The Delaware Chancery Court has found the recapitalization of a media production company entirely fair. Faced with the possibility of bankruptcy and unable to service its debt, the company's board of directors (acting through its special committee) approved a revised recapitalization plan proposed by the company's majority stockholder and primary debt holder. The special committee retained independent legal counsel and a financial advisor. The special committee, after engaging in extensive due diligence, determined to negotiate the recapitalization proposal.

A New York bankruptcy judge has refused to permit a debtor to use rents generated by its real property because the rents absolutely assigned to the lender pre-petition were not property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.2 Before the bankruptcy filing, the lender sent the borrower a default notice and terminated the borrower's license to collect rents. The lender also directed tenants to pay rents to it and not the borrower, commenced a foreclosure action, and sought appointment of a receiver.

Reversing the bankruptcy court, a Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that a debtor in a single asset real estate case did not provide adequate protection to a creditor by providing replacement liens in the rents where there was no equity cushion.4 The notion that granting the lender a lien on future rents to replace the expenditure of prior months' rents was rejected. Accordingly, the appellate panel held that the debtor could not use rents collected post-petition to pay ordinary administrative expenses, such as fees of its professionals.

It is commonly known that a borrower's agreement with a third party not to file a bankruptcy case is unenforceable due to public policy considerations. Accordingly, lenders have searched for ways to make it difficult or painful for their borrowers to file for bankruptcy, such as imposing the requirement that prior authorization of an independent director or member be a prerequisite to a bankruptcy filing by the borrower, or requiring the borrower's principal to execute a non-recourse carve-out guaranty that would impose personal liability should the borrower file for bankruptcy.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals' February 7, 2011 decision, which reversed the confirmation of a plan of reorganization for DBSD North America, Inc. ("DBSD")1 is likely to have an impact nationwide.

A recent decision may provide important ammunition to Madoff investors against "clawback" actions brought by the SIPC Trustee overseeing the Madoff bankruptcy estate (the "Madoff Trustee").1 The Madoff Trustee alleges that investors who withdrew monies from their accounts fraudulently transferred estate property under state and federal law, regardless of whether they lost more than they withdrew.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held that under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company do not have standing to pursue a derivative claim against the managers of the company.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has granted the plaintiffs' request for judicial dissolution of BVWebTies LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In the case, co-equal owners and managers of the LLC disagreed over the company's management. The company's LLC agreement, however, provided no method by which to break a deadlock among the members.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held the seller in an asset purchase transaction liable for breach of an exclusivity provision in the subject asset purchase agreement, dismissing the seller's argument that the fiduciary duties owed by management to creditors negate the contractual exclusivity provision.

A recent bankruptcy court decision, which approved procedures governing upcoming claw back litigation, paves the way for the start of long-feared claw back litigation against investor victims of the Madoff fraud. The claw back suits will seek to recover funds withdrawn from Madoff accounts prior to the revelation of the scheme. Many had hoped that SIPC Trustee Irving Picard might refrain from bringing mass law suits against these so-called "net winners" because of the immense harm such suits will harm to people who have already suffered enormously from the fraud.