FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP v. BERMAN (January 21, 2011)

IN RE: RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP. (October 1, 2010)

It is inevitable that companies will face periods of financial distress during their corporate lives. During these times, it is incumbent on the directors and management to seek to maximise the company's chances of survival and preserve value for stakeholders. Certainly it has not been uncommon for directors to use the threat of voluntary administration as a part of their stakeholder management strategy during these times.

The restructuring, distressed and debt market in Australia continues to evolve. We have a competitive debt market that constantly seeks out that next transaction. We have an environment of innovation with restructuring professionals seeking to push the boundaries of what may be possible within the current legislative framework, and we have changes to that framework with the introduction of Safe Harbour as a defence to insolvent trading and ipso facto reform which seeks to lock in contracts post-insolvency.

The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.

The UK Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) has just announced that it has reached a settlement with the intended target of its first Contribution Notice (CN), with the result that the CN has been issued, but for a far lower amount than the Regulator originally sought. This case gives important guidance on the situations in which the Regulator believes it will be justified in issuing a CN, and on the potential liabilities targets may face.

The Moral Hazard Powers

Our October 2010 DechertOnPoint “FDIC Begins Action on Its Super-Resolution Rules for Covered Financial Companies” discussed how systemi-cally significant non-bank financial companies (“covered financial compa-nies”) may find themselves in unknown territory if the FDIC is appointed re-ceiver for them.

Industry observers have been waiting to see when bank failures arising out of the recent financial crisis would produce a wave of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) litigation similar to that seen in the early 1990s after the savings and loan crisis. With its second suit in recent months, the FDIC has shown that it will aggressively pursue claims against directors and officers in connection with failed depository institutions.

The English Court granted recognition of Chapter 11 proceedings in relation to a company that was incorporated in the UK but had its centre of main interests ("COMI") in the United States, confirming that the Directors were foreign representatives for the purpose of the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations").

In its continued effort to implement its authority to resolve “covered financial companies” under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), on March 15, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) approved the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Implementing Certain Orderly Liquidation Authority Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Proposed Rules”).