Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

The Intersection of Bankruptcy and Environmental Law

Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 56 Ad
1 of 56 Ad

The Intersection of Bankruptcy and Environmental Law

Environmental laws, propounded in order to hold polluters liable for remediation, are often in conflict with bankruptcy laws’ general principles of a “fresh start” and the ability to shed certain financial burdens. Bankruptcy laws automatic stay is one such protection – the enjoinment of parties from taking actions against the debtor upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition – that is sometimes trumped by environmental law concerns, namely, the police and regulatory exception to the automatic stay.

This webinar addresses the tensions between bankruptcy and environmental law, and examines how bankruptcy law deals with property contamination issues, the sale or abandonment of contaminated property, successor liability, environmental cleanup claims, and dischargeability of governmental claims.

Part of the webinar series: BANKRUPTCY INTERSECTIONS 2022

See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/

Environmental laws, propounded in order to hold polluters liable for remediation, are often in conflict with bankruptcy laws’ general principles of a “fresh start” and the ability to shed certain financial burdens. Bankruptcy laws automatic stay is one such protection – the enjoinment of parties from taking actions against the debtor upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition – that is sometimes trumped by environmental law concerns, namely, the police and regulatory exception to the automatic stay.

This webinar addresses the tensions between bankruptcy and environmental law, and examines how bankruptcy law deals with property contamination issues, the sale or abandonment of contaminated property, successor liability, environmental cleanup claims, and dischargeability of governmental claims.

Part of the webinar series: BANKRUPTCY INTERSECTIONS 2022

See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

More from Financial Poise (20)

