Snyder Named New Committee Co-chair
At the conclusion of the 2005 Annual Spring Meeting, Nancy A. Peterman (Greenberg Traurig LLP), who has been a co-chair of the committee for the past several years, stepped down. We thank Nancy for her service to the committee!
William K. Snyder (Corporate Revitalization Partners LLC) was named the new co-chair. Mr. Snyder has more than 20 years of experience managing and consulting with companies in a wide range of industries, including telecommunications. We look forward to his insights as a turnaround consultant for high-tech and telecommunications companies. Mr. Snyder can be reached at wsnyder@crpllc.net.
e-Pinned and e-Trapped in Technology
by Jack Seward, New York
Technology rules never said it would be like this. Then again, technology seldom works as well as it might in a rules-based environment, and that is certainly true of bankruptcy law. The focus of this article is how the sharing of privileged communications and work-product resulted in waiving the attorney-client privilege that should have existed. The article discusses how the intrusion into an attorney’s electronic information can easily happen; that is a fact of technology, and it will not be changed anytime soon.
Adequate Assurances for Utility Services Under Revised §366 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Lessons from In re Supra Telecommunications & Systems Inc.
by Michael S. Budwick, Meland Russin Hellinger & Budwick PA, Miami
Section 366 Requires a Debtor to Provide a Utility Adequate Assurances of Payment for Post-petition Services
Section 366(a) of the Bankruptcy Code prevents a utility from altering, refusing or discontinuing service to, or discriminating against, a debtor during the first 20 days after the filing of a bankruptcy case solely on the basis that the debtor (1) filed a bankruptcy petition or (2) is indebted to the utility for service rendered pre-petition. Section 366(b) in turn authorizes the utility to alter, refuse or discontinue service unless within 20 days of the petition date the debtor provides the utility “adequate assurance of payment” for post-petition services. Section 366(b) provides that the “adequate assurance of payment” may take “the form of a deposit or other security,” although “assurance of payment” is not specifically defined and has been the subject of litigation in telecommunication chapter 11 cases. Recently, some reported decisions have held that affording the utility an administrative expense priority may constitute a satisfactory form of adequate assurance based on the “totality of the circumstances.” See, e.g., In re Adelphia Business Solutions Inc., 280 B.R. 63 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Minutes from the 2005 Annual Spring Meeting
Educational Session: E-Discovery—The Pitfalls and Benefits
The Technology & Telecommunication Cases Committee held its biannual educational session and meeting at the 2005 Annual Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. The meeting began with a presentation by Kevin Finger, litigation shareholder at Greenberg Traurig LLP, and Gary Mennitt, litigation partner at Dechert LLP, on e-discovery issues. Mr. Finger and Mr. Mennitt shared their insights on the pitfalls and benefits of e-discovery—and more importantly, how e-discovery has impacted trials.
After the presentation, we held a brief committee meeting and solicited volunteers to help with committee projects, including monitoring the listserve and preparing articles for the upcoming e-newsletters. If anyone is interested in helping out on committee projects, please contact Joel Levitin or William Snyder.
Volunteers
Our committee is looking for volunteers! We need assistance in preparing the quarterly e-newsletters and planning upcoming educational sessions for the committee meetings. We are also interested in ideas for committee projects. Please e-mail Joel Levitin or William Snyder to volunteer or share ideas!