zone of insolvency

Showing: 8 - 12 of 12 Articles
Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Delaware Supreme Court Addresses, For The First Time, Whether Creditors Can Sue Directors For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty When The Corporation Is Insolvent Or In The Zone Of Insolvency

Almost sixteen years ago, the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland, N.V. v. Pathe Communications Corp., 1991 WL 277613 (Del. Ch. 1991), helped introduce the terms "vicinity of insolvency" and "zone of insolvency" into the legal and business lexicon. Since then, the Chancery Court issued a number of decisions on the question of whether creditors can sue directors of insolvent corporations, or those in the zone of insolvency, for breach of fiduciary duty. In the intervening years, however, the Delaware Supreme Court had never spoken on the issue.

The Chancery Court Limits Direct Creditor Claims. As reported in this earlier post, last September the Chancery Court issued a decision in North American Catholic Educational Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al., 2006 WL 2588971 (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2006) (Chancery Court opinion available here), holding that creditors could not bring a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty against directors of a corporation in the zone of insolvency. This case gave the Delaware Supreme Court the opportunity to issue a definitive ruling on the subject.

The Delaware Supreme Court Affirms. On Friday, May 18, 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court finally ruled on this important question. The Court’s 24-page opinion in North American Catholic Educational Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al. affirmed the Chancery Court’s decision and made three key rulings:

  • When the corporation is in the zone of insolvency, creditors may not bring a direct action against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty;
  • When the corporation is in fact insolvent, creditors have standing to maintain derivative claims against directors on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duties; and
  • Even when the corporation is insolvent, creditors have no right to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors.

The Supreme Court’s Zone Of Insolvency Analysis. The Delaware Supreme Court first rejected the creditor’s argument that it should be permitted to bring a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors when the corporation was in the zone of insolvency:

It is well established that the directors owe their fiduciary obligations to the corporation and its shareholders. While shareholders rely on directors acting as fiduciaries to protect their interests, creditors are afforded protection through contractual agreements, fraud and fraudulent conveyance law, implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, bankruptcy law, general commercial law and other sources of creditor rights. Delaware courts have traditionally been reluctant to expand existing fiduciary duties. Accordingly, ‘the general rule is that directors do not owe creditors duties beyond the relevant contractual terms.’

(Footnotes omitted.)

The Supreme Court next commented that although it had never addressed the issue of whether creditors have the right to sue directors in the zone of insolvency, the subject had been discussed in several Chancery Court decisions and in many scholarly articles. Among the Chancery Court decisions cited were the Production Resources decision (see earlier post on that decision), which the Supreme Court quoted at length, and the Trenwick America decision (discussed here and here), currently on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Concluding that the creditor could not state a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the Supreme Court held:

In this case, the need for providing directors with definitive guidance compels us to hold that no direct claim for breach of fiduciary duties may be asserted by the creditors of a solvent corporation that is operating in the zone of insolvency. When a solvent corporation is navigating in the zone of insolvency, the focus for Delaware directors does not change: directors must continue to discharge their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders by exercising their business judgment in the best interests of the corporation for the benefit of its shareholder owners.

(Footnotes omitted.)

The Supreme Court’s Views When The Corporation Is Insolvent. The Delaware Supreme Court next tackled the issue of whether a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty could be brought against directors when the corporation crossed from the zone of insolvency into actual insolvency:

It is well settled that directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. When a corporation is solvent, those duties may be enforced by its shareholders, who have standing to bring derivative actions on behalf of the corporation because they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the corporation’s growth and increased value. When a corporation is insolvent, however, its creditors take the place of the shareholders as the residual beneficiaries of any increase in value.

Consequently, the creditors of an insolvent corporation have standing to maintain derivative claims against directors on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duties. The corporation’s insolvency “makes the creditors the principal constituency injured by any fiduciary breaches that diminish the firm’s value.” Therefore, equitable considerations give creditors standing to pursue derivative claims against the directors of an insolvent corporation. Individual creditors of an insolvent corporation have the same incentive to pursue valid derivative claims on its behalf that shareholders have when the corporation is solvent.

(Footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.) Later, the Court stated both its holding on this issue and the reasons for it:

Recognizing that directors of an insolvent corporation owe direct fiduciary duties to creditors, would create uncertainty for directors who have a fiduciary duty to exercise their business judgment in the best interest of the insolvent corporation. To recognize a new right for creditors to bring direct fiduciary claims against those directors would create a conflict between those directors’ duty to maximize the value of the insolvent corporation for the benefit of all those having an interest in it, and the newly recognized direct fiduciary duty to individual creditors. Directors of insolvent corporations must retain the freedom to engage in vigorous, good faith negotiations with individual creditors for the benefit of the corporation. Accordingly, we hold that individual creditors of an insolvent corporation have no right to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against corporate directors. Creditors may nonetheless protect their interest by bringing derivative claims on behalf of the insolvent corporation or any other direct nonfiduciary claim, as discussed earlier in this opinion, that may be available for individual creditors.

(Footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.) 

Fellow Bloggers Weigh In. Given the decision’s importance, several legal bloggers reported on it almost immediately. These include Scott Riddle at the Georgia Bankruptcy Law Blog, Francis Pileggi at the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, and three law professors whose articles the Delaware Supreme Court cited in the opinion: Professor Stephen Bainbridge at ProfessorBainbridge.com, Professor Larry Ribstein at Ideoblog, and Professor Fred Tung at Conglomerate.

The Next Big Insolvency Case. The next major decision in the insolvency area should be the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in the Trenwick America case. In the Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor Strine held that no cause of action for deepening insolvency exists under Delaware law. The appeal was argued before the Delaware Supreme Court on March 14, 2007, and a decision could be handed down in the next month or two. The North American Catholic decision, with its approving quotes from and citations to other recent Chancery Court decisions in this area, raises the question whether the Delaware Supreme Court will again affirm the Chancery Court, this time in the Trenwick America case. Although it’s hard to tell, we may not have to wait much longer to find out. 

Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Report On The Delaware Supreme Court’s Recent Oral Argument In The Trenwick America Deepening Insolvency Case

One of the most important recent decisions by the Delaware Court of Chancery in the insolvency area was the August 10, 2006 opinion in the Trenwick America Litigation Trust case. As discussed at length in an earlier post, the Trenwick America decision by Vice Chancellor Strine (available here) squarely held that there was no cause of action for "deepening insolvency" under Delaware law. The Chancery Court’s opinion rejected it as a cause of action in no uncertain terms:

Delaware law does not recognize this catchy term as a cause of action, because catchy though the term may be, it does not express a coherent concept. Even when a firm is insolvent, its directors may, in the appropriate exercise of their business judgment, take action that might, if it does not pan out, result in the firm being painted in a deeper hue of red. The fact that the residual claimants of the firm at that time are creditors does not mean that the directors cannot choose to continue the firm’s operations in the hope that they can expand the inadequate pie such that the firm’s creditors get a greater recovery. By doing so, the directors do not become a guarantor of success.  Put simply, under Delaware law, ‘deepening insolvency’ is no more of a cause of action when a firm is insolvent than a cause of action for ‘shallowing profitability’ would be when a firm is solvent. Existing equitable causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and existing legal causes of action for fraud, fraudulent conveyance, and breach of contract are the appropriate means by which to challenge the actions of boards of insolvent corporations.

Delaware Supreme Court Hears Appeal. The significance of the Chancery Court decision makes it particularly interesting to follow the appeal in the case, now before the Delaware Supreme Court. The oral argument on the appeal, held on March 14, 2007 at the Widener University School of Law campus in Wilmington, may shed some light on how the Delaware Supreme Court will ultimately rule. Frank Reynolds of Andrews Publications prepared this news story on the oral argument, and the law school’s website also has an article, complete with slideshow, on the oral argument in Trenwick America and in a second case that day. To hear the Trenwick America oral argument for yourself, follow this link and download the audio recording from the Delaware Supreme Court’s website.

Focus At Oral Argument. Having listened to the recording (an entertaining addition to my iPod), it’s interesting to note that the deepening insolvency issue received only a few mentions during oral argument. Those came mainly during a discussion of the business judgment rule and whether existing contractual and statutory remedies sufficiently protect creditors. Instead, the parties and the Justices focused on the following issues during oral argument:

  • Whether the complaint sufficiently pled that the corporation was insolvent or in the zone of insolvency;
  • Whether the business judgment rule protected the directors in permitting the subsidiary corporation to incur guaranty and other obligations;
  • What fiduciary duty was owed and how it was allegedly breached;
  • Whether the zone of insolvency issue was critical to the plaintiff’s case; and
  • Whether the directors breached any fiduciary duties when following the parent corporation’s business plan for the subsidiary and the corporate group.

Reading The Tea Leaves. With the range of issues discussed at oral argument, it’s possible that the Delaware Supreme Court will render its decision in the Trenwick America case without considering the Chancery’s Court’s ruling that deepening insolvency does not exist as a cause of action under Delaware law. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Delaware Supreme Court could rule for his client without reaching the issue. Likewise, counsel for the defendants urged affirmance based on what Vice Chancellor Strine found to be insufficient pleading of insolvency, a lack of any fiduciary duty owed given the complaint’s allegations, and the application of the business judgment rule. Although not directly involving deepening insolvency, in response to a specific question from one of the Justices, defense counsel also argued that the Delaware Supreme Court should consider holding that directors do not owe fiduciary duties to creditors upon insolvency, leaving creditors to the existing protections and remedies otherwise available to them.

