The Delaware Court of Chancery decided earlier this month that a creditor of an insolvent LLC does not have standing to maintain a derivative suit in the name of the LLC against its managers. CML V, LLC v. Bax, No. 5373-VCL, 2010 Del. Ch. LEXIS 220 (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010).

In November, Jeoffrey Burtch, the Chapter 7 Trustee in the AE Liquidation bankruptcy (formerly "Eclipse Aviation"), began filing preference actions against various creditors of Eclipse. Eclipse Aviation began as a New Mexico manufacturer of small jet aircraft. The company filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on November 25, 2008.

Years ago, second lien lenders adhered to the truism about children -- they were seen but not heard. As our children have grown more vocal in recent years, so too have second lien lenders. A spate of recent bankruptcy cases demonstrate that second lien lenders have been both seen and heard at many critical junctures in the chapter 11 timeline -- at the sale of the debtor’s assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 in seeking the appointment of an examiner,2 when voting on a chapter 11 plan,3 and in connection with the confirmation hearing.4

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held that under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company do not have standing to pursue a derivative claim against the managers of the company.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has granted the plaintiffs' request for judicial dissolution of BVWebTies LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In the case, co-equal owners and managers of the LLC disagreed over the company's management. The company's LLC agreement, however, provided no method by which to break a deadlock among the members.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. The right examiner, with a clearly defined mission, will have a major influence on the bankruptcy process. The difference between a successful financial restructuring or liquidation-resulting in substantial recoveries for the key constituencies-and a time-consuming (and asset-consuming) meltdown, can depend on the approach of the examiner and the examiner's support team.

The United States Supreme Court declined to review a Second Circuit decision wherein a bankruptcy trust fund established to reimburse asbestos victims while barring them from future lawsuits against insurers was held to not apply to Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co. In the underlying matter, Chubb sought contribution for asbestos injury claims from The Travelers Indemnity Co. The trust was established in 1986 by a bankruptcy court and funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from insurers for the benefit of asbestos claimants and their families.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held the seller in an asset purchase transaction liable for breach of an exclusivity provision in the subject asset purchase agreement, dismissing the seller's argument that the fiduciary duties owed by management to creditors negate the contractual exclusivity provision.

As previously discussed here, Ambac Financial Group Inc. has filed for bankruptcy for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief with United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Immediately following its bankruptcy filing, Ambac sued the United States to block the Internal Revenue Service from placing a lien on its assets in an attempt to recover an estimated $700 million in tax refunds that the agency believes it may be owed.

The treatment of derivatives, or “qualified financial contracts”, under state insurance insolvency laws has received increased attention since the financial crisis. Four states passed laws in 2010 that allow for the exercise of certain netting collateral and termination provisions in an insurance insolvency without regard to the automatic stay mechanism and similar laws are anticipated in other states in 2011. Federal laws provide a level of certainty with respect to the treatment of certain swap agreement provisions in a general corporate bankruptcy. The U.S.