%1

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.

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?

This session will focus on key issues in a health care restructuring or bankruptcy from a creditor's point of view. It will address issues pertaining to both secured and unsecured creditors. Possible topics include: (1) understanding ways health care businesses are financed (receivables financing, municipal bond financing); (2) bankruptcy alternatives (receiverships, ABC, workouts); (3) DIP financing for health care businesses; (4) anticipating regulatory review; (5) issues concerning health care 363 sales; (6) issues facing committees in health care bankruptcy cases; and more.