2014

Recent Prosecutions, Ponzi Schemes, Debtor Crimes, Professional Fraud (including Medicare and Medicaid) plus Upcoming Discharge Issues.

HOSTED BY: SECURED CREDIT COMMITTEE Make-whole provisions in loan documents, which compensate lenders for the loss of future interest payments when a borrower voluntarily prepays its debt, and no-call provisions, which prohibit the prepayment of debt before maturity, can greatly affect distributions to creditors in bankruptcy. The enforceability of these provisions has given rise to extensive litigation in such cases as AMR Corp. (American Airlines), School Specialty, GMX Resources and Chemtura. This 75-minute webinar will review recent decisions and the current state of the law concerning make-whole and no-call provisions. Key takeaways that practitioners should be aware of when drafting these provisions will also be discussed. SPEAKERS Charles Reardon Asgaard Capital LLC Vienna, Va. Stanley B. Tarr Blank Rome LLP Wilmington, Del. Andrew V. Tenzer Paul Hastings LLP New York

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three bankruptcy cases this term: (1) Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, which addresses the constitutionality of the district court referral system for bankruptcy cases and consent to jurisdiction where separation of powers is at issue; (2) Clark v. Rameker, which involves the availability of exemptions for inherited IRAs; and (3) Law v. Siegel, which deals with a bankruptcy court’s authority under § 105 to surcharge exemptions. In each of these cases, either the parties are represented by First Circuit practitioners and law firms, or the underlying circuit splits involve precedents from the First Circuit. This panel will offer an insider’s view of the issues and outcomes.

This panel will explore the ethical boundaries of secrecy and confidentiality issues in a bankruptcy case. May and should a creditor/attorney for the debtor serve on a creditors’ committee, and to what extent may relevant information be divulged? To what extent may an attorney reveal information received by him/her during a retention interview if he/she is not hired but is later retained by another party? What problems arise if information to be divulged by one client could have an adverse impact on another? To what extent does a debtor’s duty to reveal information trump its desire to protect business secrets, and how should the situation be handled? Can a case tolerate disparate scopes of information being given to parties in interest? Do the ethical issues change with the “environment” (court, mediation, negotiation, pitch for business)?

Section 363 sales are frequently invoked in an effort to render the debt side of a balance sheet irrelevant. Buyers and sellers generally spend much of their time negotiating pre-sale issues, such as bidding procedures, “break-up fees” and other bidding protections, perhaps relying on the “free and clear” language of § 363(f) to absolve the buyer of any liabilities associated with the assets. Buyers at § 363 sales typically assume that they take the assets free and clear of all liens and claims. Lending credence to the old adage “caveat emptor,” this program will focus on the issues that may prevent assets sold under § 363 from being cleansed of all liens, claims and interests, and will examine the limits of “free and clear” sales under § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The panel will identify those claims that may come back and haunt a buyer, no matter what a § 363 sale order provides, paying particular attention to cases where holders of claims that were unknown or perhaps unknowable at the time of a sale come in post-closing and successfully assert liability against a purchaser.

ABI has embarked on a significant review of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978. It has been more than 30 years since the Code was enacted, and a consensus has emerged that the current law needs an overhaul. The world has changed, including the financial environment and the operation of the markets, and the Code even as amended was not designed to deal with many of these changes. The ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 will study and propose reforms to chapter 11 and related statutory provisions that will better balance the goals of effectuating the effective reorganization of business debtors, with the attendant preservation and expansion of jobs and the maximization and realization of asset values for all creditors and stakeholders. Presenters will outline the work that the Commission has conducted to date, its mission and its findings. Further discussion will map out a way forward and perhaps include some crystal ball work to see what reforms might — ahem — emerge from Congress.

The chapter 11 plan has been confirmed, and consummation is on the horizon. But unforeseen circumstances have put the plan in peril or, worse yet, have caused the plan to fail. This panel will discuss the issues that arise when a plan fails post-confirmation. What alternatives exist? What provisions should be included in a plan to anticipate and guard against failure? Where can the parties go for court assistance?