Companies that engage in multiple transactions with different entities of related groups often enter into contractual netting agreements that allow the setoff of obligations between entities within the groups. The effectiveness of these agreements has been called into question by a recent decision of a bankruptcy court in Delaware, which refused to allow a party to a contractual netting agreement to offset its obligations to the debtors against obligations of the debtors under the netting agreement.

The Superior Court of Delaware recently held that a D&O insurer failed to timely respond to it insured’s reimbursement requests and must therefore provide reimbursement for prior legal defense costs and advance future defense costs within sixty days of receipt of invoices. HLTH Corp. v. Axis Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 07C-09-102, 2009 WL 756306 ( Del. Sup. Ct. Mar. 23, 2009).

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed the collateral agent for senior lenders to credit bid for the debtors’ assets even though all of the senior lenders had not authorized the bid. One of the senior lenders had objected to the group’s acquisition of the debtors’ assets by the credit bid. In re GWLS Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 453110 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2009) (Walsh, J.).

On January 13, 2009, in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, the Court of Chancery of Delaware considered the petition by an investor to have Genetrix, LLC dissolved because it was no longer “reasonably practicable” to continue to operate the company when the company had no operating revenue, no prospects of equity or debt infusion, a deadlocked board of directors and an operating agreement that gave no means of navigating around the deadlock. The court found in favor of the investor and concluded that judicial dissolution was the best and only option for the members in the company.

Visteon and Affiliates File for Bankruptcy Protection

Visteon Corporation and related affiliates (“Visteon”) filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on May 28, 2009, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy Court”). Visteon intends to continue to operate its businesses while in bankruptcy. Although Visteon UK, Ltd., has already filed bankruptcy in Great Britain, it appears that Visteon’s other non-U.S. subsidiaries will not be filing separate proceedings and will not be part of Visteon’s U.S. bankruptcy proceeding.

Under section 363(f) of the bankruptcy code, a trustee may sell assets of the bankruptcy estate free and clear of liens and other interests. Generally, absent consent of the lienholder, a trustee may only sell assets free and clear of liens under one of the following conditions:

An opinion issued earlier this year by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. (Bankr. Del., No. 08-11525; January 9, 2009) may end much of the practice of so-called “triangular setoffs” by creditors in bankruptcy cases. The Court in SemCrude found that creditors violate section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code by setting off amounts among multiple debtors, even when exercising contractual assignment rights. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching impact given the dearth of case law on this fairly common contractual provision.

A federal district court in Delaware, applying New York law, has affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion.Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2392882 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).

C.A. No. 3989-CC (Del. Ch. Sept. 3, 2009)

A Delaware bankruptcy court recently delivered the first decision applying section 562 of the Bankruptcy Code to a claim based on the termination of a repurchase agreement. In re American Home Mortgage Corp., Bankr. Case no. 07-1104, Dkt. no. 8021 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 8, 2009). The court’s ruling creates additional uncertainty in the calculation of bankruptcy claims, not only with respect to repurchase agreements but also with respect to other safe harbored financial contracts.