After an interesting oral argument, stay tuned.

Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

New Delaware Decision Limits Direct Creditor Claims Against Directors In The “Zone Of Insolvency”

The Delaware Court of Chancery has issued another decision involving creditor claims against directors of a financially troubled corporation. In North American Catholic Educational Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al., 2006 WL 2588971 (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2006), Vice Chancellor Noble made two important holdings:

  • First, although derivative claims can be brought, creditors may not assert direct claims against directors of a Delaware corporation for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty that occur while the corporation is in the "zone of insolvency." 
  • Second, assuming Delaware law would allow any creditor to bring a direct, non-derivative claim against directors of an actually insolvent corporation (still an unresolved question), the suing creditor’s right to payment would have to be "clearly and immediately due." Thus, creditors with disputed or contingent claims likely will not be able to assert a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty, even if the corporation is in fact insolvent.

A copy of the decision is available here. Thanks to the Delaware Business Litigation Report blog for reporting on it first. 

No direct claim in the "zone of insolvency." The court’s refusal to permit a creditor to assert a direct claim — as opposed to a derivative claim — against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty in the zone or vicinity of insolvency was based on its careful analysis of the arguments for and against such claims. The court summed up its reasoning:

Indeed, it would appear that creditors’ existing protections—among which are the protections afforded by their negotiated agreements, their security instruments, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent conveyance law, and bankruptcy law—render the imposition of an additional, unique layer of protection through direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty unnecessary. Moreover, any benefit to be derived by the recognition of such additional direct claims appears minimal, at best, and significantly outweighed by the costs to economic efficiency. One might argue that an otherwise solvent corporation operating in the ‘zone of insolvency’ is one in most need of effective and proactive leadership—as well as the ability to negotiate in good faith with its creditors—goals which would likely be significantly undermined by the prospect of individual liability arising from the pursuit of direct claims by creditors.

Unclear if direct claims can be brought at all, even in a case of actual insolvency. The court engaged in a different analysis, focused more on the deficiency of the actual allegations in the complaint, in dismissing direct claims against the directors during the corporation’s alleged actual insolvency. However, the court commented that, to the extent Delaware law would permit a creditor to have a direct claim against directors of an insolvent corporation for breach of fiduciary duty, the claim would have to involve invidious conduct directed at that creditor. In so holding, the court relied heavily on two earlier decisions of the Court of Chancery, one by Vice Chancellor Strine in Production Resources Group v. NCT Group, Inc., 863 A.2d 772 (Del. Ch. 2004) (discussed in an earlier post) and the other by Vice Chancellor Lamb in Big Lot Stores, Inc. v. Bain Capital Fund VII LLC, et al., 2006 WL 846121 (Del. Ch. March 28, 2006) (available here). These decisions, taken together, suggest that most if not all creditor claims for breach of fiduciary duty against directors of insolvent Delaware corporations will be characterized as derivative and not direct claims.

Developing trend against expanding a director’s exposure to creditor claims. The Production Resources, Big Lot Stores, and now North American Catholic Educational Programming decisions, together with the recent Trenwick America Litigation Trust case refusing to recognize a cause of action for deepening insolvency (discussed in an earlier post), reflect the Delaware Court of Chancery’s resistance to attempts by creditors to expand the liability of directors when a corporation is insolvent or in the zone of insolvency. Although well-stated derivative claims by creditors for breach of fiduciary duty may be recognized by the courts in some cases, a direct claim by a creditor — if such a claim exists at all under Delaware law — seems to be limited to the rare circumstance in which that particular creditor was the only creditor harmed by an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Delaware Supreme Court has yet to weigh in, but these four decisions from three different Vice Chancellors indicate that the Court of Chancery is developing a consistent view on these issues.

Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Deepening Insolvency: New Delaware Decision Holds That No Such Cause Of Action Exists

Over the past few years, a number of bankruptcy and other federal courts have held that plaintiffs, often bankruptcy trustees or other bankruptcy estate representatives, could pursue a cause of action against a corporation’s directors and others for "deepening insolvency."  What has made a deepening insolvency claim so attractive to plaintiffs and troubling to defendants is the lack of clarity about what conduct might give rise to such a claim, how damages for it might be calculated, and whether it would allow for expanded recoveries under other causes of action. 

