Illinois courts have long recognized that an insolvent corporation’s creditors have standing to bring a derivative action on behalf of the corporation against its officers and directors. On June 24, 2016, in a case of first impression in Illinois, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, in Caulfield v. The Packer Group, Inc. held that shareholders have standing to pursue a shareholder derivative suit against an insolvent corporation.

We’ve all seen it. The business opportunity looks enticing but is laced with risk about a potential bankruptcy filing down the road. As bankruptcy lawyers we are often asked how deals can be structured to prevent a potential bankruptcy filing.

A lender’s (“Lender”) derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims on behalf of Chapter 7 guarantor-Debtors cannot be time-barred because of Lender’s knowledge of the “[d]efendants’ conduct,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on June 22, 2016. In re AMC Investors, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80861, *16 (Del. June 22, 2016).

Private equity sponsors should be aware of two recent court decisions. One involves fiduciary duties under state law that may be owing to a limited liability company borrower by its managers, in the context of receivables financing facilities or other asset-based lending transactions involving the use of special-purpose vehicles. The other involves certain implications of governing-law choices under acquisition financing and related agreements.

Pottawattamie: Maybe Not So Special (Purpose) After All

Who doesn’t love a good catch-all provision? In a world of infinite possibilities, attorneys often find themselves drafting language designed to encompass a plethora of contingencies. Are such efforts sometimes overkill? Perhaps. Nevertheless, given our imperfect ability to predict the future, such provisions are often necessary and appropriate.

I. Introduction

In In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, the question before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware was whether an investor who “bought and paid for [one] Common Unit (including all rights related thereto),”

I sense a sea change in the recent Delaware decision in Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, 2016 WL 3185576 (6/3/16), refusing to enforce a bankruptcy proofing provision of a Delaware LLC’s operating agreement. Until recently, the trend had been to accept the fundamental principles of bankruptcy remoteness, although courts sometimes found ways to avoid honoring anti-bankruptcy devices in specific cases.

Since April, two bankruptcy courts have refused to enforce limited liability company ("LLC") agreement provisions requiring the respective LLCs to obtain the unanimous consent of their members in order to seek bankruptcy relief.1 On June 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court") relied on federal public policy to invalidate an LLC agreement provision requiring unanimous member consent to file bankruptcy where the member at issue owed no fiduciary duties to the LLC and the member's primary relationship to the

Essentially all securitization structures utilize a bankruptcy remote entity, a/k/a special purpose entity (“SPE”), to reduce the lenders’ or investors’ exposure to a bankruptcy of the sponsor. A standard feature of SPEs is the appointment of an independent person (director, member, manager) to the body managing the SPEs. That independent person’s consent is required for “major decisions,” one of which is the filing of, or consenting to a bankruptcy of the SPE (hence the court’s reference to them as “blocking directors”).