Under the proposed new insolvency regime created by Dodd-Frank, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver of a financial company if it is determined that the financial company is in default or in danger of default, and the failure of the financial company would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States.The receiver is required to liquidate the failing financial company in a manner that imposes all losses on the company’s creditors and shareholders (rather than on taxpayers).

A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that the Bankruptcy Code's limitations on using avoidance actions to undo securities transactions did not apply where the underlying transactions did not implicate the public securities market. A debtor or bankruptcy trustee has the power and obligation to recover transfers made by the debtor, prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, that were either actually or constructively fraudulent. There are, however, certain enumerated limitations to this power.

First State Bank of Red Bud v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Schaffer), No. 10-198- GPM, 2011 WL 1118666 (S.D. Ill. March 28, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a proposed “gifting” plan distributing value from the second lien lenders to the prepetition equity holder violated the absolute priority rule and was confirmed in error.2 This decision, by a 2-1 panel vote,3 reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and District Courts for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit also affirmed unanimously the designation of the vote of an indirect competitor of the debtor that held no claims prior to the petition date.

The United States Supreme Court recently submitted to Congress an amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 dealing with disclosure by groups of hedge funds and other distressed investors in reorganization cases. Unless Congress blocks its passage, which is unlikely, the amendment will become effective on Dec. 1, 2011.1 As shown below, the new rule streamlines and clarifies what had become a frequently litigated disclosure process.

Background

On May 4, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision regarding creditor standing to  maintain a derivative action on behalf of an insolvent corporation. In Quadrant Structured Products Company v. Vertin et al., C.A. No.

A just-issued Court of Chancery decision clarifies, and possibly expands, creditors' rights. In 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that a corporation's creditors may sue its board of directors for violating its fiduciary duties, but only after the corporation became insolvent, in North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92 (Del. 2007). While creditors continued to be unable to sue directly, Gheewalla did permit them to file derivative suits in those circumstances.

In the ongoing saga of what is known as the “Ashley II Litigation,” the United States District Court of South Carolina recently set aside several years of distributions to the shareholders of a dissolved, closely-held family corporation because the payments were intended to avoid liability for environmental contamination of property the company had not owned in 40 years. PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ross Development Corp., 2015 BL 36539, D.S.C., No. 09-cv-03171, 2/12/15. This latest decision follows a prior case where PCS Nitrogen, Inc.

Winding Down. If a corporation’s board of directors decides that the business needs to be wound down, there are a number of legal paths to consider. Determining the best approach is fact-dependent, and the corporation and its board should get legal advice before making a decision.

NOTABLE BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS OF 2014

ALLOWANCE/DISALLOWANCE/PRIORITY/DISCHARGE OF CLAIMS