The Delaware Court of Chancery’s recent opinion in Cygnus Opportunity Fund LLC et al. v. Washington Prime Group LLC et al. presents a veritable grab bag of potential blog posts, from a suggestion that an officer of an Limited Liability Company could be contractually bound by an LLC Agreement he never signed to the interesting interplay (and potential conflict) between an officer’s duty of obedience to the LLC’s board and the officer’s duty of disclosure to investors.

OLG Schleswig, Beschluss v. 21.02.2023 – 2 Wx 50/22

Bei Eintragung einer neu gegründeten GmbH wird insbesondere auf die Einhaltung gläubigerschützender Vorschriften geachtet. So auch bei der Offenlegung des Gründungsaufwands, der Gesamtbetrag sowie die einzelnen Posten sind in der Satzung anzugeben.

Sachverhalt

Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

Sometimes state legislatures react slowly to judge-made law and sometimes they move swiftly to correct perceived problems created by court rulings. Often, such rash legislative action is not well thought-out or properly drafted, making the solution worse than the fix. However, in Florida, within one legislative session, the Florida Legislature and governor considered and enacted a set of amendments to Florida's limited liability statute that hopefully will signal the business community that Florida knows how to pass laws that make sense.

The Bottom Line:

In this memorandum opinion, the Court of Chancery denied the plaintiffs’ (Roseton OL LLC and Danskammer OL, LLC) motion seeking to temporarily restrain the consummation of a transaction pursuant to which defendant Dynegy Holdings, Inc. (“DHI”) would transfer its most profitable power plants from existing subsidiaries to new bankruptcy remote subsidiaries.

Summary

In a 24 page decision signed July 8, 2011, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to for summary judgment, holding a non-debtor defendant liable with the Debtor as a single employer for alleged WARN Act violations. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Two recent opinions from separate federal courts of appeal upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by sophisticated investors that suffered losses in the auction rate securities ("ARS") market against the securities broker-dealers that allegedly fraudulently induced the purchase of the ARS.1

In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rejection by a licensor of a trademark license stripped the licensee of its right to use the trademark post-rejection, reversing a decision by the intermediate bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) and reinstating the bankruptcy court’s original judgment. In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 WL 387621 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), reversing in part 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016). The First Circuit did, however, affirm that the rejection stripped the licensee's exclusive product distribution rights.

It’s tempting for a company director to not respond to a liquidator’s request to produce financial records if they contain incriminating material, but is it wise?