Advertisement

The Intersection of Bankruptcy and Environmental Law

  1. 1. 2 Practical and entertaining education for attorneys, accountants, business owners and executives, and investors.
  2. 2. 3 Thank You To Our Sponsors:
  3. 3. Disclaimer The material in this webinar is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered legal, financial or other professional advice. You should consult with an attorney or other appropriate professional to determine what may be best for your individual needs. While Financial Poise™ takes reasonable steps to ensure that information it publishes is accurate, Financial Poise™ makes no guaranty in this regard. 4
  4. 4. Meet the Faculty MODERATOR: Michael J. Kaczka - McDonald Hopkins LLC PANELISTS: Joel M. Gross - Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Gary W. Marsh - Troutman, Pepper, Hamilton & Sanders, LLP 5
  5. 5. About This Webinar The Intersection of Bankruptcy and… Environmental Law Environmental laws holding polluters liable for remediation often conflict with bankruptcy laws designed to permit debtors to shed financial burdens and have a “fresh start.” What happens when theses worthy policies collide? Sometimes the statutes themselves provide an answer. For example, the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code bars creditors from collecting pre-bankruptcy claims (including environmental claims) but contains an exception for governmental exercise of police or regulatory powers (including environmental regulation). But sometimes the clash between environmental and bankruptcy statutes must be resolved by what can only be called judicial policymaking. This webinar addresses the tensions between bankruptcy and environmental law, and examines how bankruptcy law deals with property contamination issues, the sale or abandonment of contaminated property, successor liability, environmental cleanup claims, and dischargeability of governmental claims. 6
  6. 6. About This Series Bankruptcy Intersections 2022 Bankruptcy law is generally a federal-based practice, and governed by title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code). Bankruptcy law, however, is far from an insular practice; there is substantial interplay between bankruptcy law and almost every other area of law due to the myriad legal issues that arise during the course of a bankruptcy case. This webinar series focuses on how issues involving intellectual property, employment and labor, tax law, and environmental law are treated through the prism of bankruptcy. Each Financial Poise Webinar is delivered in Plain English, understandable to investors, business owners, and executives without much background in these areas, yet is of primary value to attorneys, accountants, and other seasoned professionals. Each episode brings you into engaging, sometimes humorous, conversations designed to entertain as it teaches. Each episode in the series is designed to be viewed independently of the other episodes so that participants will enhance their knowledge of this area whether they attend one, some, or all episodes. 7
  7. 7. Episodes in this Series #1: The Intersection of Bankruptcy and… Labor/Employment Law Premiere date: 3/31/22 #2: The Intersection of Bankruptcy and… Intellectual Property Law Premiere date: 4/28/22 #3: The Intersection of Bankruptcy and… Environmental Law Premiere date: 5/26/22 #4: The Intersection of Bankruptcy and…the Uniform Commercial Code Premiere date: 6/30/22 8
  8. 8. Episode #3 The Intersection of Bankruptcy and… Environmental Law 9
  9. 9. Bankruptcy and Environmental Law Policy a. Bankruptcy Goals i. Reorganization (Chapter 11) 1. Maximize value by preserving debtor as going concern, whether to be sold or restructured 2. “Fresh start” for viable business ii. Both Liquidation (Chapter 7) and Reorganization 1. Equality of distribution to unsecured creditors – exceptions to be narrowly construed b. Environmental Goals i. Requires parties to meet environmental standards for protecting human health and environment ii. Polluter bears burden of cleanup costs 10
  10. 10. Bankruptcy and Environmental Law Policy c. Harmonizing Bankruptcy and Environmental Goals i. How to prevent bankruptcy goals from inequitably shifting cleanup liability away from the polluter? ii. Will strict enforcement of environmental goals jeopardize efficient reorganization? 11
  11. 11. Key Players a. Debtor: Business, individual, or municipality that has filed for bankruptcy relief seeking to reorganize or liquidate assets b. Creditors: Any entity holding claim against debtor arising before petition date i. Lenders (often holding a lien on some or substantially all assets of debtor) ii. Trade creditors (suppliers of goods and services, typically unsecured) iii. Tort claimants iv. Current or former directors, officers, employees (in some instances with right of indemnification against personal liability for corporate obligations) v. Adjacent land-owners vi. Off-site waste facilities 12
  12. 12. Key Players (cont’d) c. Government Agencies i. Department of Agriculture ii. Department of Defense iii. Department of Energy iv. Department of the Interior v. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) vi. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vii. State Agencies viii. Indian Tribes d. Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRP”) i. Other parties that may be liable for cleanup costs at sites for which debtor is or may be liable 13
  13. 13. Environmental Considerations When Filing for Bankruptcy a. Debtor required to identify properties that pose a threat of imminent harm to public health or safety b. Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs (“SOFA”) requires array of information concerning environmental matters: i. List of sites for which government has provided notice that debtor may have environmental liability ii. List of sites for which debtor has been given notice regarding releases of hazardous materials (i.e., debtor may be a PRP) iii. List of every judicial or administrative proceeding against debtor under environmental law 14
