Starting January 1, 2015, all new and existing limited liability companies formed in Florida must comply with the Revised Limited Liability Company Act, Fl. Stat. § 605 (the “Act”). While the Act is based on the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act of 2006, as amended in 2011, promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission, the Act is different in many respects. 

Delaware courts often emphasize the freedom of contract of parties to define their rights, powers, duties, obligations, liabilities and restrictions in a limited liability or operating agreement under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (LLC Act).

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on May 18, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court’s dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty suit brought by a creditor against certain directors of Clearwire Holdings Inc. North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, C.A. No. 1456-N (May 18, 2007).

Whether a creditor may assert a direct claim against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty when the corporation is insolvent or in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”

Answer: No.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Scotia Development, LLC,1 Judge Richard S. Schmidt denied the motions of several creditors and the State of California seeking transfer of venue from the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, finding that venue was proper in Texas and that California would not be a more convenient forum for the financial restructuring of the debtors.

Background

While derivations of intercreditor agreements continue to enhance the rights of the senior secured party, whether the many provisions provided for are enforceable in bankruptcy remains a burning question. Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in In re Aerosol Packaging, LLC, 2006 WL 4030176 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 2006) helped bring clarity to one of the most important of these issues: is the right of a senior creditor to vote the claim of a junior creditor on whether to accept or reject a plan of reorganization enforceable in bankruptcy?

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC), 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) and the debtors’ lenders sought approval of a settlement prior to confirmation of a plan of reorganization. While the Court concluded that many aspects of the settlement might otherwise be approved, it found that a provision that distributed funds in violation of the absolute priority rule lacked sufficient justification.

A federal district court in New York has overturned a bankruptcy court decision that some say had threatened to disrupt the secondary market in claims against companies in bankruptcy. See Enron Corp. v. Springfield Associates, L.L.C., No. 01-16034 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2007).

With the recent decline in housing and real estate generally, companies in the homebuilding and construction markets face serious challenges. Some projects have already been forced into Chapter 11 and others will almost certainly require either a bankruptcy filing or out-of-court restructure. In the event a bankruptcy is filed, vendors, contractors, subcontractors and other interested parties should be aware of the impact of important bankruptcy code provisions on their relationship with troubled companies.

Automatic Stay

A recent federal district court appellate decision issued in the Enron chapter 11 case1 has ruled that the postpetition transfer of a prepetition bankruptcy claim from one party to another may insulate the transferred claim against certain types of attack based solely on conduct by a prior holder of the same claim. Whether a particular claim is protected depends upon how the claim was transferred.