Introduction

On October 28, 2010, Banning Lewis Ranch Co. LLC and Banning Lewis Ranch Development I & II, LLC (collectively, "Banning"), filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. A copy of one of the Banning bankruptcy petition is available here for review. Banning owns over 21,000 acres of land situated on the east side of Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The appointment of a receiver is one of the oldest equitable remedies. A receiver can receive, preserve, and manage property and funds, and even take charge of an operating business, as directed by the court. Appointing a receiver is a powerful remedy, not undertaken lightly by the courts.

In September of this year, the Honorable Mary F. Walrath, the presiding Judge in the DHP Holdings bankruptcy, issued a decision addressing the effect of a forum selection clause when deciding a motion to change venue. This issue came before the court in an adversary action filed by DHP against The Home Depot. After DHP filed for bankruptcy, the company sued Home Depot for $5.5 million alleging Home Depot owed the company for an outstanding account receivable.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court"), recently in In re Leslie Controls, Inc., Bankr. D. Del., Case No. 10-12199, expounded on whether attorney-client and attorney work-product privileged documents remained protected from discovery under the common interest doctrine. The common interest doctrine permits counsel representing different clients with similar legal interests to share information without having to disclose that information to others.

In this opinion, the Court of Chancery granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s derivative claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, holding that, under Section 18-1002 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “LLC Act”), creditors of an insolvent LLC lack standing to sue derivatively.

In CML V, LLC v Bax, the Court of Chancery held that a creditor of JetDirect Aviation Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("JetDirect"), did not have derivative standing to assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board of managers of the insolvent JetDirect. The creditors would have had standing if JetDirect were a Delaware corporation, but the Court found that the Delaware LLC Act does not allow an LLC’s creditors to bring derivative claims when a Delaware LLC is insolvent (or at any other time).

Last Thursday, a Delaware Bankruptcy Court disqualified two law firms from representing an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors based on their conduct in soliciting proxies from creditors who were not existing firm clients. In re Universal Building Products, No. 10-12453 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 4, 2010), involved an extreme fact pattern but it may nonetheless have a substantial effect not only on the selection of professionals for future Committees but also on the appointment of creditors to Committees, at least in Delaware.

Creditors of insolvent Delaware corporations have recourse against corporate directors and officers whose disloyal or self-dealing conduct reduces the corporation’s assets available for distribution. Delaware courts have held that directors and officers of insolvent corporations owe fiduciary duties to creditors as the principal stakeholders in the remaining corporate assets. Where those duties are breached, creditors have standing to bring actions derivatively on behalf of the corporation for damages to the corporation. However, in a recent decision by Vice Chancellor J.

Some legal commentators have lamented the extent to which lenders have been able to use debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements to gain control over an entire Chapter 11 case.