The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In a recent ruling, Trusa v. Nepo(Del. Ch. April 13, 2017), consistent with prior case law, Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Chancery Court held that a creditor cannot bring a derivative action against a Delaware limited liability company, even where the company is clearly insolvent. The ruling is interesting, because in the well-known case of North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92 (Del.

From time to time, you may be seeing references to the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Indeed, since 2014, the law has already been enacted in nine states and introduced in another seven states. If you are wondering what this new law is all about, you should know that it is really a very old law with a new name. The crux of the law is to prevent debtors from escaping their creditors by making transfers of assets to avoid paying their debts. This law has been a key part of debtor-creditor law in the United States and England dating back to the time of the reign of Elizabeth I.

A recent case out of the Southern District of New York, Citibank, NA, London Branch v. Norske Skogindustrier ASA(S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2016), once again illustrates the difficulty of obtaining injunctive relief against prospective indenture violations of a financially troubled issuer.

The Facts

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line:

On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peck struck down a provision that used the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) to trigger subordination of a Lehman subsidiary’s swap claim against a securitization vehicle in the United Kingdom.1

Overview

In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-3084, the Third Circuit affirmed the opinion of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying the confirmation appeal of an unsecured noteholder as equitably moot. In doing so, the Third Circuit (i) refused to allow a full-class recovery, as it would unscramble the substantially consummated plan, and (ii) refused an individualized payout to the bondholder, as it would unfairly discriminate against other members of the class in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Bottom Line