  14. 14. Debtor’s Environmental Compliance Obligations a. US Code addresses specific obligations of parties in bankruptcy b. 28 U.S.C. § 959 “(a) Trustees, receivers or managers of any property, including debtors in possession, may be sued . . . with respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with such property. . . . (b) [A] debtor in possession shall manage and operate property in [its] possession according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof.” c. Bankruptcy can generally not be used to avoid ongoing environmental obligations arising from continuing operations 15
  15. 15. Key Environmental Statutes: CERCLA a. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (a/k/a “Superfund”) i. Establishes procedures for the remediation of contaminated sites; ii. Provides for liability of persons responsible for release of hazardous substances at sites (present and former owners and operators; waste generators whose materials wound up at the site); and iii. Establishes trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified 16
  16. 16. Key Environmental Statutes: CERCLA (cont’d) b. CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions: i. Short-term removals, where prompt actions may be taken to address release (or threatened release) ii. Long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce dangers associated with releases or threats of release of serious, but not immediately life threatening, hazardous substances 17
  17. 17. Key Environmental Statutes: RCRA and State Laws a. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”) i. Primary goal: reduce generation of waste and regulate proper disposal, treatment, and storage of waste ii. Authorizes private citizens and government to seek injunction to compel cleanup or enjoin contamination, but does not authorize recovery of past cleanup costs b. State Laws i. Not preempted by federal laws ii. Can go beyond federal law 18
  18. 18. Key Environmental Statutes: The Clean Water Act a. Primary purpose of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (1972)) is to restore and protect quality of nation’s surface waters b. Imposes liability on parties or facilities that discharge hazardous substances into waters of the US, including territorial seas c. Violations may result in polluters being liable for cleanup costs as well as civil and criminal penalties, subject to certain liability caps d. Penalties may be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7) 19
  19. 19. Key Statutes In Energy / Utility Bankruptcies a. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) – regulation and reclamation (clean-up) of coal mines (30 U.S.C. § 1202 et seq.) b. Federal Power Act – through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates wholesale power markets, including contracts for wholesale power that may be at issue in bankruptcy (16 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.) c. Atomic Energy Act – covers development, regulation, and disposal of nuclear materials and facilities, including decommissioning of nuclear power plants (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) 20
  20. 20. Asbestos Liability and Trusts a. Asbestos companies’ reorganization plans reviewed under § 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code i. Bankruptcy court may confirm reorganization plan that establishes trust to avoid further asbestos law suits ii. Trust is used to pay current and future asbestos claims. For example, In re W.R. Grace & Co: debtor paid U.S. Government over $63 million to resolve environmental liability claims under plan, related to cleanup of asbestos and other hazardous substances iii. Debtor establishes trust, managed by trustee who decides amount of compensation paid to claimants 21
  21. 21. Ordinary Course of Business Transactions a. Debtors in chapter 11 may continue operating in ordinary course of business without court approval i. Generally, environmental remediation activities with respect to sites owned or operated by debtor are considered in ordinary course of business ii. Examples include: 1. Entering into remediation contracts with environmental consultants 2. Maintaining groundwater cleanup programs 3. Performing environmental investigations as called for under governmental orders 22
  22. 22. The Automatic Stay – Section 362 a. Commencing bankruptcy case triggers an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) i. The automatic stay is an injunction that (among other things) bars creditors from collecting debts or exercising control over the debtor’s property during the bankruptcy ii. Party seeking to take actions barred by the automatic stay must first obtain leave from the bankruptcy court 23
  23. 23. The Automatic Stay – Police Power Exception a. Section 362(b)(4) provides police power exception to automatic stay i. Permits government entities to continue enforcing regulatory requirements against debtor, but not to collect a money judgment ii. Most courts treat enforcement of environmental orders as within the government’s police and regulatory powers iii. Courts have wrestled with the boundary between regulatory enforcement (permitted) and collecting monetary judgment (barred) iv. Thus, some courts allow continued prosecution of action for money judgment through the point where judgment is entered iii. And environmental penalty claims may or may not fall into the police power exception 24
  24. 24. Chapter 11 Plan a. In chapter 11 cases, debtor has exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization during first 120 days of case i. May be extended up to 18 months for cause shown ii. During this time, debtor evaluates environmental issues at contaminated sites iii. Different considerations required depending on type of site in question: 1. Owned 2. Operated 3. Formerly owned 4. Non-owned third-party site 5. Sites subject to existing administrative or judicial orders 25
  25. 25. Chapter 11 Plan (cont’d) b. Creditor or equity security holder whose rights are altered by plan has right to vote to accept or reject it i. Debtors with significant environmental issues may face lengthy and difficult negotiations trying to obtain enough votes to accept plan c. An alternative approach is for the debtor to seek confirmation of a plan despite rejection by one or more classes – a process colloquially referred to as “cramdown” i. Successful cramdown requires that the debtor satisfy certain minimum standards for treatment of the dissenting class, and usually requires extensive and expensive litigation 26
