All too often the task of procuring and renewing D&O insurance at a portfolio company is assigned to the portfolio company’s CFO or Controller, who employs an insurance broker to find the best price for the amount of coverage deemed appropriate by the broker. When such insurance is procured and thereafter renewed, the CFO/Controller simply reports to the board the fact of the procurement/renewal and few questions about the terms of coverage are discussed at the board level. This can be a big mistake.

In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.

Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.

The recent success in Claire’s Stores’ $2.1 billion restructuring reinforces the importance of a proactive approach to corporate governance for closely held or sponsor-owned portfolio companies.

On October 26, the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a ruling dismissing a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. In Garland v. Marine Credit Union, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the debt collector, holding the dispute was a legal issue such that the consumer could not establish a factual inaccuracy in the credit reporting.

Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing Inc. acquired PLX Technologies, Inc. for $6.50 per share in cash. After the $300 million merger closed, certain former PLX stockholders sued for damages, alleging that the PLX directors had breached their fiduciary breaches, aided and abetted by both Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. (a hedge fund that is an activist stockholder and had three designees on the PLX board) and the PLX board’s financial advisor (the “Banker”).

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a bill amending the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Code of Civil Procedure. The new law, which takes effect January 1, requires disclosures in any communication by a debt collector attempting to collect a time-barred debt. Because the RFDCPA defines the term "debt collector" to include first-party creditors in addition to third-party creditors, auto dealers and finance companies should pay attention.

The Northern District of Illinois recently held that a collection letter sent to a consumer’s attorney seeking payment on a debt discharged in bankruptcy did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on the “competent lawyer” standard. The case is Grajny v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 18-C-2719, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173682, 2018 WL 4905019 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2018).

At a time when having groceries delivered to your front door is as easy as a couple of taps and swipes on your phone, it is tempting to rely exclusively on the Internet for solutions to all of our problems. However, convenience and adequacy do not always go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to legal representation. Such is the case with UpRight Law, LLC, a “national consumer bankruptcy law firm.” UpRight relies heavily on non-lawyer “client consultants” who dispense legal advice to clients and help to farm out the cases to local attorneys.

In Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries (In re BFW Liquidation), 899 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that a liability for an allegedly preferential transfer may be reduced by the amount of new value given, regardless of whether that new value has already been repaid by the debtor before its bankruptcy filing.