What is deepening insolvency? Courts have described deepening insolvency as the "fraudulent prolongation of a corporation’s life beyond insolvency," resulting in "damage to the corporation caused by increased debt" and similarly as the “fraudulent expansion of corporate debt and prolongation of corporate life.”  A more colorful way of putting it might be, under some circumstances, "better dead than (deeper in the) red." 

A question of state law. Since federal courts apply state law to many substantive issues, those federal courts that have recognized a deepening insolvency cause of action have done so by predicting how state courts would rule on the question.  With so many companies incorporated there, Delaware’s view on deepening insolvency may be the most important.  For that reason, many attorneys took note when in the past few years bankruptcy courts in Delaware allowed deepening insolvency claims to go forward, based on their prediction that Delaware state courts would also recognize the cause of action.

The new Delaware decision.  Although federal courts had issued rulings, no Delaware state court had decided whether a cause of action for deepening insolvency exists under Delaware law.  Well, that changed on August 10, 2006, when Delaware’s corporate law court, the Court of Chancery, issued a decision in a case called Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Ernst & Young LLP, et al.  Click here to read the court’s decision.

In Trenwick America, Vice Chancellor Strine squarely held, in unusually strong language, that no cause of action for deepening insolvency exists under Delaware law. The court also elaborated on how the business judgment rule can protect directors when a corporation is insolvent or in the zone of insolvency. Since the decision is almost 90 pages long, I’ve quoted below from the key deepening insolvency discussion (although I left out the extensive footnotes). It makes for interesting reading — even if you’re not a lawyer. 

Delaware law does not recognize this catchy term as a cause of action, because catchy though the term may be, it does not express a coherent concept. Even when a firm is insolvent, its directors may, in the appropriate exercise of their business judgment, take action that might, if it does not pan out, result in the firm being painted in a deeper hue of red. The fact that the residual claimants of the firm at that time are creditors does not mean that the directors cannot choose to continue the firm’s operations in the hope that they can expand the inadequate pie such that the firm’s creditors get a greater recovery. By doing so, the directors do not become a guarantor of success.  Put simply, under Delaware law, ‘deepening insolvency’ is no more of a cause of action when a firm is insolvent than a cause of action for ‘shallowing profitability’ would be when a firm is solvent. Existing equitable causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and existing legal causes of action for fraud, fraudulent conveyance, and breach of contract are the appropriate means by which to challenge the actions of boards of insolvent corporations.

Refusal to embrace deepening insolvency as a cause of action is required by settled principles of Delaware law. So, too, is a refusal to extend to creditors a solicitude not given to equityholders. Creditors are better placed than equityholders and other corporate constituencies (think employees) to protect themselves against the risk of firm failure.

The incantation of the word insolvency, or even more amorphously, the words zone of insolvency should not declare open season on corporate fiduciaries. Directors are expected to seek profit for stockholders, even at risk of failure.  With the prospect of profit often comes the potential for defeat.

The general rule embraced by Delaware is the sound one.  So long as directors are respectful of the corporation’s obligation to honor the legal rights of its creditors, they should be free to pursue in good faith profit for the corporation’s equityholders.  Even when the firm is insolvent, directors are free to pursue value maximizing strategies, while recognizing that the firm’s creditors have become its residual claimants and the advancement of their best interests has become the firm’s principal objective.

Delaware law imposes no absolute obligation on the board of a company that is unable to pay its bills to cease operations and to liquidate. Even when the company is insolvent, the board may pursue, in good faith, strategies to maximize the value of the firm. As a thoughtful federal decision recognizes, Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code expresses a societal recognition that an insolvent corporation’s creditors (and society as a whole) may benefit if the corporation continues to conduct operations in the hope of turning things around.

If the board of an insolvent corporation, acting with due diligence and good faith, pursues a business strategy that it believes will increase the corporation’s value, but that also involves the incurrence of additional debt, it does not become a guarantor of that strategy’s success. That the strategy results in continued insolvency and an even more insolvent entity does not in itself give rise to a cause of action. Rather, in such a scenario the directors are protected by the business judgment rule. To conclude otherwise would fundamentally transform Delaware law.

The rejection of an independent cause of action for deepening insolvency does not absolve directors of insolvent corporations of responsibility.  Rather, it remits plaintiffs to the contents of their traditional toolkit, which contains, among other things, causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and for fraud.  The contours of these causes of action have been carefully shaped by generations of experience, in order to balance the societal interests in protecting investors and creditors against exploitation by directors and in providing directors with sufficient insulation so that they can seek to create wealth through the good faith pursuit of business strategies that involve a risk of failure.  If a plaintiff cannot state a claim that the directors of an insolvent corporation acted disloyally or without due care in implementing a business strategy, it may not cure that deficiency simply by alleging that the corporation became more insolvent as a result of the failed strategy.

