%1

Parties in large, complex bankruptcy cases routinely retain local counsel when that party's primary counsel has no office or attorneys licensed in a particular venue. Local counsel can provide critical support in these cases--to creditors, committees, groups, and debtors--including having local knowledge, well-formed relationships in the venue, and familiarity with other professionals and the court.

But hiring local counsel can present myriad issues with retention, compensation, and, in particular, ethics. Many courts have strict rules on hiring local counsel, including some jurisdictions that require local counsel to play a substantive role in the case (as opposed to simply signing/filing pleadings), including attending all depositions and hearings. There may be many landmines waiting for both local and outside counsel, depending on the jurisdiction.

This panel would discuss the benefits of local counsel, things to avoid, and ethical/compensation related issues. The panel could consist of an attorney that often serves as local counsel, an attorney that often hires local counsel as outside counsel, and a judge that frequently sees retention of local counsel (to provide that judge's views on what works, what doesn't, and things to avoid).

This session will discuss bankruptcy issues that arise in connection with financing structures common at various stages in the growth of life sciences company, including early stage venture lending , drug development lending, royalty monetizations, and synthetic royalties/revenue interest financings and other hybrid finance structures. Bankruptcy issues include treatment of rights in IP and licensed IP as collateral and under royalty sale structures; executory contract issues with respect to material contracts related to recovery of value of financing (e.g., supply contracts for manufacture of drug); secured or unsecured status under synthetic and hybrid structures; and structuring deals to mitigate bankruptcy.
Recent cases will be discussed to illustrate the features of common structures and treatment of bankruptcy risks and issues by courts (cases include PhaseBio, Mallinckrodt and Clovis).

The Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company held that insurers qualified as "parties in interest" under Section 1109(b), entitling those insurers to object to a plan of reorganization. This landmark decision is likely to have far-ranging effects in the reorganization world and affect debtors and creditors committees alike. The ABI should host a panel examining the expected extent and impact of those effects, including that:
- debtors and creditors should prepare for the fact that insurance carriers will start getting a seat at the negotiating table;
- the insurance industry may view Truck as not merely granting a seat at the table, but also as an invitation to test the boundaries of its newly granted position;
- Truck presents an existential threat to the already-risky tack of chapter 11 plans' limiting director and officer liability to only insurance proceeds;
- insurance carriers will likely leverage Truck to urge courts in jurisdictions that deem insurance proceeds to be property of the estate to reexamine the status quo; and
- insurance carriers will begin to horse-trade for concessions in connection with first-day motions and debtors' purchasing tail coverage and run-off policies post-petition.

The session will introduce commercial bankruptcy practitioners to creative solutions in confirming plans that seems unconfirmable under § 1129(a)(10). To achieve this goal, the audience will be introduced to the issues surrounding artificial impairment, no voting classes, and insiders strategically abstaining from voting. The audience will then be introduced to the toolbox of section 1191(b) alternative cramdown solutions, which the panelists will explain are surprisingly within the reach of a subgroup of cases until now considered complex.

The focus of the panel would be to identify uniquely Canadian distressed deal structures and litigation techniques that could be imported to the American restructuring practice. Would cover developments from coast to coast by including at least 3 Canadian practitioners from the West Coast, Central Canada and Quebec would be selected once the audience was determined. For example key points would be: could you get a reverse vesting order under Chapter 11?

Describing the nature of the loans, how they are marketed and the scope of their usage in the marketplace. Addressing legal strategies on how to debtor's and other creditors can use the bankruptcy process to curb the abuses of these lenders.

The session will review the big deals in distressed investing in 2024 and make some predictions about 2025.
I would envision 3 speakers addressing small, medium and large sized transactions. The panelists would include claims trader, real estate investor, and hard asset (private equity) investor. The moderator could be an attorney that services these constituencies.

Panel session with 4 panelists discussing whether firms are better led by their own partners/fee earners stepping up to Managing/Senior Partner roles, or if a separate CEO / CFO / COO structure that is run by professionals who are not fee earning is more suitable in this day and age. Looking at relevant leadership issues such as Succession Planning, Fees and Profitability, Retaining Talent and big issues that will affect over the next 5 years.

After the Supreme Court's reversal in Purdue, Debtors subject to mass tort liability will not be able to reorganize utilizing third party releases under a plan. Prior to Purdue, the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits all prohibited third party releases but debtor subject to mass tort liability have nonetheless been able to reorganize. How did those debtors confirm their plans without third party releases? How will mass tort reorganization different after Purdue?

The Bankruptcy Code and Non-Bankruptcy law preserve or limit claims at the outset of the case and after confirmation of a plan during the claim reconciliation process. For example, claims arising from the purchase of perishable fruits and vegetables are accorded certain treatment in a bankruptcy case under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act or claims governed by applicable sales tax statutes. Claims arising from employees are given priority (but capped) and claims arising from the rejection of a real property lease or employment contract are capped. This panel will consider the claim reconciliation process during a bankruptcy case and the the Bankruptcy Code and Non-Bankruptcy law affect those claims.