In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").
Elon Musk recently said he has a "super bad feeling" about the economy, pithily declaring what most financial commentators have been predicting in more technical terms.
In the recent decision of Paragon Offshore, No. 16-10386 (CSS), 2021 (Bankr. D. Del. June 28, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the court) addressed the issue of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (OUST) could collect its quarterly fees against assets that were previously transferred to a litigation trust (the litigation trust) free and clear of any and all claims, liens and other encumbrances pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation.
In a recent decision, Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes  NSWCA 88, lenders to the Arrium Group, a company that collapsed, have lost their appeal regarding the personal liability of the Chief Financial Officer and Group Treasurer. The NSW Supreme Court had previously dismissed the lenders' claims, and the Court of Appeal has now affirmed that decision.
In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2)  NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.
On Monday, March 10, 2014, the companies that own and operate the Sbarro pizza chain, Sbarro LLC and 33 affiliates, filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code. The Sbarro companies operate 217 restaurants in the U.S. and there are 582 franchised restaurants, 176 in the U.S. and 406 at international locations.
On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A.  UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").
In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.
Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.
Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.
The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.
A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.
Once a Subchapter V debtor is removed from possession under § 1185(a), what happens next?
The answer to this question seems to have evolved over the few years of Subchapter V’s existence:
- from a low-power position for debtor, early-on;
- to a high-power position for debtor, in a re-thought view; and
- then back to the low-power position for debtor, when problems of the re-thought view become evident.
I’ll try to explain.