ABI Labor and Employment Committee Webinar – a panel discussion of recent developments in several large complex bankruptcy cases, including Hostess, Kodak, Nortel and American Airlines.
Do “Out-of-the-Money” Creditors Have Standing? There are many chapter 11’s filed primarily to sell the collateral for undersecured creditors—meaning that there isn’t any value generated for unsecured creditors or equity. This panel will explore the various issues that result such as basic standing and the appropriateness of forming and maintaining a creditors committee and an equity committee. The panel will also discuss the various arguments put forth to justify a carveout or “gift” for unsecured creditors and the often used “pay-to-play” rule occasionally asserted by out-of-the-money creditor groups. It will also examine ways to identify unencumbered assets early in the case and the possible benefits of keeping them free from post-petition liens granted to DIP Lenders. Lastly, the panel will discuss ways to maximize the Chapter 5 claims and the use of liquidating assets.
Sharing a Piece of the Pie: Gift Plans, Structured Dismissals and Carve-Outs Often bankruptcy is the best way for under-secured creditors to optimize collateral recoveries. But the price for bankruptcy relief is that secured creditors must share their recoveries with out-of-the money constituencies. This panel will explore such sharing arrangements in a variety of contexts–carve outs, gift plans and structured dismissals.
Litigating the Cramdown Rate “Cram down” requires full payment of secured classes. This, in turn, requires a present value analysis of the dividends secured creditors will receive under the plan. This panel will review what debtors and secured creditors need to show to establish a cramdown rate and the nuts-and-bolts evidentiary issues joined by cramdown litigation.
Stern v. Marshall: One Year Later In June 2011, the Supreme Court issued its watershed decision in Stern v. Marshall, restricting the scope of bankruptcy court jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Stern has confounded judges, litigants and commentators alike. Although characterized by the Supreme Court as a “narrow” decision, Stern is proving to have widespread implications, the full extent of which remain to be seen as cases work their way through the bankruptcy, district and appellate courts. This panel will survey the contexts in which Stern has posed issues, the decisions construing and applying Stern in the year since it was decided, and the possible legislative responses to the decision.
Financial projections are the foundation for most enterprise valuation. How much deference should management projections be accorded? How do you determine whether projections are unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic? What is the relevance of "market consensus"? How do management's incentives impact projections? Hear what this ABI panel of experts has to say on business projections and more at this live webinar. Approved for 1.0 CLE hours in CA, GA, HI, IL, NY (approved jurisdiction policy) SC, TX. Pending in DE, FL, PA, TN
Does the absolute priority rule still require absolute priority?; protecting stock transfers from avoidance actions through the use of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e); implications of the Dodd-Frank Act; substantive consolidation; liquidating Chapter 11s: potential conflicts of interest when unsecured creditors’ committee is the liquidating agent; credit-bidding issues.