In re Red Mountain Machinery Company, 448 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On September 2, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a holding by the Court of Chancery that creditors of insolvent Delaware limited liability companies do not have standing to sue derivatively. This contrasts with Delaware corporations: the Delaware courts have recognized that when a corporation becomes insolvent, creditors become the residual risk-bearers and are permitted to sue derivatively on behalf of a corporation to the same extent as stockholders.

Summary

Much attention in the commercial bankruptcy world has been devoted recently to judicial pronouncements concerning whether the practice of senior creditor class “gifting” to junior classes under a chapter 1 1 plan violates the Bankruptcy Code’s “absolute priority rule.” Comparatively little scrutiny, by contrast, has been directed toward significant developments in ongoing controversies in the courts regarding the absolute priority rule outside the realm of senior class gifting— namely, in connection with the “new value” exception to the rule and whether the rule was written out of the Bankr

The implementation of restrictions on stock and/or claims trading has become almost routine in large chapter 11 cases involving public companies on the basis that such restrictions are vital to prevent forfeiture of favorable tax attributes that can be triggered by a change in control. Continued reliance on stock trading injunctions as a means of preserving net operating loss carry forwards, however, may be problematic, after the controversial ruling handed down in 2005 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re UAL Corp.

In Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 906 A.2d 168 (Del. Ch. 2006), the Delaware Court of Chancery definitively weighed in on the tort claim that has become known by the popular name “deepening insolvency” when it dismissed a “deepening insolvency” claim brought by a litigation trust to recover money for the benefit of the creditors of a bankrupt estate.

Delaware companies take note: a state court has ruled that companies in apparent good financial health may not use the bankruptcy process to avoid shareholder approval of an asset sale—even in situations in which a shareholder vote may be difficult to obtain.

A business consultant who contracted to receive a percentage of a company’s shares in exchange for helping the company go public—but never actually received those shares and obtained a money judgment against the company instead—was not a holder of equity for purposes of subordination under the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has determined.

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that a claim for damages based on a chapter 11 debtor’s failure to issue shares of its common stock in exchange for a claimant’s stock in another company pursuant to a termination agreement is subject to mandatory subordination.

In Rombro v. Dufrayne (In re Med Diversified, Inc.), 461 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2006), the court held that the claim “arose from” the purchase of the debtor’s stock within the meaning and purpose of the Bankruptcy Code’s subordination provision.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin lifted a hold on a bankruptcy court order approving Adelphia Communications’ Chapter 11 reorganization plan, thereby enabling Time Warner Cable (TWC) to proceed Tuesday with plans to transform itself into a publicly-traded company. Although U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Gerber signed off on Adelphia’s reorganization plan on January 3, Scheindlin—at the behest of bondholders who objected to the plan—had blocked implementation pending review of the bondholders’ claims.