The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of a bankruptcy plan administrator for the estate of an insured, holding that the plan administrator is entitled to recover premiums paid to an insurer after the insurer rescinded the policy. In re SONICblue Inc., 2011 WL 839401 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011). The court also held that the insurer is entitled to reimbursement for defense costs paid to the insured prior to the policy’s rescission.

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

On April 25, 2011, as widely expected, a group of Lehman creditors holding claims arising from terminated derivatives transactions filed a competing plan of reorganization and related disclosure statement in the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. As a result of the new filing, there are now three competing plans – (1) the Debtors’ Plan, (2) the Ad Hoc Group’s Plan (filed by a group of bondholder creditors) and (3) the Non-Consolidation Plan (filed by the derivative claimants) - in the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings.

Reprinted with permission from the May 6, 2011 issue of The Legal Intelligencer © 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Over the last 12 months there has been a substantial increase in the number of preference recovery actions filed. The irony created by the current economic environment is that many such defendants are themselves financially distressed and unable to fully satisfy any judgment that might be rendered against them.

Summary

In an 11 page opinion published May 18, 2011, Judge Shannon ruled that, in the context of a motion to dismiss, the officer of a corporation, which is itself a contractor, is not also a contractor by virtue of her position within the corporation. Judge Shannon’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

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.  

Delaware Court Addresses Important Revlon Duties in Cash/Stock Mergers

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued an opinion in Quadrant Structured Products Company¹that addresses creditors’ rights to bring derivative lawsuits against directors and officers of a corporation.  The Court held that Delaware law does not impose a continuous insolvency requirement and that the “traditional balance sheet test” is the appropriate test for determining solvency.  The opinion also provides a roadmap on the current landscape under Delaware law for analyzing breach of fiduciary duty claims. 

Delaware has long been the bellwether for law concerning the duties that corporate officers and directors owe to a company and its creditors, and Florida courts often look to Delaware cases and compelling authority in evaluating disputes alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by directors or officers.  A recent significant Delaware opinion has helped clarify what duties officers and directors owe to whom and when.  In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, 2015 WL 2062115 *1 (Del. Ch.

On May 4, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision regarding creditor standing to  maintain a derivative action on behalf of an insolvent corporation. In Quadrant Structured Products Company v. Vertin et al., C.A. No.