For the third time in as many years, the Delaware Chancery Court has handed down an important ruling interpreting the interaction between federal bankruptcy law and Delaware corporate law. The thorny question this time was whether a bankruptcy court’s determination that the directors of a corporation acted in good faith when they authorized a chapter 11 filing precluded a subsequent claim that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by doing so. The Delaware Chancery Court concluded that it did, ruling in Nelson v.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2008, issued a memorandum opinion in which it refused to dismiss claims of breach of fiduciary duty against directors and officers of a company who approved the sale of the company’s assets on the eve of its filing for bankruptcy protection. In issuing its opinion inIn re Bridgeport Holdings Inc., the court provided some guidelines for directors and officers, particularly during challenging economic times.

Plaintiff, the trustee of the Chapter 7 estate of Security Asset Capital Corporation (SACC), a corporate debtor, brought an action against the debtor’s officers and directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties by failing to commence Chapter 7 liquidation once SACC became insolvent.

Attention holiday shoppers. Not sure what to buy Aunt Matilda or cousin George? A gift card allows them to buy whatever they like? Maybe. Large retailers such as Sharper Image, Bombay Company and Linens ‘N Things have filed for bankruptcy or gone out of business, leaving behind millions of dollars in unused gift cards. In bankruptcy, money left on a gift card is treated as a debt, which the bankruptcy court can decide if it is to be repaid, and how. If the retailer stays in business, the court may allow it to continue to honor its cards, but even then consumers may not get the full value.

Sellers should be proactive in taking steps to protect themselves from a distressed buyer’s non-payment.  

In the current economic downturn, sellers are dealing with many formerly good customers whose financial health is deteriorating. To protect their interests, sellers should assess their rights under applicable contracts and law and develop a strategy to minimize their exposure.

Step 1 – Assess the Parties’ Contractual Rights

Extending credit to risky customers in the automotive industry has increasingly required active and careful management of the prospective sale and the account receivable to assure payment. The news of GM’s, Ford’s and Chrysler’s financial condition, and any likely affect of their bankruptcy on its suppliers, has changed the definition of “credit risk” to include otherwise traditionally “credit-worthy” customers that operate in financially-uncertain industries.

Corporate financial uncertainties or troubles frequently require corporate directors to make difficult choices that affect shareholders, creditors and others having an interest in the corporation. In that situation, the question naturally arises: Do directors' duties change when a corporation is experiencing financial difficulties, is nearing insolvency or becomes insolvent? The short answer is that the fiduciary duties of corporate directors under Delaware and Texas corporate law do not change, but that the ultimate beneficiaries of those duties may shift.

With the state of the economy, some of your customers may be turning into slow pays or, worse, no pays.

In these uncertain times, boards of directors face many important decisions about a company’s present and future actions, including reduction or suspension of dividends, layoffs, asset sales, unsolicited takeover offers, liquidation and even insolvency proceedings. In making these decisions, directors should remember their overarching responsibility for continuing oversight and informed decision-making.

When the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided Thabault v. Chait, 541 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2008), in September 2008, it was the most significant accounting malpractice decision of last year and perhaps the most significant damages case in the last 20 years. Why? Accounting malpractice cases are filled with pitfalls for unsuspecting plaintiffs. Moreover, accounting firms tend to settle cases in which the plaintiffs survive motions predicated on tried-and-true legal defenses and factual hurdles. The result is that few auditing malpractice cases are tried.