In a troubled economy where businesses are struggling to survive, it is no surprise that many organizations find themselves insolvent or nearly insolvent. Directors of insolvent or nearly insolvent organizations are facing the question of to whom they owe their duty of loyalty, and whose best interest must they consider when making decisions. When in the zone of insolvency, directors still owe a duty to stakeholders to act in their best interests.
Yesterday, the bankrupt estate of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman) sued Barclays Capital, Inc.
In an Opinion issued on December 2, 2009 in the Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu") Chapter 11 case, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that Bankruptcy Rule 2019 clearly applies to "ad hoc committees," regardless of how they might try to disclaim collective action. As a result, the members of an informal group of WaMu bondholders must now provide detailed information concerning their holdings, including a history of when they bought and sold their bonds and the prices paid. Perhaps more importantly, the Opinion packs a second bombshell.
Introduction
Hedge funds and other investors in debt or equity securities often form unofficial “ad hoc” committees through which they actively participate in chapter 11 cases. Recent decisions affirm that such ad hoc committees must comply with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 – including the nature and amounts of claims or interests held by members and other details. What about a “group” that says it’s a lot less than an ad hoc committee and therefore, outside the Rule?
Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, has returned to the public eye with a vengeance in light of a recent ruling by the influential Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware¹ and controversial pending amendments to Rule 2019 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the “Rules Committee”). The amendments will be the subject of a public hearing held in New York City on February 5, 2010.²
As we count down the days until the New Year, we are reminded of the momentous year we will leave behind us on December 31. While memorable for many things, 2009 may long be remembered as a year of record corporate insolvency. In 2009, General Motors, CIT, Chrysler, and Thornburg Mortgage filed four of the ten largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history. Equally notable are the number of corporate filings made in 2009.
As the financial crisis unfolds, the impact on U.S. financial institutions of all sizes continues to grow. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over 140 failed banks in 2009 at a cost of $27.8 billion to the Deposit Insurance Fund, a new high since the end of the savings and loan crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. For 2010, the FDIC is preparing for even more bank failures, increasing its budget by 35 percent and adding more than 1,600 to its staff.
Directors of California corporations have, for years, struggled to understand the scope of their fiduciary duties when a corporation is insolvent versus when a corporation is in the “zone of insolvency.” While other states (particularly Delaware) have provided some recent guidance in this area[1], the California Court of Appeal recently provided some much needed clarification – including providing comfort to the decision making processes of directors who are considering various alternatives when a corporation enters into a zone of insolvency.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held last month that creditors as a group have standing to sue members of an LLC who receive distributions knowing that the distributions were made when the LLC was insolvent. Colborne Corp. v. Weinstein, No. 09CA0724, 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 58 (Colo. App. Jan. 21, 2010).