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/

2. 2
Practical and entertaining education for
attorneys, accountants, business owners and
executives, and investors.

3. 3
Thank You To Our Sponsors:

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Episode #3
The Intersection of Bankruptcy and… Environmental Law
9

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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).

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. About the Faculty
47

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

55. 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/

56. 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/