2015 Northeast Bankruptcy Conference

The assets of professional services firms ride the proverbial elevator every day. What happens when they stop riding? This session will address the insolvency of professional service firms, including the causes of professional service firm insolvencies, the status of partner capital, and the risks to the professionals who once rode the elevators, including potential preference and fraudulent transfer liability. This program will also review recent cases relating to the “unfinished business” doctrine in the context of law firm insolvencies. Finally, the program will examine challenges in effecting a distressed merger of professional services firms.

The trial team in this session will explore strategies to quickly discover essential facts relating to substantive and procedural legal defenses by discussing the use of discovery, the proper use of and best practices for motions for summary judgment and developing the summary judgment record, and strategies for opposing summary judgment in a contested matter to which Part VII of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure apply. The context will be an objection to a proof of claim asserting legal defenses, including improper interest charges, based on a hypothetical case. The panelists will conduct several mock strategy sessions and a mock summary judgment hearing, and offer commentary from the trial team members.

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?

The opening line to any discussion about the current trends in chapter 11 cases is often, “Everything is a 363 sale.” Well, not everything: The other way that companies are seeking to minimize the risks of chapter 11 is through the prepack. This panel will discuss the mechanics of, and law behind, a prepackaged chapter 11 case, including plan-support agreements, restrictions on solicitation and how you comply with them, existing restrictions regarding those parties-in-interest that are negotiating the prepack once they start negotiations and receive non-public information, how you solicit votes pre-petition from those not directly involved in the prepack negotiations, and whether at the end of the day you can really bind anybody. The panel will also discuss the risks of overreaching in a plan-support agreement, including a discussion of the Innkeepers decision issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Even with the asbestos cases largely resolved, chapter 11 remains the preferred — if not the only — way for debtors to address mass tort liability. Chapter 11 cases involving mass torts typically present complex and interwoven issues of jurisdiction, claims determination, choice of law, insurance, liability of third parties, injunctive protection and the like. Using as examples pending chapter 11 cases in Massachusetts (New England Compounding Company, involving tainted drugs) and Maine (Montreal, Maine & Atlantic RR, involving a massive explosion), this panel will discuss the strategic and legal considerations facing debtors, trustees, injured claimants and other creditors as they work toward or against a successful chapter 11 case.