THE BANKING LAW JOURNAL

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer and Fiduciary Duty Claims

Michael L. Cook* This article discusses a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision holding that the debt-financed purchase of a business was not a fraudulent transfer and did not violate the fiduciary duty of the company's directors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently dismissed a corporate debtor’s attempt to subordinate its former corporate parent’s contract damage claim on the ground that it was a securities fraud claim. CIT Group Inc. v. Tyco Int’l., Inc. (In re CIT Group Inc.), 2012 WL 3854887 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2012), affirming 460 B.R. 633 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on May 18, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court’s dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty suit brought by a creditor against certain directors of Clearwire Holdings Inc. North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, C.A. No. 1456-N (May 18, 2007).

Whether a creditor may assert a direct claim against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty when the corporation is insolvent or in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”

Answer: No.

In the decision of Motors Liquidation Co. Avoidance Action Trust v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.), 552 B.R. 253 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016), the SDNY bankruptcy court held that prepetition interest payments on a term loan did not qualify as “settlement payments” under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On August 24, 2016, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court overruling an objection to claim for reclamation. The decision was issued in the Reichold Holdings US, Inc. Bankruptcy (Case No. 14-12237) in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

Summary

In an 11 page opinion published May 18, 2011, Judge Shannon ruled that, in the context of a motion to dismiss, the officer of a corporation, which is itself a contractor, is not also a contractor by virtue of her position within the corporation. Judge Shannon’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Today, the president of GM Europe (the European arm of General Motors Corp. (GM)), Carl-Peter Forster, stated that GM Europe was “working hard to adapt [its] European business according to the [restructuring] plan” submitted by GM to the U.S.

Publicaciones de Hogan Lovells | 01 abril 2020

Algunas cuestiones de interés en relación con el impacto del COVID-19 en las financiaciones estructuradas

El impacto del virus COVID-19 está siendo significativo en todo tipo de industrias y lugares del mundo y, por consiguiente, surgen también muchas cuestiones que analizar en el ámbito de las financiaciones estructuradas.

Since the inception of business rescue, misconduct by business rescue practitioners (BRPs) has been one of the biggest causes of complaint (and headaches) by creditors. More and more disgruntled creditors and other affected persons are pursuing the removal of rogue BRPs of companies in business rescue.

In terms of section 139 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, a BRP may only be removed from office in terms of section 130, or as provided for in section 139. Furthermore, only the court is authorised to remove a BRP from office, both in terms of sections 130 and 139.

The French government, using the powers conferred upon it by law n°2020-290 of 23 March 2020 to counter the Covid-19 epidemic urgency, adopted order n°2020-341 of 27 March 2020 in order to adapt the rules for companies in difficulty in the light of the health crisis (the “Order”).

The Order was supplemented by a circular of the Ministry of Justice n°CIV/03/20 dated 30 March 2020 (the “Circular”).