Summary
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has sent waves through bankruptcy courts across the nation. Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), is the latest opinion in a long running dispute between the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, better known as Anna Nicole Smith, and the estate of her late husband’s son, Pierce Marshall.
Last month, the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") in the Viashow bankruptcy filed avoidance actions against several creditors of the bankruptcy estate. One avoidance action in particular seeks to recover damages allegedly sustained by Viashow due to breaches of fiduciary duties by its officers and directors (the "D&O Action"). In addition to Viashow's officers and directors, the D&O Action seeks damages against defendants who allegedly "aided and abetted" the officers and directors in their breach.
Last year, the Liquidating Trustee (the "Trustee") in the Midway Games bankruptcy began filing avoidance actions against creditors of the bankruptcy estate. Midway Games ("Midway" or the "Debtor") filed petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 12, 2009. For those not familiar with this bankruptcy proceeding, Midway developed and distributed video games throughout the North America, Europe and Asia.
Introduction
Introduction
Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case1 that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.2
In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.
In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]
Background