Since at least the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2007 landmark decision in N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92, 101 (Del.
More Clarity for Delaware Directors When Considering Restructuring Transactions
SUMMARY
In Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin (May 4, 2015) (“Quadrant”), the Delaware Court of Chancery confirms – again – that ordinary corporate fiduciary duties govern the conduct of directors of an insolvent corporation, rather than a special duty to creditors. The Court also clarifies the circumstances in which creditors may have derivative standing to enforce those fiduciary duties on behalf of an insolvent corporation.
In Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin, the Delaware Court of Chancery made two key rulings concerning the rights of creditors to bring derivative lawsuits against corporate directors.1 First, the court held that there is no continuous insolvency requirement during the pendency of the lawsuit.
In an opinion issued on May 4, 2015, Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, the Court of Chancery provided important guidance to distressed Delaware corporations and their creditors.
The Court of Chancery issues a liberal ruling on creditor derivative standing and more obsequies for the “zone of insolvency.”
A debtor’s prepetition causes of action and other legal interests typically become property of the debtor’s estate under section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. In a chapter 11 case, this often leaves the trustee (or debtor in possession) with the sole authority to pursue – or not pursue – such causes of action postpetition. Although the trustee is generally required to maximize the value of the estate, situations can arise where a trustee refuses to pursue litigation that is otherwise in the estate’s best interest.
Questions Standing of Indenture Trustees to Pursue Fraudulent Conveyance Claims
In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.
The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Wiand v. Lee clarifies longstanding issues relating to an equity receiver’s standing to pursue clawback claims for the benefit of the receivership estate under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”). See Wiand v. Lee, 2014 WL 2446084 (11th Cir. Jun.
A recent decision by Judge Shannon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, In re Optim Energy, LLC, et al., No. 14-10262 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. May 13, 2014), highlights a shift in Delaware recharacterization jurisprudence.