Years ago, second lien lenders adhered to the truism about children -- they were seen but not heard. As our children have grown more vocal in recent years, so too have second lien lenders. A spate of recent bankruptcy cases demonstrate that second lien lenders have been both seen and heard at many critical junctures in the chapter 11 timeline -- at the sale of the debtor’s assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 in seeking the appointment of an examiner,2 when voting on a chapter 11 plan,3 and in connection with the confirmation hearing.4

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held that under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company do not have standing to pursue a derivative claim against the managers of the company.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has granted the plaintiffs' request for judicial dissolution of BVWebTies LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In the case, co-equal owners and managers of the LLC disagreed over the company's management. The company's LLC agreement, however, provided no method by which to break a deadlock among the members.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held the seller in an asset purchase transaction liable for breach of an exclusivity provision in the subject asset purchase agreement, dismissing the seller's argument that the fiduciary duties owed by management to creditors negate the contractual exclusivity provision.

In today’s turbulent economic climate, it is vital for creditors and debtors to understand the precise boundaries of their rights and duties when an enterprise becomes insolvent. Directors, officers and managers must acknowledge those to whom they owe fiduciary duties and fulfill those duties at the risk of personal liability, while creditors evaluate their potential remedies against misbehaving insiders to collect on defaulted obligations.

The Delaware Court of Chancery decided earlier this month that a creditor of an insolvent LLC does not have standing to maintain a derivative suit in the name of the LLC against its managers. CML V, LLC v. Bax, No. 5373-VCL, 2010 Del. Ch. LEXIS 220 (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010).

In re SJT Ventures, LLC, 2010 WL 3342206 (Bankr. N.D. Texas 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Paloian v LaSalle Bank, NA, 619 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

We are seeing more and more challenges by borrowers to swaps. No big surprise since, with falling interest rates over the past few years, the borrowers are on the wrong end of the transactions. Although swaps are considered independent of the loans, they are often secured by the same collateral and are usually crossdefaulted with the loans, so the obligations that arise from early termination (which can be significant) become part of the collection process and are being fought vigorously by borrowers.

On December 1st, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the approval of a receiver's plan to distribute the assets of a failed investment manager, finding that where a receivership trust lacks sufficient assets to fully repay investors and the investors' funds are commingled, a pro rata distribution plan is appropriate, and that the trial court properly rejected the objectors' arguments that their redemption requests made them creditors and not equity holders. SEC v.