  26. 26. Chapter 11 Plan (cont’d) c. On “effective date” of plan, custodial trusts may be established, environmental settlement agreements become effective, and claims are discharged. d. Debtors sometimes attempt to enjoin claims against non-debtor affiliates. While theoretically available in some Circuits, such releases are seldom approved. See, e.g., In re First Energy Solutions Corp., Case No. 18-50757 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019) (proposed release of affiliates from PRP liability rendered plan non-confirmable).
  27. 27. Environmental Settlement Agreements a. Agreement between polluting company (here, the debtor) and government (often the EPA) to settle environmental liability i. “Global settlements” include all of debtor’s sites 1. Advantage: simple structure 2. Disadvantage: May involve many parties, increasing difficulty in negotiation ii. Some settlements involve separate agreements concerning limited number of sites iii. Settlements sometimes cover “additional sites” that may be identified later, and typically provide for treatment similar to other general unsecured claims 28
  28. 28. Environmental Settlement Agreements (cont’d) a. CERCLA § 122 authorizes the EPA to negotiate settlement agreements with potentially liable parties under CERCLA § 107 i. EPA has authority to enter into settlement agreement with party to perform response to Superfund site if agreement is: 1. In the public interest, and 2. Consistent with “National Contingency Plan”: Organizational structure & procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants in the US 29
  29. 29. Environmental Settlement Agreements – Covenant Not to Sue a. EPA may agree to a covenant not to sue debtor that covers variety of sites i. Allows debtor’s business to move forward without risk of further liability for past environmental issues ii. Specific considerations for debtor negotiating covenant not to sue: 1. Statutory coverage: more than just CERCLA? 2. Entity coverage: affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, etc. 3. Scope: does coverage include non-owned or not-yet-identified sites? 30
  30. 30. Environmental Settlement Agreements – Contribution Protection a. CERCLA § 113(f)(2) provides “a person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the settlement.” b. Provision has been used to protect parties who settled liability with the federal government from suit by other parties i. But in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007), U.S. Supreme Court left open question as to whether party may bring cost recovery action under CERCLA § 107 against party that settled its liability under § 113 c. Contribution rights may also form the basis of claims against debtors from PRPs -- Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). 31
  31. 31. Environmental Settlement Agreements – Comment Period and Noticing Requirements a. Federal government and some states require public notice and comment period before settlement agreement can be entered into b. In some instances a public meeting must be held 32
  32. 32. Environmental Settlement Agreements – Trustee Selection a. Where settlement agreement calls for custodial trust to hold property, custodial trustee is typically appointed to manage the trust i. Selection process frequently involves: 1. identifying potential trustees, 2. application from potential trustees, or presentation demonstrating qualifications, and 3. evaluation and decision of the best candidate ii. Government agency parties to settlement typically have great influence over trustee selection 33
  33. 33. 363 Sales and Successor Liability a. Bankruptcy Code § 363 allows debtor to use, sell, or lease property of bankruptcy estate, but court approval is needed when outside the ordinary course of business b. § 363 sales are increasingly used instead of plans of reorganization c. General rule in asset sales is that the purchaser does not acquire any liabilities of the seller, but environmental claims may not be included: i. Some courts hold § 363 sales can extinguish prepetition or pre-sale environmental claims, but not claims arising after conclusion of the case ii. Asset purchaser may also be liable as successor in interest to debtor for CERCLA liability iii. Asset purchaser not protected from liability associated with its own ownership of property even where debtor (or its predecessors) caused the contamination 34
  34. 34. Abandonment of Property Affected by Environmental Issues a. Bankruptcy Code § 554(a) provides that, “[a]fter notice and a hearing, [a debtor] may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit of the estate.” b. Supreme Court has limited debtor’s right to abandon environmentally impaired properties. Property may not be abandoned in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards. Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494 (1986). 35
  35. 35. Discharging Environmental Claims a. A key benefit to bankruptcy is the ability to discharge debts and liabilities b. But . . . environmental liabilities may not always be discharged c. To be discharged, a liability must be a “claim” i. A claim includes a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” Bankruptcy Code § 101(5)(a) 1. Government’s pre-bankruptcy right to payment of money is a claim subject to discharge 2. Governmental creditor must file a proof of claim, but filing deadline for governmental claims may not be earlier than 180 days after case filing 3. Unless secured, government claim is treated as general unsecured claim 36
  36. 36. Discharging Environmental Claims (cont’d) b. Are cleanup orders a claim that can be discharged? It depends. i. In Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a debtor’s obligation to a governmental agency to clean up environmental damages at site not owned by debtor was dischargeable claim because obligation was effectively reduced to money judgment. ii. In re Torwico Electronics, Inc., 8 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1993), and U.S. v. Apex Oil Co., 579 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2009), treat the debtor’s obligation to clean up a non-owned site as a non-monetary obligation rather than as a “claim” that may be discharged, even though spending money is required to fulfill the obligation. 37
