Man In The News: Lehman Examiner Anton R. Valukas

Submitted by Steven Meyerowitz on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 8:51am

The report issued yesterday by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy examiner, Anton R. Valukas, brings to many people a concept that is not often in the public view: the bankruptcy examiner. Under Bankruptcy Code Section 1106(a)(3), an examiner who is appointed in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case

is obligated to “investigate the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor, the operation of the debtor’s business and the desirability of the continuance of such business, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan [unless ordered otherwise.]” Bankruptcy Code Section 1106(a)(4) provides that the examiner must, among other things, “file a statement of any investigation conducted . . . including any fact ascertained pertaining to fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct, mismanagement, or irregularity in the management of the affairs of the debtor, or to a cause of action available to the estate[.]” Hence, the report released yesterday. 

The examiner in the Lehman Brothers case is Anton R. Valukas, the chairman of the Jenner & Block law firm and a partner in the firm’s Litigation Department.  A former U.S. Attorney, Valukas specializes in major civil and white collar criminal litigation, representing individuals and leading corporations in contested proceedings throughout the nation. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and is listed in Best Lawyers in America for both business litigation and criminal law.  He serves as a member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.  Valukas is AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell’s highest peer recognition for ethical standards and legal ability.

Valukas represents many Fortune 500 companies and public entities with regard to conflict of interest, ethics violations and internal corporate investigations.  He has extensive experience in representing clients in SEC investigations and in civil securities fraud lawsuits.  Recently Valukas was lead counsel for General Motors in an SEC investigation and settlement. 

Valukas has been a partner with Jenner & Block from 1976 through the present, with the exception of his tenure as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois from 1985 through 1989.  Prior to Jenner & Block, Valukas held several positions with the U.S. Department of Justice, including Assistant United States Attorney (1970-1974), Chief of the Special Prosecutions Division (1974), and First Assistant U.S. Attorney (1975-1976).  Upon his graduation from law school, Valukas served for two years as Assistant Director of the National Defender Project, a Ford Foundation program funded to establish Defender Offices for indigents in various states.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Comments

From a tangled web . . .

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 04/21/2010 - 3:12pm.

The Examiner presented a very clear report with substantial, decisive findings. I wanted to know who this is, so I read Mr. Valukas background on his firm's web page and was very impressed with what he publishes and his other life activities. This leads me to believe he is very honest and very academic in his approach. However, his clients are businesses whose interests he represents in similar cases. To what extent does this fact color or temper his expectations of business executives? I know from having represented management in labor negotiations, that it is possible to see good and bad management and labor and that given very difficult circumstances, any management decision will be subject to very serious scrutiny. I assume it will ultimately be up to the judge to make the determinations about what is actionable or colorable behavior and what is poor business judgment which apparently is not actionable. When it's a case of judgment, then it seems we have to rely on corporate Boards to make the right decisions about their executive appointments. So, it is up to the Boards of these companies to remove executives whose judgment proves to be the downfall of an organization. It seems highly critical to a Board's decisions in appointing executives that they carefully investigate and scrutinize a potential appointee's proven background of open, honest work ethic. And, a corporate executive's contract should include immediate dismissal without recourse and without fulfilling the remaining terms of the contract if that executive and any of his or her team withholds information from a Board, as apparently occurred in this case. Such actions would go a long way in improving investor confidence.
Carol A. Laurich, Rockaway Beach, Oregon