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
Wenn es eilt, bietet die ZPO Mittel und Wege, schnell ans Ziel zu kommen. Der Eilrechtsschutz ist in der COVID-19-Pandemie daher stark im Fokus. Es stellen sich Fragen wie „, Können die Gerichte helfen, die Lieferkette zu stützen?, Wie lässt sich ein Eilverfahren derzeit praktisch durchführen?, Ist durch ‚Corona‘ jetzt alles dringlich?“. Dieser Beitrag unserer Reihe „Coronavirus & Zivilprozess“ verschafft einen Überblick.
Überblick: Eilrechtsschutz mittels Arrest und einstweiliger Verfügung
It’s an open secret that the commendable goals envisaged by the legislature with the introduction of the business rescue proceedings in Chapter 6 of our Companies Act are being hampered as a result of poorly drafted statutory provisions that govern the business rescue process. Section 141(2)(a)(ii) is however not one of these vague provisions.
The Italian Government has enacted Law Decree no. 23/2020, which was published in the Official Journal on April 8, 2020 and entered into force starting from April 9, 2020 (the "Decree"), introducing various new measures aimed, inter alia, at supporting companies affected financially by COVID-19 outbreak and shutdown in Italy. This newsflash outlines the measures rescheduling the entry into force of the Insolvency law regime and relaxing certain corporate law requirements, and looks at which companies will be eligible to take advantage of the new provisions.