Jonathan Edwards Con: Hon. Michael Wiles & Erica Weisgerber

This plenary will present two exciting debates on timely circuit split topics. Judges will be paired with emerging regional leaders to face off over key bankruptcy issues. Resolved: The automatic stay terminates automatically after a repeat filing only to property of the debtor, and not to estate property. Resolved: A “makewhole” provision may be enforced against a debtor and is not disallowed as “unmatured interest” pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 502(b)(2).