31/10/2016 Pensions Update October 2016 http://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff002b980788f142ab3974e23146b6f2e393d02b 1/4 Pensions Update October 2016 In this issue Court of Appeal clarifies treatment of pensions on bankruptcy PPF publishes consultation on 2017/2018 levy DWP consults on valuing pensions for the advice requirement Regulator declares rule change void Next steps in leaving the European Union Committee publishes new evidence on regulation of pension schemes Regulator launches blog Government cancels plans t
A company in liquidation appealed against a decision that its claim against the directors, for breach of fiduciary or statutory duty in relation to distribution in specie of the claimant company’s shareholding in another company, was time-barred.
On February 3, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied review of a significant decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, that limits a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by creditors against directors of an insolvent corporation under California law. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, et al., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2009). California has now joined Delaware in holding that directors do not owe creditors a fiduciary duty, even when the corporation is operating in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”
The recent case of Mervyn’s LLC v Lubert-Adler Group IV, LLC, et al. (In re Mervyn’s Holdings, LLC),1 serves as a warning to sellers and equity firms participating in leveraged buyouts to be wary of the effect such buyouts will have on creditors of the target company.
1. Introduction
As a result of the failure of over 200 banks and savings institutions in 2009—and the likelihood of 300 or more failures in the foreseeable future—the banking industry may be faced with another tsunami of litigation brought by the FDIC alleging liability against officers and directors for the failure of their respective institutions.
A recent judgment for partial dismissal by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reinforces that a bank, when serving as a depository of fiduciary funds, may be shielded from liability for the fiduciary’s misconduct by the powerful protections of Tennessee’s Uniform Fiduciaries Act (the “UFA”).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying New York law, has held that an inadequate consideration exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for a lawsuit arising out of a debt restructuring transaction. Delta Financial Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Ins. Co. (In re Delta Financial Corp.), 2010 WL 1784054 (3d Cir. May 5, 2010).
In a decision not designated for publication, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an insurer's declaratory judgment complaint for rescission effectuated the rescission of the policy and that the subsequent coverage litigation confirmed the validity of the rescission. In re Sonic Blue Inc., 2010 WL 2034798 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2010).
In a significant development for financial institution directors and officers, the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has filed the first lawsuit in the current financial crisis against former officers of a closed financial institution arising from alleged loan losses to the bank. On July 2, 2010, the FDIC filed a complaint in federal court in California against former officers of the homebuilding division of IndyMac Bank for civil money damages. FDIC v. Van Dellen, Case No. 2:10-cv-04915-DSF-SH (C.D. Cal.) (July 2, 2010).
In pari delicto is a common law defense against liability in circumstances where the culpability of the plaintiff is at least as great as the culpability of the defendant. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania clarified Pennsylvania law on this on February 16, 2010, in Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health, Educ. & Research Found. v.