  37. 37. Discharging Environmental Claims (cont’d) a. Prepetition monetary judgments pursued by a private party will constitute a claim subject to discharge: i. Parties must file proofs of claims ii. Generally a claim based on a judgment is a general unsecured claim b. What if another PRP wants contribution from the debtor for future cleanup costs for which the debtor is responsible for under environmental statutes? i. Bankruptcy Code §502(e)(1)(B) addresses this issue, providing for disallowance of contingent claims for reimbursement or contribution where claimant is co-liable with debtor 38
  38. 38. Claims for Contribution or Reimbursement a. Bankruptcy Code § 502(e)(1)(B) b. Courts apply a 3-part test when interpreting § 502(e)(1)(B) c. Each part of the test must be satisfied: i. Contingency: claim must be contingent at time of allowance or disallowance ii. Co-liability: party asserting claim must be liable with debtor on claim of third party iii. Reimbursement or contribution: claim must be for reimbursement or contribution iv. If PRPs hold a contingent contribution claim that may be disallowed, they can monitor whether the government files a claim and if it does not, file on the government’s behalf 39
  39. 39. Government Environmental Penalty Claims a. Prepetition penalty claims are certainly not entitled to priority b. Compensatory postpetition penalty claims i. If the fine is really an incurred clean-up cost, then such compensatory claims are entitled to administrative priority. See Com. of Pa. Dept. of Envtl. Res. v. Conroy, 24 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 1994). 40
  40. 40. Government Environmental Penalty Claims (cont’d) a. Non-Compensatory postpetition penalty claims i. In the 3rd Cir. non-compensatory penalty claims are not entitled to administrative priority. See PA Dep't of Envtl. Res. v. Tri-State Clinical Labs., Inc., 178 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 1999). ii. In the 1st Cir. such claims are entitled to administrative priority. See In re Munce's Sup. Petroleum Prod., Inc., 736 F.3d 567 (1st Cir. 2013). b. Fines for failure to abate prepetition conduct i. In the 11th Cir. non-compensatory penalty claims for failure to abate prepetition conduct are not entitled to administrative priority. See In re N.P. Mining Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1992). 41
  41. 41. Due Process and Sufficient Notice of Discharge a. Claim will not be discharged if debtor: i. Fails to serve a known creditor with notice of date by which claims must be filed (the “bar date”); or ii. Fails to publish notice of bar date to alert unknown creditors they must file claims b. How much detail a publication notice needs to provide has been a subject of debate, as has the question of how much effort the debtor needs to undertake to identify creditors so they qualify as “known.” See, e.g., Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 881 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2018) (discussing both issues). 42
  42. 42. Due Process and Sufficient Notice of Discharge (cont’d) a. Differentiating between known and unknown environmental claim may be unclear, for example: i. Contractual environmental indemnification and hold-harmless obligations may exist against debtor; or ii. Debtor’s neighbor whose property may be contaminated may give rise to claims b. Remedy afforded to claim holders who did not receive adequate notice may be difficult to determine; claimant may not be bound by i. Debtor’s discharge, and any injunctions protecting affiliates, under ch. 11 plan ii. Provisions of § 363 sale order protecting buyer from successor liability 43
  43. 43. Exceptions to the Discharge a. Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(2)(A), made applicable through §1141(d)(6), provides an exception to dischargeability for certain debts obtained through a debtor’s fraudulent conduct—i.e., false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud b. Government agencies have been aggressive is trying to shoehorn prepetition environmental penalty claims into the discharge exception. See In re Exide Tech., 613 B.R. 79 (D. Del. 2020) ; In re Peabody Energy Corp., 599 B.R. 610 (E.D. Mo. 2019). c. Courts generally rule that penalty claims are not excepted from discharge 44
  44. 44. Executory Contracts a. Bankruptcy Code § 365 allows a debtor to reject or assume executory contracts, generally defined as contracts with material unperformed obligations on both sides b. Rejection of an executory contract results in a prepetition claim for damages against debtor, generally treated as a general unsecured claim c. Issues can arise as to environmental contracts i. PRP agreement is likely an executory contract ii. How about a consent decree? d. Courts may consider non-debtor’s attempted termination of executory contract to be breach of the automatic stay 45
  45. 45. Withdrawal of Reference 1. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) requires that the district court withdraw from the bankruptcy court any proceeding that the court determines “requires consideration of both title 11 [the Bankruptcy Code] and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” 2. Environmental laws are all based on the Commerce Clause. So there can be efforts to withdraw the reference concerning environmental issues. 3. Non-debtor parties often prefer to be in district court; debtors typically prefer to be in bankruptcy court. District courts are generally reluctant to withdraw bankruptcy matters from bankruptcy court. 46
  46. 46. About the Faculty 47
