The Western Cape High Court[1] has recently passed judgment in a decision which reiterates the bounds of the duties of directors of holding companies to subsidiary companies. Even though the case involved a damages claim against the liquidators of the holding company (in liquidation), the principle applies equally to directors.
The chapter 11 case of Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) roared back to life this month.
IN RE: GOLF 255, INC. (July 22, 2011)
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. (May 11, 2011)
WHITELY v. MORAVEC (February 16, 2011)
FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP v. BERMAN (January 21, 2011)
Key Points:
While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.
Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?
Key Points:
This case presented a difficult and unique set of circumstances for the court to navigate while the scheme clock was ticking.
The recent approval of the David Jones scheme of arrangement demonstrates how, in the absence of shareholder opposition, the inexorability of a scheme timetable can cause problems for a court when there is a major development after the first court hearing.
Key Points: An administrator of a deed of company arrangement has been allowed to sell the company over a shareholder's objections.
The GFC has seen a significant rise in the number of corporate insolvencies.[1]
Many of those insolvencies have been the result of tighter credit, rather than a collapse of the company's business. It's no surprise, therefore, that there is a major appetite for the acquisition of distressed businesses and companies.
Second Circuit holds that Bankruptcy Code preempts creditors’ state law constructive fraud claims.