This paper is designed to provide a brief update of recent decisions of note that concern various ethical issues bankruptcy attorneys often encounter, focusing on conflicts of interest and privilege issues.

In a recent decision in the Chapter 11 case of Project Orange Associates, LLC1, the court confronted an important issue that often arises in bankruptcy cases: whether the use of conflicts counsel is sufficient to permit court approval under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s choice for general bankruptcy counsel that also represents an important creditor of the debtor in unrelated matters. Here, the conflict involved the debtor's largest unsecured creditor and an essential supplier.

The Texas Rangers were sold in an August bankruptcy auction to a syndicate headed by former baseball great Nolan Ryan and attorney Chuck Greenberg. The final purchase price was $608 million—nearly $100 million more than the original offer for the team—and is a great example of how lenders can use the bankruptcy process to maximize the value of an asset.

Pursuant to § 1104 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the court may appoint a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. A qualified examiner, with a clearly defined mission, can drastically affect the outcome of the bankruptcy case and directly impact the return to creditors. The difference between a successful financial restructure or liquidation and an investigation yielding little value to the creditors often depends on the approach taken by the examiner and his professionals.

On November 10 we posted to Basis Points a blog concerning a Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision (In re Universal Building Products) that fired a warning shot across the bows of professionals who solicit Creditors’ Committee proxies from non-clients of their firms (here is the blog).

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

More Clarity for Delaware Directors When Considering Restructuring Transactions

SUMMARY

In Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin (May 4, 2015) (“Quadrant”), the Delaware Court of Chancery confirms – again – that ordinary corporate fiduciary duties govern the conduct of directors of an insolvent corporation, rather than a special duty to creditors. The Court also clarifies the circumstances in which creditors may have derivative standing to enforce those fiduciary duties on behalf of an insolvent corporation.

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

Settlement of collection disputes over amounts and payment terms for bond-related claims, including in bankruptcy cases, involves issues of binding minority bondholders and releasing the indenture trustee, as well as straightforward determinations of collectability economics.   Bondholders unhappy with a proposed settlement can be bound nevertheless when the deal is incorporated into a bankruptcy plan of reorganization and majority bondholders out-vote them, but only if certain requirements are met.  A recent bankruptcy court decision, In re Lower Bucks Hosp., 471 B.R.

On July 25, 2012, the Third Circuit issued its decision in In re American Capital Equipment LLC and Skinner Engine Co., 688 F.3d 145 (3rd Cir. 2012), becoming the first circuit court to align itself with numerous district courts that have allowed bankruptcy courts to reject a Chapter 11 plan prior to a confirmation hearing.