Directors and officers of corporations are often subject to potential personal liabilities as a result of their positions. This potential for personal liability may be increased in the insolvency context, where a corporation’s creditors will seek to collect on certain debts from alternate sources, such as directors and officers. Directors and officers often utilize insurance and various court mechanisms in order to mitigate their personal liabilities.

Directors of California corporations have, for years, struggled to understand the scope of their fiduciary duties when a corporation is insolvent versus when a corporation is in the “zone of insolvency.” While other states (particularly Delaware) have provided some recent guidance in this area[1], the California Court of Appeal recently provided some much needed clarification – including providing comfort to the decision making processes of directors who are considering various alternatives when a corporation enters into a zone of insolvency.

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-anticipated decision in Quebec (Revenue) v. Caisse populaire Desjardins de Montmagny. At issue in this case (and two companion cases) was the legal characterization of Crown rights with respect to collected but unremitted GST and Quebec sales tax (QST) in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Crown is an ordinary unsecured creditor with respect to such amounts, subject to the rights of prior ranking security holders.

Summary of Facts

For the fashion industry, one of the must-have, but hard to come by, items this season is a favorable refinancing deal. The recent volatility in the fashion market has reflected not just the ever-changing tastes of the cognoscenti, but also the rapidly shifting economic landscape confronting designers and retailers. The fashion industry has suffered acutely in the global financial crisis as consumers curb their spending, particularly in the luxury goods market. In fact, analysts have estimated that 12% of fashion companies will not survive the recession.  

In a decision made on August 11, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed solvent, special purpose entity subsidiaries of a bankrupt parent company, General Growth Properties, Inc., to maintain their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, raising several important issues related to the use of special purpose entities structured to be "bankruptcy-remote."

GGP Business Model and 2009 Bankruptcy Filings

The highly publicized announcement by Nortel Networks Corporation (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “Nortel”) of its intention to sell certain of its businesses has provided an opportunity for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to settle the state of the law in Ontario (and, hopefully, across Canada) on the sale of all or substantially all of an entity’s assets within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on July 27, 2009 in Boucher v. Shaw that individual managers of a bankrupt corporation can be held liable to the corporation's former employees for unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

In Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir.

Debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP financing”), which is new short-term financing obtained by an insolvent company after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding, is a recurring theme for two primary reasons. First, insolvent companies are generally desperate for an immediate infusion of cash to sustain operations. Second, creditors will usually provide such financing only on a super-priority basis, jumping ahead of existing secured creditors of the insolvent company.

On June 10, 2009, the sale of substantially all of Chrysler's assets closed, just 42 days after the country's third largest automaker filed for bankruptcy protection. The closing followed a contentious sale hearing before the Bankruptcy Court, an expedited appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and a brief stay imposed by the United States Supreme Court. The source of the contention: three Indiana state pension funds, arguing that the sale of Chrysler's assets constituted a sub rosa plan of reorganization that upended the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code.