A new decision in Ash v. North American Title Co. holds that (1) contract damages based upon a bankruptcy were not foreseeable, and (2) an escrow holder was  entitled to a jury instruction  as to intervening or superceding causes (i.e., the bankruptcy).  The decision also highlights a potential for some judges to try to impose greater responsibilities on escrow holders.

In a departure from other bankruptcy courts in the Third Circuit and her own recent prior opinion, U.S. Bankruptcy Chief Judge Mary France of the Middle District of Pennsylvania broadly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 2 (2011), and held that a bankruptcy court lacks the constitutional authority to issue a final judgment in any fraudulent transfer action where the defendant (i) has not filed a proof of claim and (ii) has not consented to the bankruptcy judge entering a final judgment on the matter. 

In a client advisory sent by our office a few months ago, we described a decision in the Madoff saga in which the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) closed off a potential avenue of significant recovery for the Madoff Trustee (the Trustee) and the Ponzi scheme victims by denying the Trustee standing to pursue certain claims against feeder funds – firms that sent investors’ funds to Madof

If there was such a contest, the 232-unit Spa at Sunset Isles would be in the running for "worst case scenario" condo-conversion.  Here is a summary of the development's situation as it existed in late 2010:  

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos

Last week the Delaware Supreme Court ruled on the appeal of CML V, LLC v. Bax, in which the Court of Chancery held last year 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.

The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 2011 WL 2472792 (June 23, 2011), drew upon a tortured factual background filled with sensational accusations and revelations, to deliver an opinion that definitively upsets a quarter- century’s jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts over a large set of actions.

The District Court sustained claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deepening insolvency asserted by the successor-in-interest to the Committee of Unsecured Creditors of DVI, a defunct company, against DVI’s former officers and directors.

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on May 18, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court’s dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty suit brought by a creditor against certain directors of Clearwire Holdings Inc. North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, C.A. No. 1456-N (May 18, 2007).

Whether a creditor may assert a direct claim against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty when the corporation is insolvent or in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”

Answer: No.

The Fourth Circuit, on June 15, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a Chapter 11 reorganization petition filed by a tenant debtor in a commercial lease dispute. Maryland Port Administration v. Premier Automotive Services, Incorporated (In re Premier Automotive Services, Incorporated), ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1721951 (4th Cir. 6/15/07).