Venue/Jurisdiction

Based on the "Ted Talks" format, presenters will address timely and divisive issues such as rejection of power purchase agreements, the future of oil and gas, venue alternatives and an analytical review of Bankruptcy Appellate Panels reversal and affirmances.  Nellwyn Voorhies Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc.; New York Jurisdictional Battle: Bankruptcy Courts vs. FERC in Rejection of Power Purchase Agreements Theodore E. Tsekerides Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; New York Ninth Circuit as an Alternative to SDNY/Delaware Tobias S. Keller Keller Benvenutti Kim LLP; San Francisco Current State and Near Future of Oil and Gas Scott M. Pinsonnault Ankura Consulting Group, LLC; Indian Hills, Colo. Analytical Review of Reversal/Affirmance Rates Between BAPs and District Courts in BAP Circuits Steven D. Jerome Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.; Phoenix

State law and bankruptcy law intersect in any number of ways in any given bankruptcy case. This panel will focus on a few of the issues that arise in this context and discuss recent case law, as well as practice tips and strategy. More specifically, the panelists will cover the abstention doctrine and how bankruptcy courts analyze various state law claims under that doctrine; the potential impact of a bankruptcy case on divorce proceedings, including automatic stay and discharge issues; and the limitations on pursuing state court claims, such as standing, collateral estoppel and third-party releases. We hope you will join us and contribute your questions and experiences to the conversation.

The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 went into effect a mere few weeks before a worldwide pandemic unfolded, setting into motion unforeseen challenges and learning curves for the entire bankruptcy court system. This session consists of two mock presentations that will demonstrate the application of technology in the pre-trial practice and trial presentation of a subchapter V virtual trial. Included in these presentations will be virtual depositions and document preparation and organization, as well as the nontechnical challenges these cases can face, such as feasibility, projected-income issues, best practices assuming a nonconsensual plan, and cramdown. During the mock presentations, a team of technology experts will interject real-time, practical tips on the risks, benefits and potential ethical pitfalls of technology use in virtual trials, and much more. Mock Trial Schedule: 1:00-2:30 p.m. — Pre-Trial: Preparation, Organization, Depositions, Direct Examination (with tech experts offering best practices throughout) 2:30-2:50 p.m. — Short Break - Breakout rooms available for networking! 2:50-4:15 p.m. — Mock Trial: Cross-Examination, Cramdown (with tech experts offering best practices throughout)

This panel of legal experts will break down topical circuit-level and bankruptcy court rulings that are dividing circuits across the country.

While there can be no doubt under our current system of jurisprudence that lower courts are bound by the published decisions of appellate courts, the question remains: What can a trial court do with broad pronouncements found in an appellate decision based on limited or dissimilar facts? Judge Michael will discuss the dilemma of interpreting and using appellate precedent.

In this virtual variation on the in-person format, a nationwide group of distinguished judges will discuss current bankruptcy and practical skills issues in an innovative Zoom-style presentation. The judges will rotate to a new online “room,” allowing participants to maximize their time and gain valuable insights into best practices.

What are the hottest topics in bankruptcy law? This panel of experts, moderated by ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle, will discuss and analyze current business and consumer bankruptcy law cases.

Do the safe harbor provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) also provide shelter to transferees from state law fraudulent transfer actions in nonbankruptcy courts? Does the doctrine of pre-emption apply to impact litigation outside of bankruptcy court? This panel will review § 546(e) after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Corp. LP v. FTI Consulting Inc. After the Merit decision, the Supreme Court sent back the case of In re Tribune Co., fraudulent conveyance litigation that was also pending before the Supreme Court, to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. What did the appeals court do in Tribune II, and what impact does the court’s decision have on fraudulent transfer litigation by private litigants under nonbankruptcy law?

For two years this group has studied the influence of a judge’s gender on the processing and outcomes in bankruptcy cases. Leveraging several studies in non-bankruptcy cases on whether gender influences judicial decision making, this study has looked at 837 student loan discharge opinions and compared the outcomes of those cases based on the gender of the judge and the gender of the debtor. The results demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the way men and women decide such cases. The study now expects to examine survey results from male and female judges to assess discernible patterns. This panel will present the results of this study and will discuss some or all of the following questions: Does gender affect case management? Does gender affect the perception of witnesses? Implicit bias and gender Should counsel tailor case, trial and argument based on the gender of the judge? If so, how can counsel do so? Does the gender of a party ever play an appropriate role in judicial decision making? What can judges do to ensure that gender plays an appropriate role in case determination?

The Supreme Court has handed down three rulings during its current term that impact bankruptcy practice: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14 in Ritzen v. Jackson Machinery that an order denying a motion to modify the automatic stay is a final, appealable order “when the bankruptcy court unreservedly grants or denies relief.” In a per curiam opinion on February 24 in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, the Supreme Court has banned the term “nunc pro tunc” from the bankruptcy lexicon. The Court also ruled that a state court altogether lacks jurisdiction in a removed action until the case has been formally remanded. The Supreme Court ruled on February 25 in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that federal courts may not employ federal common law to decide who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. A panel of distinguished bankruptcy experts will discuss each of these cases to provide you with insights for your practice.