Business

We all know how hard it is to confirm a chapter 11 plan. This panel will discuss cutting-edge issues related to confirming your chapter 11 plan so that you can arm yourselves for the inevitable battle — or negotiate confirmation with superior knowledge of the likely outcome.

"This panel will address emerging professional responsibility issues in commercial cases, including a recent Seventh Circuit decision involving the duty to advise of alternative transactional structures and other competency issues that affect fee awards and liability, standards for fee awards, disclosure and disinterestedness problems, and conflict problems in retention and the curative limits of use of conflicts and special counsel. "

This panel will be involved in an advanced discussion of the problems and opportunities that can arise in an individual chapter 11 case. The panel will discuss issues involving post-petition earnings, including voluntary assignments of future wages, and the effect of conversion to a chapter 7 proceeding; the “disposable income test”; §§ 1129(a)(15), 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) and 1115(b); and the “absolute priority rule,” among other topics.

Our panel was there at the beginning with the National Bankruptcy Review Commission (Brady Williamson Chair) through the drafting of the law, its passage and, of course, the implementation of the final product in 2005. The panel will discuss the history of the process, what might have been intended by the proponents, and what unintended consequences were created in the process. We expect a lively discussion of this seminal law and the implications for future reform.

How will the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker Botts v. ASARCO affect professional fees? Will there be an increase in fee litigation in future chapter 11 cases? This panel will also explore the Tribune standard for payment of unsecured creditors’ post-petition professionals’ fees, fees awarded as part of global settlements (Lehman), and the recent use of fee examiners. The session could also include a discussion on when disclosure of “representations of parties in unrelated matters” is sufficient, whether conflicts be cured by the appointment of conflicts counsel, a recent Ninth Circuit decision on the potential implications of exceeding fee caps, when it is necessary to obtain a conflict waiver, current vs. recent vs. former clients, and directly adverse vs. positionally adverse.

How are cash-collateral orders and adequate-protection packages being fashioned in E&P bankruptcies, and what intercreditor issues can arise as a result? This panel will discuss questions relating to lender collateral that may surface in E&P cases, such as (1) the absence of blanket liens, liens on reserves and cash as security; (2) the impact of state law defining property rights in such assets as royalty streams and leasehold interests; and (3) contract interpretation issues involving prepayment agreements and other arrangements. The panel will also discuss E&P valuation issues and their relationship to the commodity pricing cycle, as well as environmental obligations and pension/OPEB issues (e.g., Peabody).

What happens after a successful credit bid? This panel will discuss the scope of § 363 sale orders and whether they should or even can address intercreditor issues, corporate governance and funding issues, unitranche deals, the difference in protections between an Agreement Among Lenders and an Intercreditor Agreement, the Radio Shack intercreditor adversary proceeding, § 1111(b) elections (Baker Hughes), adequate protection (In re Chardon) and lien-stripping (Caulkett).

This panel will focus on three current topics: (1) discovery, with an emphasis on the impact of the new federal discovery rules regarding “proportionality”; recent developments in e-discovery, including questions of possession, custody and control in discovery disputes; the Model Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI); and limitations on e-discovery (ResCap); (2) litigating with “common interests,” covering all about what a “common interest” is, whether an agreement is needed and court approval should be sought, the limits compared to attorney/client and work-product privileges, whether “common interests” can cease, and what happens if they do; and (3) STN and 9019s, discussing how 9019 has grown since STN into a tool for resolving potential litigation during a bankruptcy proceeding, who is allowed to settle, exclusive rights to settle, when a committee with a right to prosecute can settle with a debtor and others (Lyondell, Sabine), and whether 9019 in the context of confirmation is any different (NII Holdings, Adelphia).

This panel will discuss how to make sure management (and the board) plays the role of neutral stakeholder throughout a plan and/ or § 363 process. Can the same board and management team truly represent the interests of stakeholders of BOTH a corporate parent and its subsidiaries? What if there are dozens of affiliates whose creditors have disparate interests? Why is the issue of corporate separateness (and related conflicts) overlooked in some multiple-debtor cases, but addressed in others? What are the pros and cons of various tools for addressing potential conflicts? Who should investigate when issues are raised about the validity of intercompany debt, the reasonableness of cost allocations, the ownership of intellectual property and the potential for fraudulent conveyance claims among debtors? Examples discussed may include Nortel, Caesars, EFH, Lehman, Tribune and others.

This session will cover why some out-of-court restructurings fail (EFIH, Walter) while others succeed, MNPI, trading and disclosure issues, no-shop provisions, holdouts and free-riders, and Trust Indenture Act issues.