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").
The scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" shielding certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers has long been a magnet for controversy, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court suggested (but did not hold) in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct.
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").
The scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" shielding certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers has long been a magnet for controversy, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court suggested (but did not hold) in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct.
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").
The scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" shielding certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers has long been a magnet for controversy, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court suggested (but did not hold) in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct.
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").
In a landmark decision,[1] the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed, for the first time, the precise duties that a controlling stockholder owes, and the standard of review that will apply, when a controlling stockholder takes actions to block a board of directors’ desired course of action — such as by removing directors or enacting a bylaw requiring a unanimous vote for board action
One year ago, we wrote that 2022 would be remembered in the corporate bankruptcy world for the "crypto winter" that descended in November 2022 with the spectacular collapse of FTX Trading Ltd., Alameda Research, and approximately 130 other affiliated companies that ignited the meltdown of many other platforms, exchanges, lenders, and mining operations because they did business with FTX.
The scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" shielding certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers has long been a magnet for controversy, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court suggested (but did not hold) in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct.