Restrictive covenant - if in doubt, lender should be notified; the costs risk of insolvency proceedings; interim payments; service of claim form; Wragge & Co's banking and finance experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Restrictive covenant - if in doubt, lender should be notified

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background

The High Court has held that a bank owed a duty of care to its customer when on notice that an agent acting for the customer was misusing his authority. In the case of Singularis Holdings Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch), a bank was liable in negligence to its customer since it was on notice that its customer was at risk of being defrauded by its director but failed to stop payments made for the purpose of misappropriating funds of the company.

The Facts

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.

United States District Court Judge Alan S. Gold, on February 11, 2011, reversed a Florida bankruptcy court’s controversial October 2009 fraudulent transfer judgment1 against a group of lenders based on their receipt of a $421 million loan repayment in July 2007. 3V Capital Master Fund, et al., v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., et al, Case No. 10-60017-CIV (S.D. Fla. Feb.

A decision recently handed down by the Delaware Chancery Court, CML V, LLC v. Bax, indicates that creditors of a limited liability company (“LLC”) organized under Delaware law do not have standing to institute derivative suits against an LLC’s management, even when the LLC is insolvent, unless the right is expressly set forth in the LLC’s organizational documents or external agreements.

Background

On November 5, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia issued a noteworthy opinion that runs counter to what many Virginia law practitioners assume to be the common law in Virginia – i.e., that a manager of a Virginia limited liability company owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty to the limited liability company.

If you are, or have interest in becoming, a director of any organization, you should heed the May 17, 2013, decision in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors ex rel. Lemington Home for the Aged, (the Lemington Home Case). The Lemington Home Case upheld a jury’s award to the plaintiff creditors’ committee of

"Does an insurance broker, after procuring an insurance policy for a developer on a construction project, owe a duty to apprise a subcontractor that was later added as an insured under that policy of the insurance company's subsequent insolvency?"

In this issue of first impression in California, the Fourth District Court of Appeals said "no." Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc. --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----,2012 WL 621346 (Cal.App.4 Dist.).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that insiders who control the operations of a debtor owe a duty, as fiduciaries, to refrain from self-dealing. In re Brook Valley VII, Joint Venture (Lange v. Schropp), 496 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2007). The controlling insiders of two Chapter 11 debtors had thus breached their fiduciary duties to the debtors when they caused the debtors to consent to a foreclosure sale of estate properties and then secretly purchased the properties for themselves at the sale.