The recent economic tumult brings to the forefront the issue of fiduciary duties in the context of insolvency – an unfortunate circumstance faced by an increasing number of boards of directors and shareholders in these troubled times.

Directors and officers managing corporations, especially when the corporation is insolvent or operating in insolvency situations, need to be cognizant of their fiduciary duties. This alert provides a brief overview of these fiduciary duties, including practical considerations in the exercise of these duties.

Fiduciary Duties When a Corporation is Solvent

As a general rule, a debtor realizes taxable income upon the partial or total cancellation of its debt. Special rules may apply, however, when the debtor is a “pass-through” entity—e.g., a partnership, a limited liability company (LLC) that is treated as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes or a subchapter S corporation. Cancellation of debt (COD) income realized by a pass-through entity generally passes through to the entity’s owners, with each owner being required to report its allocable share of such income on its own income tax return.

With the economic crisis leading to the failure of many businesses, bankruptcy cases are on the rise. In many of the cases grabbing headlines, such as Lehman Brothers, Nellson Nutraceutical, New Century and SemCrude, courts have shown a willingness to appoint examiners to investigate, report on and make recommendations regarding possible issues of mismanagement, fraud or other improprieties relating to the affairs of the debtor or its former or current management.

Bankruptcy is a highly specialized legal practice area that can be difficult for the non-lawyer to navigate. Bankruptcy can also present many traps for the unwary. A bankruptcy or distressed financial situation will in most cases materially affect a company’s key relationships, customers, suppliers and business partners. All company decision makers need an understanding of how to react to protect their organization’s interests. Here are ten practical considerations to recognize in this distressed environment.

With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).

Retiree benefits are often a central issue in bankruptcy cases. For many employers the high cost of retiree medical benefits has been a significant contributing factor to the Chapter 11 filing and a matter of ongoing concern if the debtor is to be able to successfully reorganize. Understandably, employees, retirees and unions are equally concerned about the status of retiree benefits. Their obvious interest is to attempt to prevent the erosion of benefits that had been expected to be available during retirement.

On January 13, 2009, in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, the Court of Chancery of Delaware considered the petition by an investor to have Genetrix, LLC dissolved because it was no longer “reasonably practicable” to continue to operate the company when the company had no operating revenue, no prospects of equity or debt infusion, a deadlocked board of directors and an operating agreement that gave no means of navigating around the deadlock. The court found in favor of the investor and concluded that judicial dissolution was the best and only option for the members in the company.

On April 8, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that creates an additional hurdle for companies providing single-employer pension funds when seeking to reorganize through a bankruptcy. In general, the termination of a pension plan can give rise to a per-employee termination premium (a “Termination Premium”) owed by the company terminating the plan to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), the quasi-governmental entity that insures pension plans.

Companies that engage in multiple transactions with different entities of related groups often enter into contractual netting agreements that allow the setoff of obligations between entities within the groups. The effectiveness of these agreements has been called into question by a recent decision of a bankruptcy court in Delaware, which refused to allow a party to a contractual netting agreement to offset its obligations to the debtors against obligations of the debtors under the netting agreement.