NO CLE - Very Good Debates

John W. Lucas, Moderator
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP; San Francisco
Judicial Debate
Resolved: The “disinterestedness” requirement should be strictly enforced under § 327 (no waivers or ethical walls).
Pro: Hon. Randall L. Dunn
U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Or.); Portland
Con: Hon. Madeleine C. Wanslee
U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Ariz.); Phoenix
Business Debate
Resolved: Acceleration of a debt obligation under a credit agreement should act to prevent the lender from enforcing a prepayment premium
Pro: Lori Sinanyan
Jones Day; Los Angeles
Con: Michael H. Strub, Jr.
Irell & Manella LLP; Newport Beach, Calif.
Consumer Debate
Resolved: Attorneys should be permitted to unbundle services under an engagement agreement with a consumer debtor.
Pro: Samuel A. Schwartz
The Schwartz Law Firm, Inc.; Las Vegas
Con: John R. Bollinger
Boleman Law Firm, P.C.; Hampton, Va.

Free Session

Users are required to log in before viewing this recording. ABI Members please log in on the right with your username and password. Your audio or video will be available immediately.

If you are NEW to the site, please create an account now to access the audio or video.

If you are having trouble with log in or creating an account contact us at [email protected]