  47. 47. About The Faculty Michael J. Kaczka - mkaczka@mcdonaldhopkins.com Michael is a member in the Strategic Advisory & Restructuring Department of McDonald Hopkins and resides in the Cleveland office. With engagements throughout the United States, Michael focuses primarily on representing clients regarding strategic alternatives, including: out-of-court and in court restructurings, workouts, bankruptcies, and receiverships; mergers and acquisitions; refinancings; and sale transactions (both in- and out-of-court). He also advises clients on fiduciary duties and other governance matters. Michael has experience advising clients in a variety of industries, including manufacturing & industrial, retail, franchises, plastics, real estate, food & restaurants, healthcare, automotive, and chemical & metallurgical. Michael earned a Juris Doctor from Case Western Reserve University School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, from Washington and Lee University. 48
  48. 48. About the Faculty Joel M. Gross - Joel.Gross@arnoldporter.com Joel Gross is a partner in Arnold & Porter LLP’s Washington, DC, office, which he joined in August 2000 after having served as Chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section at the US Department of Justice (DOJ). He is a member of the firm’s environmental practice group. Mr. Gross represents and advises clients in litigation and non-litigation matters under federal and state environmental laws, with a special emphasis on compliance and enforcement issues. He advises clients on compliance strategies that can minimize the risk of enforcement actions, and has represented a wide range of clients in connection with ongoing civil and or criminal enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. He also represents clients dealing with, and seeking innovative approaches to resolve, remediation and natural resource damages liabilities arising from contaminated sites. Mr. Gross has a special interest in the interaction of the environmental laws and the bankruptcy laws and has represented both debtors and creditors in connection with environmental disputes in bankruptcy proceedings around the country. To read more about Mr. Gross, please visit: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-faculty/joel-gross/ 49
  49. 49. About the Faculty Gary W. Marsh - gary.marsh@troutman.com Gary Marsh is a partner with Troutman, Pepper, Hamilton & Sanders, LLP in Atlanta. A veteran restructuring attorney focused on all aspects of bankruptcy, workouts, debtor and creditor law, Gary’s practice also encompasses general commercial litigation. He represents debtors and creditors in Chapter 11 cases, out-of-court restructurings and litigation. He also represents court appointed receivers, examiners and trustees. Gary’s practice primarily involves representing financial institutions and servicers in and out of court in enforcing their rights and remedies. He also analyzes and defends against preference and fraudulent conveyance actions, represents buyers of assets out of bankruptcy and represents landlords and other parties who have leases or contracts with debtors. Gary has deep industry experience particularly with healthcare, energy and real estate insolvencies. 50
  50. 50. Questions or Comments? If you have any questions about this webinar that you did not get to ask during the live premiere, or if you are watching this webinar On Demand, please do not hesitate to email us at info@financialpoise.com with any questions or comments you may have. Please include the name of the webinar in your email and we will do our best to provide a timely response. IMPORTANT NOTE: The material in this presentation is for general educational purposes only. It has been prepared primarily for attorneys and accountants for use in the pursuit of their continuing legal education and continuing professional education. 51
  51. 51. Commercial Bankruptcy Litigation is a must-have resource for any non-bankruptcy attorney who is involved in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. It is also a handy “take on the road” treatise for the experienced chapter 11 professional. This 2,000- plus page treatise, updated yearly, and with contributions from some of the country's most respected practitioners from top firms across the U.S., covers topics from general bankruptcy and procedure to appeals. Commercial Bankruptcy Litigation, 2d, 2022 ed. eBook available through Thomson and Reuters and Amazon
  52. 52. Strategic Alternatives For And Against Distressed Businesses, 2022 ed. Strategic Alternatives for And Against Distressed Businesses is one of a kind. It is the only resource that provides comprehensive state-by-state comparisons of assignments for the benefit of creditors and receiverships. This alone makes the book a must-have for every insolvency professional. “If you can only own one book about corporate restructuring and insolvency, there is a compelling case that this should be the one.” eBook available through Thomson and Reuters and Amazon
  53. 53. ABOUT DailyDAC DailyDAC.com is the leading source of information about assignments, article 9, bankruptcy, receiverships, out-of-court workouts and vulture investing, designed for business owners and vulture investors. Visit us at www.dailydac.com. Premium Public Notice Service DailyDAC’s Premium Public Notice Service helps market asset sales on behalf of fiduciaries (e.g., Chapter 11 debtors- in-possession and committees, trustees, receivers, assignees), secured lenders selling collateral under UCC Article 9, and auctioneers to a very large and self-selected group of potential bidders and their advisors. The Service also assists with noticing other events, deadlines, and milestones – including tombstones and other press releases. Our free weekly newsletter, DailyDAC contains our latest bankruptcy article, current Public Notices and all opportunistic deals added to our proprietary database that week. Sign up at: https://www.dailydac.com/dacyak-weekly-newsletter-signup/
  54. 54. About Financial Poise 56 Financial Poise™ has one mission: to provide reliable plain English business, financial, and legal education to individual investors, entrepreneurs, business owners and executives. Visit us at www.financialpoise.com Our free weekly newsletter, Financial Poise Weekly, updates you on new articles published on our website and Upcoming Webinars you may be interested in. To join our email list, please visit: https://www.financialpoise.com/subscribe/

×