Moreover, the fact of insolvency does not render the concept of “deepening insolvency” a more logical one than the concept of “shallowing profitability.”  That is, the mere fact that a business in the red gets redder when a business decision goes wrong and a business in the black gets paler does not explain why the law should recognize an independent cause of action based on the decline in enterprise value in the crimson setting and not in the darker one.  If in either setting the directors remain responsible to exercise their business judgment considering the company’s business context, then the appropriate tool to examine the conduct of the directors is the traditional fiduciary duty ruler.  No doubt the fact of insolvency might weigh heavily in a court’s analysis of, for example, whether the board acted with fidelity and care in deciding to undertake more debt to continue the company’s operations, but that is the proper role of insolvency, to act as an important contextual fact in the fiduciary duty metric. In that context, our law already requires the directors of an insolvent corporation to consider, as fiduciaries, the interests of the corporation’s creditors who, by definition, are owed more than the corporation has the wallet to repay.

In so ruling, I reach a result consistent with a growing body of federal jurisprudence, which has recognized that those federal courts that became infatuated with the concept, did not look closely enough at the object of their ardor.  Among the earlier federal decisions embracing the notion – by way of a hopeful prediction of state law – that deepening insolvency should be recognized as a cause of action admittedly were three decisions from within the federal Circuit of which Delaware is a part.  None of those decisions explains the rationale for concluding that deepening insolvency should be recognized as a cause of action or how such recognition would be consistent with traditional concepts of fiduciary responsibility.

You might find Professor Larry Ribstein’s discussion of the new decision interesting, as well as the comments made by Francis Pileggi, who publishes the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog.  They also discuss another aspect of the decision, the holding that directors of a wholly owned subsidiary corporation did not breach their fiduciary duties by taking on debt for the benefit of the parent corporation, even though both the parent and subsidiary ended up in bankruptcy.

Echoes of Production Resources. Some of you may recall that Vice Chancellor Strine was also the author of the November 2004 Production Resources decision, which interpreted Delaware law more favorably for directors of corporations that are insolvent or in the "zone of insolvency." The Production Resources decision was the subject of an earlier post. 

This new decision builds on Production Resources and, in so doing, follows an approach similar to one recently taken by a bankruptcy court in New York in In re Verestar, Inc.  The June 2006 Verestar decision cited to Production Resources and predicted that Delaware courts would reject deepening insolvency as a cause of action. Click here for a copy of the Verestar decision; its deepening insolvency discussion starts at page 41. 

Conclusion. With a clear voice from the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Trenwick America decision reinforces a recent trend among some federal courts to step away from recognizing deepening insolvency as a separate cause of action.  As with any new decision, however, the real test of its influence will be the extent to which other courts, including Delaware’s highest court, the Delaware Supreme Court, follow its holding and reasoning. 

 

Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Directors Of Insolvent Corporations: Duties And Protections

The fiduciary duties that directors owe a Delaware corporation and its shareholders are generally held to expand to include the interests of creditors when the company is insolvent or in the "zone of insolvency."  A hot topic among directors, particularly those serving on boards of troubled companies, is how best to meet their fiduciary duties and avoid the potential for personal liability in these situations. 

One of the most important decisions in recent years on this issue came from the Delaware Court of Chancery, the corporate law court, in November 2004 in a case called Production Resources. Why is the case important?  In short, the Production Resources court interpreted the law in a way that gives directors more protection when they make business judgments for a troubled company. 

First, the Production Resources court rejected a trend among some courts and commentators that had sought to impose on directors of insolvent or potentially insolvent corporations a new set of fiduciary duties, beyond those owed to the corporation, in favor of creditors. That trend started back in 1991 with the Court of Chancery decision in the Credit Lyonnais case — the decision that helped coin the phrase “vicinity” or “zone” of insolvency.  

Second, it held that the common exculpatory provision found in the corporate charter of most Delaware corporations, protecting directors from liability for monetary damages for a breach of the fiduciary duty of care, applies to claims made by creditors as well as by shareholders or the corporation itself.

This analysis discusses the Production Resources decision in more detail. (A pdf of the analysis is available as well.)  A "zone of insolvency" conference last November also produced an interesting discussion reported by Professor Larry Ribstein.  If you want to read the 54-page Production Resources decision itself, click here.

The decision’s ultimate impact will depend on whether other courts (including bankruptcy courts where these issues are often litigated) decide to follow its approach — so stay tuned.